The defeat of the Decembrists and the strengthening of the government's police and repressive policies did not lead to a decline in the social movement. On the contrary, it became even more animated. Various St. Petersburg and Moscow salons (home meetings of like-minded people), circles of officers and officials, higher educational institutions (primarily Moscow University), and literary magazines: “Moskvityanin”, “Vestnik Evropy” became centers for the development of social thought. “Domestic Notes”, “Contemporary”, etc. In the social movement of the second quarter of the 19th century. The demarcation of three ideological directions began: radical, liberal and conservative. In contrast to the previous period, the activities of conservatives who defended the existing system in Russia intensified.
Conservatism in Russia was based on theories that proved the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. The idea of the need for autocracy as a unique form of political power inherent in Russia since ancient times has its roots in the period of strengthening of the Russian state. It developed and improved during the 18th-19th centuries. adapting to new socio-political conditions. This idea acquired a special resonance for Russia after absolutism was ended in Western Europe. At the beginning of the 19th century. N. M. Karamzin wrote about the need to preserve the wise autocracy, which, in his opinion, “founded and resurrected Russia.” The speech of the Decembrists intensified conservative social thought.
For the ideological justification of autocracy, the Minister of Public Education, Count S.S. Uvarov, created the theory of official nationality. It was based on three principles: autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality. This theory reflected enlightenment ideas about unity, the voluntary union of the sovereign and the people, and the absence of social antagonisms in Russian society. The uniqueness of Russia lay in the recognition of autocracy as the only possible form of government in it. This idea became the basis for conservatives until the collapse of the autocracy in 1917. Serfdom was seen as a benefit for the people and the state. Conservatives believed that landowners provide fatherly care for the peasants, and also help the government maintain order and tranquility in the village. According to conservatives, it was necessary to preserve and strengthen the class system, in which the nobility played a leading role as the main support of the autocracy. Orthodoxy was understood as the deep religiosity and commitment to orthodox Christianity inherent in the Russian people. From these postulates, the conclusion was drawn about the impossibility and unnecessaryness of fundamental social changes in Russia, about the need to strengthen the autocracy and serfdom.
The theory of official nationality and other ideas of conservatives were developed by journalists F.V. Bulgarin and N.I. Grech, professors at Moscow University M.P. Pogodin and S.P. Shevyrev. The theory of official nationality was not only propagated through the press, but was also widely introduced into the education system.
Liberal direction
The theory of official nationality caused sharp criticism from the liberal-minded part of society. The most famous was the speech of P. Ya. Chaadaev, who wrote “Philosophical Letters” criticizing autocracy, serfdom and the entire official ideology. In his first letter, published in the Telescope magazine in 1836, P. Ya. Chaadaev denied the possibility of social progress in Russia and saw nothing bright either in the past or in the present of the Russian people. In his opinion, Russia, cut off from Western Europe, ossified in its moral, religious, Orthodox dogmas, was in dead stagnation. He saw the salvation of Russia, its progress, in the use of European experience, in the unification of the countries of Christian civilization into a new community that would ensure the spiritual freedom of all peoples.
The government brutally dealt with the author and publisher of the letter. P. Ya. Chaadaev was declared crazy and placed under police supervision. Telescope magazine was closed. Its editor, N.I. Nadezhdin, was expelled from Moscow with a ban on engaging in publishing and teaching activities. However, the ideas expressed by P. Ya. Chaadaev caused a great public outcry and had a significant influence on the further development of social thought.
At the turn of the 30-40s of the 19th century. Among the liberals opposing the government, two ideological trends emerged - Slavophilism and Westernism. The ideologists of the Slavophiles were writers, philosophers and publicists: K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, I. V. and P. V. Kireevsky, A. S. Khomyakov, Yu. F. Samarin and others. The ideologists of the Westerners were historians, lawyers, writers and publicists: T. N. Granovsky, K. D. Kavelin, S. M. Solovyov, V. P. Botkin, P. V. Annenkov, I. I. Panaev, V. F. Korsh and other representatives These movements were united by the desire to see Russia prosperous and powerful among all European powers. To do this, they considered it necessary to change its socio-political system, establish a constitutional monarchy, soften and even abolish serfdom, provide peasants with small plots of land, and introduce freedom of speech and conscience. Fearing revolutionary upheavals, they believed that the government itself should carry out the necessary reforms. At the same time, there were significant differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners.
Slavophiles exaggerated the peculiarity of the historical path of development of Russia and its national identity. The capitalist system that had established itself in Western Europe seemed to them vicious, bringing impoverishment of the people and a decline in morals. Idealizing the history of pre-Petrine Rus', they insisted on returning to those orders when Zemsky Sobors conveyed the opinion of the people to the authorities, when patriarchal relations supposedly existed between landowners and peasants. At the same time, the Slavophiles recognized the need to develop industry, crafts and trade. One of the fundamental ideas of the Slavophiles was that the only true and deeply moral religion is Orthodoxy. In their opinion, the Russian people have a special spirit of collectivism, in contrast to Western Europe, where individualism reigns. The struggle of the Slavophiles against servility to the West, their study of the history of the people and people's life had a great positive significance for the development of Russian culture.
Westerners proceeded from the fact that Russia should develop in line with European civilization. They sharply criticized the Slavophiles for contrasting Russia and the West, explaining its difference by historical backwardness. Denying the special role of the peasant community, Westerners believed that the government imposed it on the people for the convenience of administration and tax collection. They advocated broad education of the people, believing that this was the only sure way for the success of modernization of the socio-political system of Russia. Their criticism of serfdom and calls for changes in domestic policy also contributed to the development of socio-political thought.
Slavophiles and Westerners laid the foundation in the 30-50s of the 19th century. the basis of the liberal-reformist direction in the social movement.
Radical direction
In the second half of the 20s - the first half of the 30s, circles that united no more than 20-30 members became a characteristic organizational form of the anti-government movement. They appeared in Moscow and in the provinces, where police surveillance and espionage were not as established as in St. Petersburg. Their participants shared the ideology of the Decembrists and condemned the reprisal against them. At the same time, they tried to overcome the mistakes of their predecessors, distributed freedom-loving poems, and criticized government policies. The works of the Decembrist poets became widely known. All of Russia was reading the famous message to Siberia by A.S. Pushkin and the Decembrists’ response to him.
Moscow University became the center for the formation of anti-serfdom and anti-autocratic ideology (the circles of the brothers P. M. and V. Kritsky, N. P. Sungurov, etc.). These circles operated for a short time and did not grow into organizations capable of having a serious impact on changing the political situation in Russia. Their members only discussed domestic politics and made naive plans for reforming the country. However, the government brutally dealt with the circle participants. Student A. Polezhaev was expelled from the university for his freedom-loving poem “Sashka” and given up as a soldier. By personal order of the emperor, some of the members of the circle of the Cretan brothers were imprisoned in the Shlisselburg fortress and the casemate of the Solovetsky Monastery, some were evicted from Moscow and placed under police supervision. The court sentenced some members of the Sungurov Society to exile to hard labor, others to conscription as soldiers.
Secret organizations of the first half of the 30s of the XIX century. were mainly educational in nature. Groups formed around N.V. Stankevich, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev, whose members studied domestic and foreign political works and promoted the latest Western philosophy.
The second half of the 1930s was characterized by a decline in the social movement due to the destruction of secret circles and the closure of a number of leading magazines. Many public figures were carried away by the philosophical postulate of G.V.F. Hegel “everything rational is real, everything real is rational” and on this basis tried to come to terms with the “vile”, according to V.G. Belinsky, Russian reality.
In the 40s of the XIX century. a new upsurge has emerged in a radical direction. He was associated with the activities of V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky and others.
Literary critic V. G. Belinsky, revealing the ideological content of the works under review, instilled in readers hatred of tyranny and serfdom, and love for the people. The ideal of a political system for him was a society in which “there will be no rich, no poor, no kings, no subjects, but there will be brothers, there will be people.” V. G. Belinsky was close to some of the ideas of the Westerners, but he also saw the negative sides of European capitalism. His “Letter to Gogol” became widely known, in which he condemned the writer for mysticism and refusal of social struggle. V. G. Belinsky wrote: “Russia does not need sermons, but the awakening of a sense of human dignity. Civilization, enlightenment, humanity should become the property of the Russian people.” The “Letter,” which was distributed in hundreds of lists, was of great importance for the education of a new generation of public figures of a radical direction.
Petrashevtsy
The revival of the social movement in the 40s was expressed in the creation of new circles. After the name of the leader of one of them - M.V. Butashsvich-Pstrashevsky - its participants were called Petrashevites. The circle included officials, officers, teachers, writers, publicists and translators (F. M. Dostoevsky, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, A. N. Maikov, A. N. Pleshcheev, etc.).
M.V. Pegrashevky, together with his friends, created the first collective library, which consisted mainly of works on the humanities. Not only St. Petersburg residents, but also residents of provincial cities could use the books. To discuss problems related to the domestic and foreign policy of Russia, as well as literature, history and philosophy, members of the circle organized their meetings - known in St. Petersburg as “Fridays”. To widely promote their views, the Petrashevites in 1845-1846. took part in the publication of the “Pocket Dictionary of Foreign Words That Are Part of the Russian Language.” In it they outlined the essence of European socialist teachings, especially Charles Fourier, which had a great influence on the formation of their worldview.
Petrashevites strongly condemned autocracy and serfdom. In the republic they saw the ideal of a political system and outlined a program of broad democratic reforms. In 1848, M. V. Petrashevsky created the “Project for the Liberation of Peasants,” proposing direct, free and unconditional liberation of them with the plot of land that they cultivated. The radical part of the Petrashevites came to the conclusion that there was an urgent need for an uprising, the driving force of which was to be the peasants and mining workers of the Urals.
The circle of M. V. Petrashevsky was discovered by the government in April 1849. More than 120 people were involved in the investigation. The commission qualified their activities as a “conspiracy of ideas.” Despite this. members of the circle were severely punished. A military court sentenced 21 people to death, but at the last minute the execution was commuted to indefinite hard labor. (The re-enactment of the execution is very expressively described by F. M. Dostoevsky in the novel “The Idiot.”)
The activities of M. V. Petrashevsky’s circle marked the beginning of the spread of Western European socialist ideas in Russia.
A. I. Herzen and the theory of communal socialism. The creation of a domestic version of socialist theory is associated with the name of A. I. Herzen. He and his friend N.P. Ogarev, while still boys, swore an oath to fight for a better future for the people. For participating in a student circle and singing songs with “vile and malicious” expressions addressed to the Tsar, they were arrested and sent into exile. In the 30s and 40s, A.I. Herzen was engaged in literary activities. His works contained the idea of the struggle for personal freedom, protest against violence and tyranny. The police closely monitored his work. Realizing that it was impossible to enjoy freedom of speech in Russia, A. I. Herzen went abroad in 1847. In London he founded the Free Russian Printing House (1853). published 8 books in the collection “Polar Star”, on the title of which he placed a miniature of the profiles of 5 executed Decembrists, and organized, together with N.P. Ogarev, the publication of the first uncensored newspaper “The Bell” (1857-1867). Subsequent generations of revolutionaries saw the great merit of A. I. Herzen in creating a free Russian press abroad.
In his youth, A. I. Herzen shared many of the ideas of Westerners and recognized the unity of the historical development of Russia and Western Europe. However, close acquaintance with the European order, disappointment in the results of the revolutions of 1848-1849. convinced him that the historical experience of the West is not suitable for the Russian people. In this regard, he began to search for a fundamentally new, fair social system and created the theory of communal socialism. A. I. Herzen saw the ideal of social development in socialism, in which there would be no private property and exploitation. In his opinion, the Russian peasant is devoid of private property instincts and is accustomed to public ownership of land and its periodic redistribution. In the peasant community, A. I. Herzen saw a ready-made cell of the socialist system. Therefore, he concluded that the Russian peasant is quite ready for socialism and that in Russia there is no social basis for the development of capitalism. The question of the ways of transition to socialism was resolved by A. I. Herzen in a contradictory manner. In some works he wrote about the possibility of a popular revolution, in others he condemned violent methods of changing the political system. The theory of communal socialism, developed by A. I. Herzen, largely served as the ideological basis for the activities of the radicals of the 60s and revolutionary populists of the 70s of the 19th century.
In general, the second quarter of the 19th century. was a time of “external slavery” and “internal liberation.” Some remained silent, frightened by government repression. Others insisted on maintaining autocracy and serfdom. Still others were actively looking for ways to renew the country and improve its socio-political system. The main ideas and trends that emerged in the socio-political movement of the first half of the 19th century continued to develop with minor changes in the second half.
Features and directions of the social movement of the 30s - 50s of the 19th century:
- It developed under conditions of political reaction (after the defeat of the Decembrists)
- The revolutionary and governmental directions finally diverged
- Its participants did not have the opportunity to put their ideas into practice
Directions of socio-political social movements under Nicholas 1 thought of this period:
- Conservative (leader - Count S.S. Uvarov)
- Westerners and Slavophiles (ideologists Kavelin, Granovsky, brothers K. and I. Aksakov, Yu. Samarin, etc.)
- Revolutionary-democratic ~ideologists - A. Herzen, N. Ogarev, M. Petrashevsky)
Circles of the 20s - 30s - Social movements under Nicholas I
Student circles were most active at Moscow University. 1830 V. G. Belinsky created the “literary society of the 11th number” - they criticized the socio-political reality. For the drama “Dmitry Kalitin” Belinsky was expelled from the university.
Circle of the Cretan Brothers (1826 -1827) - Social movement under Nicholas I
Consisted of 6 people. They tried to put a proclamation at the monument to Minin and Pozharsky. Destroyed by the authorities.
Sungurov Society (1831) - Social movements under Nicholas I
Consisted of 26 people. N.P. Surgunov planned to prepare an armed uprising, but was crushed by the authorities.
Circle of N.V. Stankevin (1831 - 1839) - Social movements under Nicholas I
Bakunin, Belinsky, Botkin, Herzen. They studied the philosophical systems of Hegel and Schelling.
Conservative direction - Social movements under Nicholas I
Historian Pogodin, philologist Shevyrev, journalists Grech and Bulgarin. In the mid-20s, they proposed the concept of Russian identity “The Theory of Official Nationality.” S.S. Uvarov, who became the Minister of Public Education in 1833. The essence was that autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality are the foundations of Russian history. Autocracy is the guarantor inviolability of the Russian state. Orthodoxy is the basis of the spiritual life of the people. Nationality is the “unity” of the tsar with the people, the absence of social conflicts.
Liberal direction (powerful social movement under Nicholas I)
Slavophiles and Westerners
Slavophiles - a movement of social thought appeared in 1840. Ideologists - A.S. Khomyakov, Kireevsky brothers, Aksakov brothers, Samarin.
- Defense of Orthodoxy and nationality is the most important characteristic of Russian society
- Nationality (Orthodoxy, community and national Russian character)
- In Russia, the government is in harmony with the people
- Russia is developing nonviolently
- In Russia, spiritual values prevail over material ones
- Negative attitude towards the transformative activities of Peter I
- Russia has its own development path that is unique from Europe
- Serfdom must be abolished, preserving the community and the patriarchal way of life -> spiritual way of life, did not oppose technology)
- To determine the path of development - create a Zemsky Sobor
- They also denied revolution and radical reforms—gradual transformations carried out “from above.”
Westernism - Granovsky, Kavelin, Annenkov, Chicherin, Solovyov, Botkin, Belinsky.
Ideas of Westernism:
- Russia, a developing country, lags behind the West and retains a number of national characteristics
- It is necessary to eliminate the historical gap by embracing the achievements and values of the West
- Liberal ideals of individual freedom, civil society, establishing a constitutional monarchy
- Develop market relations
- Abolition of serfdom, transfer of land for ransom (the main idea of this social movement under Nicholas 1).
- The means of renewing Russia is reforms “from above” - to prevent revolution
- They exalted the activities of Peter 1 for the renewal of Russia
Revolutionary democracy
Combining the ideas of Westernism (individual freedom, civil law) and Slavophilism (community system, collectivism and European socialism).
The goal of the movement is to create a socialist society.
Methods of achieving the goal are radical reforms or mass revolution. The theory of “Russian socialism” (populism) Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Ogarev, Dobrolyubov, Bakunin.
- Achieve the goal through the rural community with its collectivism and self-government
- Russia needs to move beyond capitalism from serfdom to socialism
- Avoid a bloody revolution through radical reforms from above
- Eliminate serfdom, give land without ransom, preserving the community
- Civil liberties and democratic government
Herzen publishes The Bell in London. Bakunin took part in the European revolution of 1848 - 49. anarchist theorist.
Petrashevsky - Petrashevsky, Butashevich, Speshnev, Saltykov - Shchedrin, Pleshcheev, Dostoevsky.
They talked about the abolition of serfdom. In 1849 the circle was destroyed.
Thus, by the middle of the 19th century, movements in opposition to the government took shape.
Slide 1
Slide 2
Basic concepts: Review: Liberalism Conservatism Revolutionary teaching Learn: Socialist ideology
Slide 3
1. Features of the social movement of the 30-50s The reasons for the emergence of the social movement and the composition of its participants: 1. the unresolvedness of the main issues of Russia about the preservation of serfdom and landownership, autocracy and Russia remained an empire - a “prison of nations” 2. in the conditions of a great turn from an agricultural society to an industrial one, it was necessary to resolve the issue of the direction of further development of Russia. Intellectuals, writers, poets, students, educated part of society, professors, newspaper editors, nobility and commoners
Slide 4
Features of the social movement of the 30-50s 1. Developed in conditions of reaction 2. Government reformism reached a dead end and did not solve a single main issue. There was a gap between government reformism and revolutionary innovation 3. A conservative direction was formed, which formulated its own ideology 4. Liberal and socialist currents of social thought took shape. The result of the search: in the conditions of the reaction of Nikolaev Russia, it was impossible to implement their ideas in practice. The process of forming public consciousness and preparing it for future changes has begun.
Slide 5
2. Directions of social thought Name of the movement Ideology movements in Russia Content, goals of the movement and methods of achieving them Conservatism S.S. Uvarov, N.G. Ustryalov, M.N. Pogodin, N.V. Kukolnik Theory of official nationality. Spiritual unity between the tsar, the people and Orthodoxy will be the foundation and guarantor of the successful development of Russia. The exclusivity of Russia's unique historical path is a guarantee of social progress and tranquility. Propaganda and teaching of liberalism in all educational institutions. Westerners T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, V.P. Botkin, I.S. Turgenev World civilization is one. Isolation of Russia from it leads the country to decay. The transformations of Peter 1 brought Russia out of its “sleeping” state and placed it among the European powers of the world. Russia must join the West and join the “single universal culture” Propaganda of teachings through the media
Slide 6
Liberals - Slavophiles Brothers Aksakov, Kireevsky, Yu.F. Samarin, A.S. Khomyakov A.I. Koshelev Defended the idea of the identity of Russia, the peculiarity of its state and social life, the Orthodox faith. The reasons for social disorder were seen in the reforms of Peter 1 Goal: to return Russia to its former original state. Propaganda through the media, literature General features of Westernism and Slavophilism Abolition of serfdom, reduction of the influence of bureaucracy, law and individual freedom must be unshakable 2. radical transformations are inevitable and necessary The authorities must rely on public support when carrying out transformations Reforms must be gradual and careful Peaceful method implementation of reforms Faith in Russia and the possibility of its confident movement towards prosperity 7. both trends aroused suspicion and persecution by the government
Slide 7
3. Circles of the 20-30s of supporters of revolutionary transformations The end of the 20-30s can be called the circle period of the social movement The composition of the circle participants was students of different ranks and classes Persecution by the authorities led the circles to collapse The most notable circles in Russia were the circles of the Kritsky brothers in Moscow University and the circle of N.P. Sungurov, who hatched plans for an armed uprising. The circle of N.V. Stankevich united Westerners, Slavophiles, and revolutionaries. The circle of Ogarev and Herzen was defeated in 1834
Slide 8
4. Revolutionary movement 1. Alexander Ivanovich Herzen and Nikolai Ogarev Herzen developed the ideology of “community socialism” in Russia: The peasant land community is the main cell of socialism. The main condition is the liberation of the peasants and the liquidation of the autocracy
Slide 9
2. Vissarion Grigorievich Belinsky Circle of the “Literary Society of the 11th issue” Published in the magazines “Telescope”, “Molva”, “Sovremennik” Criticized Uvarov and his theory of official nationality Acted as one of the recognized spiritual leaders of the revolutionary camp
Slide 10
“Letter to N.V. Gogol” He sharply criticized autocracy and serfdom. He saw the main task of the social movement in “the abolition of serfdom, corporal punishment, and called for strict implementation of the laws.” The letter to Gogol became the foundation for the formation of the worldview of educated youth
Detailed solution to paragraph § 12 on history for 9th grade students, authors N.M. Arsentiev, A.A. Danilov, A.A. Levandovsky. 2016
Question for working with the text of paragraph No. 1. What are the features of the social movement of the 1830-1850s? do you think are the main ones? Give reasons for your answer.
Key Features:
Narrow social base. Conservative direction in the form of a clearly formulated concept “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality” was supported only by a relatively narrow circle of publicists and a small part of the bureaucracy, while the majority of the population simply believed in the Tsar-Father and followed the instructions of the official authorities. There is nothing to say about opposition movements. Because of this, the social movement was not an important part of the life of society as a whole.
Lack of real action. The radicals who advocated revolution did not go further than appeals. This partly follows from the previous feature: a narrow social base.
Question for working with the text of paragraph No. 2. Explain the essence of the theory of official nationality.
The theory of official nationality is best expressed in the triad “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality,” which presupposes a moral and spiritual state based on Orthodoxy with autocracy as the best form of government, as well as the unity of the people within themselves and with the autocrat (nationality).
Question for working with the text of paragraph No. 3. List the most important ideas of Westerners and Slavophiles.
The most important ideas of Westerners:
All countries of the world have a single development path, it’s just that European countries have advanced further along it, and Russia has lagged behind;
Praising the reforms of Peter I, who led Russia from stagnation to the European path of development;
The requirement to introduce a parliament to limit the power of the monarch;
Demand for the abolition of serfdom and the destruction of the rural community.
The most important ideas of the Slavophiles:
Russia has its own development path, different from the Western one, therefore it should not focus on Europe;
Condemnation of the reforms of Peter I, which alienated Russia from the true path of development and introduced despotism and serfdom;
The demand to resume the collection of Zemsky Sobors, but not to limit the power of the monarch, but for the sake of his better connection with the people;
The demand to abolish serfdom, but with the preservation of the rural community as the basis of truly Russian life.
Question for working with the text of paragraph No. 4. What were the fundamental differences between the positions of Westerners and Slavophiles?
Principal differences:
Westerners believed that Russia should follow the Western path of development, Slavophiles - their own;
Therefore, Westerners praised the reforms of Peter I, Slavophiles condemned them;
According to Westerners, popular representation in Russia should limit the power of the monarch; according to Slavophiles, it should improve the connection between the monarch and the people, but not limit power;
Westerners considered the rural community a relic of feudalism and proposed to get rid of it; Slavophiles saw in the community the basis of truly Russian life and stood for its preservation.
Question for working with the text of paragraph No. 5. What were the main ideas of the utopian socialists? How did they plan to implement them?
The main idea was to build a society of equals - socialism. It was proposed to build it with the help of a revolution. But different thinkers had different ideas about socialism (as in Europe at that time); there was no single socialist doctrine before Marxism.
We think, compare, reflect: question No. 1. Explain the words of A.I. Herzen: Westerners and Slavophiles “looked in different directions,” but “the heart beat the same.”
This means that both of them sincerely wanted the good for Russia, while both movements were liberal, therefore they used similar methods, their representatives were equally sincere in their work. Many figures from different movements were initially friends with each other and broke up solely because of differences in views. But at the same time, Westerners focused on Europe, and Slavophiles - on pre-Petrine Russia.
We think, compare, reflect: question No. 2. Make a biographical portrait of one of the representatives of the conservative, liberal or radical movement in Russia in the second half of the 19th century.
Timofey Nikolaevich Granovsky lived only 42 years and died in 1855, not having time to see the long-awaited reforms modeled on European modernization.
Granovsky was educated first at Moscow University, and then at Berlin University. His lively mind and curiosity made him an excellent scientist, who laid the foundation for Russian medieval studies (the science of the history of the Middle Ages). He was also a brilliant lecturer. Other teachers continued to naturally read their own dissertations or monographs of their colleagues. In the Middle Ages, this is what was meant by a lecture (“lecture” translated from Latin as “reading”), but times have already changed. Granovsky always spoke for himself, constantly throwing new ideas and the results of his research into the audience. His public lectures were attended by not only students from the entire university, but also simply interested people - the audience was so filled that it was difficult for the professor to enter the department, because even on the floor they were sitting in dense rows.
Granovsky was a Westerner. He believed that Russia should follow the European path of development, which he knew and understood very well. As a medievalist, he found much from the European Middle Ages in the state system and life of his homeland. He knew how all this was overcome in the West and believed that the same measures should be taken in Russia.
Timofey Nikolaevich was a bright phenomenon of his time. He can be considered a representative of the first generations of the Russian intelligentsia. He considered himself obligated to take care of the good of the fatherland and tried to choose its path not because he was a nobleman (and his origin was truly noble), but because he had the education and understanding for this.
We think, compare, reflect: question No. 3. What are the radical circles of the 1830s and 1840s? different from the secret societies of the Decembrists?
What is striking, first of all, is the difference that the Decembrists raised an uprising, and the circles of the next two decades did not go beyond talk. But something else was more important. The Decembrists were mostly officers, many of them were heroes of the Patriotic War, the most worthy people of their generation. And even those who did not wear uniforms were nobles. At the same time, many public figures of the 1830-1840s did not come from the nobility, some were even the sons of serfs. Most of them became prominent thanks to their teaching or social activities (primarily journalism). That is, if Decembrism was a movement of the nobility, then in the following decades the intelligentsia came to the fore, in which people from the nobility were just an organic part; Moreover, even they were first and foremost intellectuals, and then nobles.
We think, compare, reflect: question No. 4. Collect information about the activities of the Petrashevites circle. Find out what participation the writer F. M. Dostoevsky took in the activities of the circle.
The Petrashevites were engaged in debates about the future of Russia and promoting their ideas verbally and in writing. Moreover, these ideas themselves were not the same among different representatives of the circle. Some were inclined towards utopian socialism, but not all comrades shared their views.
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, like most other Petrashevites, was convicted not for the socialist ideas themselves, but for reading Belinsky’s letter to Gogol and for not denouncing others who read them. Nevertheless, this was enough to sentence the writer to death, and then at the very last moment, when the convicts stood before the firing squad, to replace the execution with hard labor, like the other convicts.
We think, compare, reflect: question No. 5. The position of which of the currents of social life in the 1830-1850s. do you think is the most realistic view of the conditions in Russia at that time? Justify your answer.
The positions of all movements were largely utopian, but the least unrealistic were the hopes of the Westerners. Over the next century and a half, Russia more than once followed the path of Western countries, and often this led to another round of development (in the second half of the 19th century, at the end of the 20th century). Meanwhile, the position of the conservatives was defeated already in the Crimean War. The Slavophiles imagined an idealized Russia, which never existed in reality and which they could not build. Socialists are called utopians - their ideas were too unrealistic.
NATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS POLICY OF NICHOLAS I. ETHNOCULTURAL APPEARANCE OF THE COUNTRY
(Material for independent work and project activities of students)
Question for working with the text of paragraph 1. What were the reasons for the aggravation of the Polish question in 1830?
Many nobles of Poland were not satisfied with anything other than the restoration of independence;
Nicholas I introduced a secret police in the Kingdom of Poland;
He tightened control over the press;
The powers of the Sejm were limited;
Viceroy Konstantin Pavlovich increasingly began to act bypassing the Sejm;
A number of opposition-minded Sejm deputies were arrested;
In 1830, there was a general rise in revolutionary sentiment in Europe (new regimes won in France and Belgium);
As part of the Holy Alliance, Russia was going to send troops to suppress the revolution in France, which was sympathized with in Poland;
Among the troops sent to suppress the uprising there could have been Polish units themselves.
Question for working with the text of paragraph No. 2. What changes took place under Nicholas I in Finland and the Baltic states?
In Finland, formally everything remains the same. However, the Sejm was almost never convened. Nevertheless, autonomy, including its own legislation and the appointment of local natives to all posts, was preserved. There was no autonomy in the Baltic states, but the situation was similar - the Germans served throughout the empire, especially as officials in their homeland. In addition, the peasant reform previously carried out there (the liberation of peasants without land) contributed to the development of industry in these provinces.
Question for working with the text of paragraph No. 3. What was characteristic of economic development and social movement in Ukraine?
The economic development of the Southwestern Territory (later the Kyiv General Government) was characterized by the rapid development of industry, mainly due to the rich coal deposits in the Donbass and Kryvorozhye, due to which, first of all, metal-working enterprises developed.
Question for working with the text of paragraph No. 4. What were the main trends in government policy towards the Jewish population within the Russian Empire?
In general, the autonomy of the Jewish population and its oppression in the form of the Pale of Settlement (not counting everyday anti-Semitism) were preserved. At the same time, attempts to assimilate Jews intensified through the introduction of recruitment among them (which led to inevitable baptism) and attempts to resettle some of them to Siberia for the agricultural development of the local lands. Both initiatives met with only minor success. Special laws for Jews were maintained. This applies to the same Pale of Settlement. In addition, even the recruitment process for them had its own characteristics: the right was granted to replace recruits with boys, so the community gave up orphans and children from disadvantaged families, retaining members who were more valuable from their point of view.
We think, compare, reflect: question No. 1. What do you think, what does the submission of the Uniate Church directly to the Synod mean?
Such subordination unambiguously showed the intention of the official authorities to subjugate the Uniate Church and became the forerunner of a complete forced union with the Orthodox Church.
We think, compare, reflect: question No. 2. Name and describe the reasons that contributed to Russia's penetration into Central Asia.
The Russian Empire always sought to expand its territories;
The steppe lands bordering Russia were far behind in development, many neighbors tried to subjugate them - St. Petersburg did not want to give in to them;
English influence began to be increasingly felt in the region, which Russia decided to resist;
Russia needed the resources of the region, primarily cotton.
We think, compare, reflect: question No. 3. Explain why the government gave special administrative status to those territories that had a border location.
The security of the empire directly depended on the stability in such lands, because in the event of an external war, support by the local population of one side or another could play a significant role. Therefore, in some of these areas (for example, in Finland), the government granted more freedoms than in the rest of the empire, hoping in this way to win the favor of the population. In others, on the contrary, it behaved more harshly than on the ancestral Russian lands (for example, in Poland); in such cases, it did not hope for love, but hoped that the measures taken would not allow an uprising to occur despite anyone’s aspirations.
We think, compare, reflect: question No. 4. Compile in your notebook a chronology of the main events of the Polish Uprising of 1830-1831.
Chronology of the uprising:
January 25, 1831 - failure of negotiations with Nicholas I, the Sejm declared him deposed from his post as ruler of the Kingdom of Poland;
end of January 1831 - Joseph Khlopitsky was deprived of his powers because he advocated for a compromise with the tsar, he also refused command of the troops, going to fight as a combat officer;
February 25, 1831 - the Battle of Grochow, which ended in a draw and heavy losses on both sides;
March-April 1831 – successful Polish counter-offensive on the Vistula;
May 17, 1831 - the death of the commander of the Russian troops, General Dibich, from cholera, which suspended the offensive;
We think, compare, reflect: question No. 5. Using additional materials, compare the way of life of Finns and Ukrainians in the middle of the 19th century. Make a presentation illustrating the main similarities and differences.
Title: Comparison of the ways of life of Finns and Ukrainians in the middle of the 19th century
Image with caption: map of the Russian Empire with the territories of the Grand Duchy of Finland and the Kyiv Government General highlighted
Text: To compare the ways of life of these peoples, it is worth turning to ethnographic materials: most of them were collected in the middle and second half of the 19th century.
Title: Dwellings
Image with caption 1: Traditional Finnish dwelling
Image with caption 2: Traditional Ukrainian dwelling
Text: The traditional Finnish home is a wooden building coated with clay. Initially, the roof was covered with turf, but in the middle of the 19th century it was often replaced by tiles, less often by straw. Ukrainian mud huts were also covered with clay. But the difference was in the thickness of the walls (due to the climate).
Image with caption 1: Finnish farm
Captioned image 2: Ukrainian village
Text: The main difference is not in the design of the house. Ukrainians usually settled in large villages, where the courtyards were closely adjacent to each other, separated by fences. The Finns usually lived in farmsteads, separated from each other by large spaces. And even on the same farm, the houses stood at a distance from each other.
Title: Transport
Captioned image 1: Ukrainian horse-drawn sleigh
Captioned image 2: Finnish reindeer team
Text: The Finns, as a northern people, traditionally used reindeer sleds or skis. Ukrainians harnessed horses to sleighs in winter and to carts in summer. In summer, in a region with dense forests and bad roads, but wide rivers and deep lakes, the Finns preferred to travel by boat. Boats with 16-20 pairs of oars, on which up to 100 people could sail, have survived.
Name: Clothes
Captioned image 1: Finn in traditional costume
Captioned image 2: Ukrainian man in traditional costume
Text: The clothing of the common people in Finland and Ukraine was similar: bast shoes, pants and a shirt (for women, a long one - a dress). It was similar for other neighboring peoples. The greatest difference is in the ornament that covered the collars and ends of the sleeves, as well as in the headdresses.
Name: Kitchen
Image with caption: traditional Ukrainian borscht
Text: Traditional Ukrainian cuisine uses a fairly large amount of herbs and vegetables, which grow in abundance on these lands due to the warm climate. Of course, meat products are also used (including the famous lard), but on the table of the common people they were more a part of the holiday than of everyday life.
Captioned image 1: Cross-section of Finnish traditional pie kalakukko
Text: Finnish cuisine contains much less vegetables, because they are more difficult to grow in the northern climate, but there is much more fish, especially river fish. Moreover, fish is often combined with meat or lard (as in kalakukko pie). At the same time, when cooked correctly, the fish acquires the taste of lard. This is how the Finns discouraged the taste of boring fish and created the illusion among guests that they were eating mainly pork, which was scarce for peasants.
We think, compare, reflect: question No. 6. Explore additional materials on the history of Kyiv University (University of St. Vladimir). Determine which areas of study were most fully represented.
The humanities were most fully represented there. Technical ones were not initially studied at all. Only later was the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics separated from the Faculty of Philosophy. No wonder. It was in Kyiv that they saw the cradle of Russian Orthodoxy, therefore it was theology and philosophy that was correct from the point of view of the official authorities that was given the greatest attention here. Technical and engineering specialties were concentrated in St. Petersburg and Moscow.
LECTURE XVIII
(ending)
The position and development of the intelligentsia under Nicholas. – The meaning of the disaster on December 14. – Two channels of ideas: French and German. – Decline of the first, development of the second. – Schellingism in Russia. - “Mnemosyne.” - “Lyubomudry” and “Moskovsky Vestnik”. – “Moscow Telegraph” by Polevoy. - “Telescope” by Nadezhdin. – Chaadaev and the closure of the Telescope. – Idealists of the 30s. – Stankevich’s circle. - Bakunin and Belinsky. – The evolution of Belinsky. - “Domestic Notes” and “Contemporary”. – “Moskvityanin” and the system of “official nationality”. – Slavophiles and Westerners in the 40s. – Socialism and left Hegelianism. – Provincial society in the 40s. - Schism and sectarianism under Nicholas.
Russian Schellingism
As for the position of the intelligentsia at this time, after December 14, 1825, the intelligentsia, if by it we mean an independently thinking society, was extremely weakened. After the merciless reprisal against the Decembrists, it lost almost all its color, cut off by the harsh hand of the winner and sent to Siberia. Regardless of the exile of those guilty and affected, the severity of the punishment terrorized those who remained; for a while it drowned out any attempts to freely express one’s thoughts and made it very difficult for any broad development of the intelligentsia in the near future.
“Thirty years ago,” Herzen wrote at the end of the 50s, “the Russia of the future existed exclusively between several boys who had just emerged from childhood, and in them was the heritage of universal science and purely folk Rus'. This new life vegetated like grass trying to grow on the lips of a crater that had not caught cold.” When these boys grew up, this young generation found itself divided into the same two channels through which Western ideas penetrated into Russia before, starting with Catherine. And now, on the one hand, people have appeared who have adopted mainly the ideas of the end of the 18th century, the ideas of the French Revolution, who at the same time inherited the ideas of the Decembrists, who were brought up at one time on the same French ideology; on the other hand, there were also followers of German thought, German idealism and post-Kantian metaphysics, which penetrated deeper and deeper into the Russian thinking society of the 20s and 30s. Now representatives of this second trend have gained a decisive predominance over the followers of the first. This was clearly expressed in those university circles in which the young generation of the 1930s was grouped. At the end of Alexander's reign, followers of French political ideas undoubtedly prevailed, reflected in the ideology and practical plans of both Pestel and Nikita Muravyov. But even then, along with them, circles of followers of German philosophy began to form - mainly followers of Schelling’s philosophy. Schellingism began to penetrate into Russia quite early. Already in 1804, a zealous preacher of Schelling’s philosophy, a professor at the Medical Academy, Vellansky, appeared in St. Petersburg. The fact is that Schelling’s teaching attracted his contemporaries from two different points of view. Schelling was a representative of monistic-idealistic philosophy, and the most important part of his teaching was the theory of knowledge, which sought to reduce the knowing spirit and external nature to a certain unity. In his theory of knowledge, Schelling sought to reconcile the objectivity of the existence of nature with the possibility of its speculative study. This is where his system of natural philosophy originated. His passion for natural philosophy led Schelling so far that, although he had never been a natural scientist and always worked in the field of speculative philosophy, he nevertheless decided to found a medical journal.
Therefore, natural scientists and physicians began to take an interest in Schelling’s natural philosophy, and then in his system in general, which explains the fact that Schellingism initially penetrated into Russia through the professor of the Medical Academy Vellansky and the professor of physics and mineralogy at Moscow University M.G. Pavlova.
Herzen in his Past and Thoughts recalls the significance of Pavlov for the Moscow students of that time, who gave his lectures in the first year of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics and immediately posed the question to the students: “You want to know nature, but what is nature and what is know!“Thus, before reading physics, Pavlov also expounded at the Faculty of Science theory of knowledge- and presented it according to Schelling. Students from all faculties attended Pavlov’s lectures.
Thus, Schellingism initially began to spread in Russia through natural science professors; but already in the 20s and 30s they were joined by preachers of Schellingism from the departments of history of philosophy (Galich), theory of literature and aesthetics (Davydov, Nadezhdin), etc., and along with this, the preaching of Schellingian ideas arose in literature , where their heralds were first the circle of Moscow “lyubomudrov” of the twenties, formed around Prince. V.F. Odoevsky and D.V. Venevitinov, who in 1824 undertook the publication of the literary collection “Mnemosyne” in four parts. Wilhelm Küchelbecker (as co-editor) and the just mentioned professor M.G. took part in this collection at the same time. Pavlov. Adjacent to this circle of “lyubomudrov” were the future Moscow Slavophiles brothers Kireevsky and Khomyakov, who, however, were not yet Slavophiles, and Pogodin and Shevyrev, who in 1826 already undertook the publication of the magazine “Moskovsky Vestnik” with many of the “lyubomudrov” . Through Venevitinov and Kuchelbecker, Pushkin was also involved in some participation in the publications of Lyubomudrov.
“Mnemosyne” was mainly devoted to the fight against the superficial, from the point of view of “philosophies,” ideas of French encyclopedic philosophy of the 18th century. and sought to convey the ideas of German idealism into the minds of readers.
The direct successor of “Mnemosyne” was first the magazine “Moskovsky Vestnik”, founded in 1826 by Pogodin and Shevyrev with the participation, on the one hand, of the same “wise men” of the 20s, of which, however, the most talented - Dmitry Venevitinov - soon died, and on the other hand, with the participation of Pushkin, who returned from his rural exile to the capital and was dissatisfied with N.A.’s magazine. Field “Moscow Telegraph”, in which he previously participated at the request of the co-publisher of “Telegraph”, Prince. Vyazemsky. Despite, however, the participation of such forces, Moskovsky Vestnik did not last long; he did not go, apparently mainly due to the inexperience and inept handling of the matter by the editors-in-chief of this journal, Pogodin and Shevyrev, then young professors at Moscow University.
Subsequently, from 1831, the main organ of Schellingism in Russia was N. I. Nadezhdin’s journal “Telescope”. Nadezhdin was also a professor at Moscow University and taught a course in aesthetics there, which was also entirely based on the ideas of the philosophy of Kant and Schelling.
In parallel with this organ, a rather consistent philosophical direction was published, as we have already mentioned, founded in Moscow back in 1825 by the very talented and versatile journalist N.A. Polev - initially with the close participation of one of the “Arzamas residents” - Prince. P. A. Vyazemsky, - “Moscow Telegraph”, an “encyclopedic” magazine, as the publishers themselves characterized it. The main business of this magazine at that time was the preaching of romanticism and the fight against false-classical views, which were supported mainly in the old “Bulletin of Europe”, which was then edited by Prof. M.T. Kachenovsky.
Although romanticism in Germany developed in direct connection with Schellingism, and although Polevoy himself was not alien to Schellingian ideas, he was, in essence, a layman in philosophy and generally a talented self-taught person, who took on everything and was extremely scattered in his writing and publishing activities. Therefore, the learned publishers of the Moskovsky Vestnik and the Telescope considered themselves entitled to treat him somewhat condescendingly, which did not, however, prevent his journal from enjoying great sympathy from the general public.
Actually, both Nadezhdin’s “Telescope” and Polevoy’s “Moscow Telegraph” were organs of progressive thought and both introduced into the minds of their readers the ideas that were then dominant in modern Europe; but the Telegraph, as an eclectic and much more superficial organ, was at the same time much more accessible than the Telescope for unprepared readers, while the Telescope was the organ of the higher intelligentsia, grouped around universities. It is therefore not surprising that the censorship department, the main leader of which since 1832, as a fellow minister of public education, was Uvarov, was particularly distrustful of Polevoy’s popular magazine, which was finally closed on Uvarov’s initiative in 1833. To “Telescope” The authorities treated Nadezhdin much more tolerantly precisely because of his lesser availability, and he continued to be published successfully until the end of 1836, when the famous “Philosophical Letter” of P. Ya. Chaadaev, unusual in its daring straightforwardness, appeared in it.
Chaadaev and his “Philosophical Letter”
Petr Yakovlevich Chaadaev
The author of this letter, P. Ya. Chaadaev, was a very remarkable person and left a major mark on the history of the Russian intelligentsia. Although his activities date back to the 30s and 40s of the 19th century, in terms of his age and especially in his upbringing and connections, he belonged, in essence, to the previous generation that left the scene after December 14, 1825. He was, together with Pushkin, an accidentally surviving remnant of this generation of Russian intelligentsia. A brilliant guards officer, an aristocrat by birth (he was the grandson of the historiographer Prince M.M. Shcherbatov), brought up in the same ideas of the late 18th century in which his other comrades and peers were brought up, he, however, early fought them off and became a standout in its further development. After the well-known story in the Semenovsky regiment, with a report of which he was sent to Laibach to Emperor Alexander, Chaadaev retired, retired, concentrated on himself and completely retreated into mysticism, which was then widespread throughout Europe. Fascinated by the ideas of mysticism, immersed in the study of the mystical books of Eckartshausen, Jung-Stilling, etc., deeply imbued with the mystical side of Christian teaching (in its Catholic form), Chaadaev carefully and intensely followed at the same time the development of German idealistic philosophy. Hostile to Hegel's philosophical system, which did not agree with the Christian revelation, he looked with great hope at the development of Schelling's system, which, as he clearly saw already in 1825, was supposed to come to an attempt to harmonize the conclusions of idealistic philosophy with the tenets of the Christian faith. And when Schelling actually came to this in the second period of his activity, Chaadaev became his zealous follower, in this completely agreeing with one of the main founders of the later Slavophil doctrine, Ivan. You. Kireevsky. He also had another point of contact with his later opponents - the Slavophiles. He, like them, seeing the main guiding significance in the development of various nationalities in the religious basis, found a fundamental difference in the development of Western Europe and Russia. But this difference, according to Chaadaev, was by no means in favor of Russia. In Western Europe, and precisely in Catholicism, he saw a powerful and faithful guardian of the principles of Christianity and Christian civilization; The situation and course of development of Russia seemed to him in the darkest light. He considered Russia to be some kind of intermind, not aligned with either the West or the East, having neither great traditions nor a powerful religious basis in its development. He saw the salvation of Russia in its speedy and possibly complete integration into the religious and cultural principles of the Western world, and he considered himself obligated to bring these ideas into the consciousness of representatives of modern Russian society. The pulpit from which he preached this doctrine was the Moscow salons of the 30s; he did not try to speak in print, not seeing the possibility of using it under the censorship conditions of that time. His "Philosophical Letter", which belongs to a whole series of letters (now printed, with the exception of some that have disappeared), was not intended for publication and was written to a private person on a private occasion. However, he read these letters to his acquaintances, and Nadezhdin, the publisher of Telescope, asked him to print them. But the appearance of the first of them gave the impression of a suddenly exploding bomb.
It was the sharpest and boldest protest against the system of “official nationality”, which had recently been proclaimed by the government with the light hand of Uvarov. In contrast to the official glorification of Russian historical principles and Russian reality, here is how Chaadaev spoke about our history in a printed letter: “At the very beginning we have wild barbarism, then crude superstition, then the cruel, humiliating rule of the conquerors, a rule whose traces are in our way of life have not been completely erased to this day. This is the sad story of our youth. We did not have the age of this immeasurable activity, this poetic play of the moral forces of the people. The era of our social life corresponding to this age is filled with a dark, colorless existence, without strength, without energy.
There are no enchanting memories in the memory, no strong instructive examples in folk legends. Run your gaze over all the centuries we have lived through, all the space on earth we occupy, - you will not find a single memory that would stop you, not a single monument that would express to you what has passed vividly, powerfully, and picturesquely.
We live in a kind of indifference to everything, in the narrowest horizon, without past and future...”
Some strange fate separated us from the universal life of humanity, and in order to compare with other peoples, we need - according to Chaadaev - “to restart for ourselves the entire education of the human race. For this, we have before us the history of peoples and the fruit of the movement of centuries...”
One can imagine the impression such an article could make at that time: “Telescope” was closed, Nadezhdin was exiled to Vologda, Chaadaev was officially declared crazy.
What impression this letter from Chaadaev made on the selected minds of the younger generation can be seen from Herzen’s memoirs in “The Past and Thoughts,” but there were extremely few such selected minds at that time, and, not to mention the province where Herzen was then located, but also in capitals, especially in Moscow, the letter simply created the impression of a scandal and caused a general commotion. Even among thinking people, the majority felt offended by the tone of deep contempt in which Chaadaev spoke about the past of Russian history. When the excitement subsided somewhat, passionate debates began in Moscow salons, where Chaadaev’s opponents were his friends Kireevsky and Khomyakov, future Slavophiles. A year later, Chaadaev wrote - of course, not for publication - his “Apology for a Madman,” in which he, in essence, pursued his previous views, asserting, however, that no one loves his homeland more than him, and proving that the voice of the people is not always - the voice of God. Opponents of Chaadaev; Khomyakov, Kireevsky and others, being decent people, did not consider it possible to speak out against him in the press at the moment when his teaching was so solemnly branded by the powers that be and when free exchange of views in this area became completely impossible. But this circumstance did not embarrass the former publishers of the Moskovsky Vestnik, Shevyrev and Pogodin, who had been actively courting Uvarov for a long time and were very much not averse to reaping for themselves the benefits that could arise for them from the coincidence of their views with the government point of view, despite the fact that their enemy was doomed to forced silence. Particularly remarkable in this regard was Shevyrev’s article, published in the first book of Pogodin’s “Moskvityanin” for 1841, under the title “A Russian’s View of the Education of Europe.” This article sharply contrasts the Western world and the Russian world with each other, and for the first time the theory of rot and disintegration of Western European culture is thoroughly and sharply outlined, and Russia is definitely warned against any communication with this sick organism, which is likened to a person possessed by an “evil contagious disease, surrounded by an atmosphere of dangerous breathing..." Fully accepting Uvarov’s triune formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality” as a healthy basis for Russian state life, the author of the article openly stands under the banner of the government and ends his article with the following exclamation: “Our Rus' is strong with three fundamental feelings and our future is true. The husband of the royal council, to whom the emerging generations are entrusted (i.e., Uvarov), has long ago expressed them with deep thought, and they form the basis for the education of the people.”
Count Uvarov himself, however, did not consider his position to be completely secure and was perfectly aware of the presence of living forces in the Russian intelligentsia, ready to fight, which he considered his main task to push and crush. In a report on the ten-year management of his ministry, he wrote (in 1843): “The direction given by your Majesty to the ministry, and its threefold formula, were to restore in some way against it everything that still bore the imprint of liberal and mystical ideas: liberal - for the ministry , proclaiming autocracy, declared a firm desire to return directly to the Russian monarchical principle in all its volume, mystical - because the expression “Orthodoxy” quite clearly revealed the ministry’s desire for everything positive in relation to the objects of Christian belief and removal from all dreamy ghosts, too often darkening the purity of the sacred traditions of the church. Finally, the word “nationality” aroused in ill-wishers a feeling of hostility for the bold statement that the ministry considered Russia mature and worthy to go not behind, but at least alongside other European nationalities.” And indeed, in Russian society by this time - by the beginning of the 40s - a new Westernizing trend had completely taken shape, which was completely hostile to the system of the official nationality, which denied the Slavophil point of view, which had finally emerged by this time, and which soon became, despite to oppression and persecution, the ruler of the thoughts of the younger generation. But this direction, unlike Chaadaev, who, like the Slavophiles, proceeded from theological foundations, was based on their complete denial. To trace the origin and fate of this trend, as well as the opposite Slavophile trend, we need to turn to the history of those university circles of the 30s, which we have already mentioned and which then included, in Herzen’s correct expression, “Russia of the future” .
Circles of Stankevich and Herzen
In the early 1930s, at Moscow University, students who were thinking and striving for mental and moral development were grouped around two central circles - Stankevich and Herzen. Stankevich's circle consisted of people interested mainly in questions of ethics and philosophy, and developed under the influence of Schellingian ideas preached by professors Pavlov, with whom Stankevich lived, and Nadezhdin. At that time, by the way, Belinsky, on the one hand, and Konstantin Aksakov, on the other, belonged to Stankevich’s circle. Subsequently, they were joined by: Bakunin, Botkin, Katkov, Granovsky (abroad), and partly (through Aksakov) Yuri Samarin - all stars of the first magnitude in the subsequent history of the Russian intelligentsia.
Herzen's circle consisted of people who sought mainly to resolve political and social problems. These included Ogarev, Satin, Ketcher, Passek and others. The most brilliant person in this circle was, of course, Herzen himself, friendly and completely like-minded with Ogarev since childhood. This circle considered itself the direct heir of the Decembrists and, through them, the ideas of French philosophy and the French revolution of the 18th century. Of modern European intellectual trends, they were especially fond of the socialist ideas of Saint-Simon and his followers.
Herzen's circle disintegrated early, or, more precisely, was liquidated by the government. Its members immediately after finishing their course at the university, after one feast at which revolutionary songs were sung, were arrested, spent several months under arrest and then were sent into exile to various remote provinces. Herzen himself spent the time from 1833 to 1839, first in Perm and Vyatka, then in Vladimir. When he returned to Moscow, he found the dominance of Hegelian philosophy in full bloom in the upper strata of the Moscow intelligentsia, and he himself had no choice but to begin studying it and join the people who had been brought up in the circle of Stankevich, who himself was dying abroad at that time twenty-seven years old.
Critical monistic idealism in modern Western philosophy comes from Kant and passes through Fichte to Schelling; in Russia, acquaintance with German idealism began, as we have seen, with Schelling; acquaintance with Kant was widespread at the beginning of the 19th century. quite a bit. But, having begun to study German philosophy in earnest, the members of Stankevich’s circle also moved on to Kant, seeing that a more thorough acquaintance with it was necessary as the primary source of modern philosophical thought.
At this time, they were joined by Bakunin, who received his education at home and then at the artillery school, but by nature had extraordinary abilities for dialectical thinking and philosophy in general, and even while he was in the corps, he became interested in it thanks to reading Venevitinov’s articles and acquaintance with La Harpe’s course on the history and theory of literature, the last volumes of which set out the systems of Locke and Condillac. When Bakunin met Stankevich, both of them became interested in Fichte and Kant and began studying the Critique of Pure Reason. But they were not particularly fascinated by Kant, and they settled on Fichte with much greater enthusiasm. The fact is that Fichte, in addition to his famous theory of knowledge, which formed the basis of his philosophical system, had another side that attracted them more. Fichte was one of the leaders of the German Renaissance; his participation in this movement was expressed in the fact that he popularized the conclusions of idealistic philosophy and, relying on the ideas of philosophy, approached with them the resolution of the then German world ethical and political issues.
Bakunin became particularly interested in his moral and philosophical works (“On the Purpose of Man,” “On the Purpose of Scientists,” and especially “Anweisung zum seligen Leben”) and began to translate these works of Fichte into Russian.
Vissarion Belinsky
Bakunin's passion for Fichte was also transmitted to Belinsky, who began his acquaintance with German philosophy together with Stankevich from Schelling.
It must be said that Belinsky did not speak German and received his acquaintance with German philosophers through the verbal transmission of his friends. In 1836 he moved with Bakunin from Schelling to Fichte. And Belinsky’s articles in the Telescope, published there in 1836, bear the imprint of this passion for the sublime idealism of Fichte, who set himself mainly moral tasks. But from Fichte, Bakunin and Belinsky’s other comrades very soon moved on to Hegel, and the end of the 30s is precisely the beginning of the penetration of Hegelianism into Russia.
The principles of Hegelian philosophy were again communicated to Belinsky by his friends (Bakunin and Katkov) in the form of brief conclusions, and the fact that Belinsky could not personally become acquainted with it gave his information a fragmentary and superficial character. Belinsky himself, according to everyone who knew him, was a highly gifted person with a subtle philosophical organization, but, unfortunately, not knowing languages, he could assimilate the abstract tenets of German philosophy only superficially. This led to a misunderstanding of Hegel. Bakunin also studied Hegel rather superficially for the first time, although he spoke German completely fluently.
A very important circumstance for the further development of Belinsky’s worldview lay in the misunderstood position of Hegelian logic: “Everything that is real is rational.”
In essence, Bakunin first borrowed this position from Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, interpreting it in his own way; in Hegel’s logic, this phrase had only the meaning that everything that exists in reality is reflected in the human mind and exists for us in the form in which we perceive it all through our mind.
Portrait of Vissarion Belinsky. Artist K. Gorbunov, 1843
Meanwhile, Belinsky and Bakunin drew the conclusion from this that since everything that is real is rational, it means that everything that exists knows a rational goal.
Therefore, they - like some Hegelians in Germany - began to consider all modern reality from a conservative point of view, and began to strive to justify everything that exists. And Belinsky, as a person especially prone to extreme conclusions and quickly bringing them to their logical conclusion, directly came out with an apology for the social and political system that then existed in Russia. Therefore, in his articles of the late 30s (1838–1840) one can see an image of Russian reality that is quite close to the image that we find among the then official defenders of the government in their organ “Moskvityanin”, with which Belinsky later so hotly polemicized.
Of course, for Belinsky such a hobby could not last long, because he was a lively, sensitive and noble man; he soon noticed in what company he and his friends found themselves and into what a dead end his simplified understanding of Hegelian philosophy had led him. The more passionately and sharply he abandoned this hobby of his. But, disappointed in the data that he received from Hegelian philosophy thanks to its incorrect interpretation, he, instead of thinking it through better, abandoned it with passion and went to the other extreme, namely: he decided that German idealistic philosophy can only lead a person into a dead end and that it is therefore much better to turn to those positive social teachings that were given by the French political literature of that time.
This precisely corresponded to his rapprochement with Herzen, who had returned from exile. This rapprochement had a strong impact on the direction of all subsequent literary activities of Belinsky, who just at this time transferred his activities from Moscow to St. Petersburg and based himself in Kraevsky’s “Notes of the Fatherland.”
He soon learned, moreover, that his friend, M.A. Bakunin, who had gone abroad in 1840 and had quarreled with him before leaving, in Berlin, with a deeper study of Hegelian philosophy, not only freed himself from its distorted understanding, but also abandoned the right conservative wing of her followers and, joining the left wing of the Hegelians, became one of the brightest representatives of monistic materialism.
Belinsky's further literary activity acquired enormous significance in the history of the Russian intelligentsia: Belinsky's magazines “Notes of the Fatherland” and then “Sovremennik” became the most read magazines, and Belinsky became the real ruler of the thoughts of the younger generation in the 40s.
In this activity, it was no longer the ideas of German philosophy that prevailed, but the ideas of those social and political doctrines that he, with the assistance of Herzen, independently acquired at that time from French literature.
I will not dwell in detail on Belinsky’s activities, since most of you, I think, are well aware of them, but I will only point out that Belinsky’s worldview at that time became even more clearly hostile to the then system of official nationality, which was expressed in “Moskvityanin”, published by Pogodin with the participation of Shevyrev in Moscow.
However, Belinsky had to deal not only with Pogodin’s “Moskvitian”; in the mid-40s, Moscow Slavophiles also came out with a definite formulation of their views, including representatives of two different generations: on the one hand, the brothers Kireevsky, Khomyakov and Koshelev, who were adjacent to the circle of “lyubomudrov” of the 20s, and on the other hand - former comrades of Belinsky himself, people who were part of Stankevich’s circle or adjoined it, like Konstantin Aksakov and Yuri Samarin. These were all pure and completely decent people, who developed their own integral and harmonious system, their original historiosophy, which, like Chaadaev’s, was based on theological foundations and, like Chaadaev’s, highlighted and emphasized the contradictions and disagreement in the development of the two different worlds of modern humanity: Western - German-Roman and Eastern - Byzantine-Slavic, or Greco-Russian. But, in direct contrast to Chaadaev, they extremely idealized the entire course of development of the Russian Slavic world and had a completely negative attitude towards the entire Western European culture.
According to them, the Orthodox faith and the Russian people have preserved in all their purity the beginning of ancient spiritual Christianity, while in the West it has been distorted by the speculations of Catholicism, the authority of the popes and the predominance of material culture over spiritual. The consistent development of these principles led, in their opinion, logically first to Protestantism, and then to the latest materialism and the denial of revelation and the truths of the Christian faith.
Idealizing the course of development of the Russian state and society, the Slavophiles argued that in our country both the state and society allegedly developed on the principles of freedom, on the dominance of democratic communal principles, while in the West the state and the forms of society that developed there developed on the principles of violence, the enslavement of some peoples and classes by others, from where arose the feudal, aristocratic beginning of personal feudal land ownership and landlessness of the masses.
In the teachings of the Slavophiles there were, of course, points of contact with the teachings of the school of the official nationality, but there were also fundamental differences that led them to demand complete freedom of speech and religion and complete independence from the state of personal, communal and church life, which was later formulated by Konstantin Aksakov in his note to Emperor Alexander II, where he proclaimed the well-known Slavophile political formula: “The power of power is for the king, the power of opinion is for the people.”
Despite all this, Belinsky attacked the Slavophiles just as sharply and passionately as he did the representatives of the official nationality; especially after the first attempt (unsuccessful and short-lived) to take Pogodin’s “Moskvityanin” under their editorship in 1845.
Treating Slavophiles with complete intolerance, Belinsky condemned his like-minded people - the Moscow Westerners Granovsky and Herzen - for their soft attitude towards the Slavophiles and especially for their agreement to contribute their articles to Slavophil collections. Belinsky himself resolutely denied the possibility of such complicity and said to himself: “I am a Jew by nature and cannot eat at the same table with a Philistine.”
The censorship conditions at that time were such that Westerners had to convey their ideas between the lines, and the Slavophiles, who were not inclined to do this, could not form their own somewhat permanent body in the 40s, so the debates that they conducted, largely took place either in private homes or in collections that were published sporadically; Thus, the “Moscow Collection” of Slavophiles was published in 1846 and 1847. and was repeated in 1852, but by this time the position of the press had become such that any further discussion of political and social issues became impossible. In this regard, the revolution of 1848 played a decisive role.
Dissenters and sectarians under Nicholas I
With the accession of Emperor Nicholas, the government's attitude towards schismatics and especially sectarians radically changed. The position of some sects changed significantly in an unfavorable direction already in the last years of Alexander’s reign under the influence of those obscurantist and fanatical trends in the sphere of spiritual administration, the spokesmen of which at that time were the Yuriev Archimandrite Photius and the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Seraphim, who was under his influence.
Although the position of Photius himself with the accession to the throne of Nicholas changed in an unfavorable direction for him, and although the young emperor did not show any sympathy for Orthodox fanaticism and obscurantism, from the very beginning he reacted completely negatively to the schism, which, on the one hand, was in his eyes, a violation of the established order in the church, and on the other hand, he inevitably had to provoke repressive government measures against himself with his anti-government character. It was from this last point of view that the government of Emperor Nicholas assessed the degree of harmfulness and danger of individual schismatic opinions and sects. From the very first years of Nicholas’s reign, the position of those spiritual Christians, Doukhobors and Molokans, who were settled in significant numbers under Emperor Alexander on the “milk waters” in the Tauride province and who undoubtedly enjoyed the protection and patronage of Alexander and against the harsh regime, changed dramatically for the worse. law, and against the intolerance of the surrounding Orthodox population, which manifested itself in many places. Under Nicholas, the Doukhobors and Molokans (both Subbotniks and Voskresniks) were immediately classified as the most harmful sects due to their anti-state tendencies. It is remarkable that during the very first attempts to classify various sects and sects (since 1837), the Doukhobors and Molokans, along with the Khlysty and Skoptsy, were classified among the most harmful sects and were even listed in this category in first place - ahead of the Khlysts and Skoptsy. This is understandable, because, on the one hand, the Khlysty and Skoptsy shielded themselves from the persecution of the church by outwardly performing all Orthodox rituals; on the other hand, they not only prayed for the tsar, but also easily established friendly relations with agents of the tsarist power, possessing significant material means and taking advantage of the extreme corruption of the police and representatives of the spiritual authorities. On the contrary, the Doukhobors and Molokans, who often did not make any compromises, were distinguished by their purity and impeccability of moral life, belonged mainly to the peasantry and represented in their settlements a kind of state within a state, ultimately caused fierce persecution and persecution of the government against them , and a significant role was played by agents of the III Department of His Majesty’s Own Chancellery, established in 1826. Already in 1826, Emperor Nicholas expressed a very definite view that sectarians (at least the most stubborn and active of them) should, instead of a peaceful settlement on the “milky waters,” be given up as soldiers in the Caucasus, and those unfit for military service should be exiled to Siberia for settlement. During the first vacillating period of his reign, the government did not dare, however, to sharply change the state of affairs that had developed under Alexander by any general measure; but in the second period - by the beginning of the 40s - general measures were already put into use: in 1839, 1840, 1841. The settlements of the Doukhobors and Molokans on the “milk waters” are completely destroyed, and they are deported en masse to Transcaucasia, and the most active of them are exiled to Siberia and given up as soldiers. On May 21, 1841, an imperial decree was issued in which Emperor Nicholas solemnly announced that he recognized as one of his greatest duties, imposed on him by Providence, the protection of the “inviolability of the ancestral Orthodox faith” in his loyal subjects and therefore announced a whole series of repressive measures against individuals who fell away from Orthodoxy, and, by the way, for the first time it was mentioned that the young children of persons exiled for religious crimes would be arranged according to the special aspirations of the supreme power.
The government was convinced by this time that all the private repressive measures taken in abundance against schismatics and sectarians ultimately did not achieve their goal and that, despite the numerous outward adherence to Edinoverie and even directly to Orthodoxy of many schismatics, the total number of schismatics and sectarians was by no means is not decreasing and, on the contrary, is growing in many places, with more and more new sects appearing. Therefore, it was decided to undertake a systematic study of schism and sectarianism on the ground in order to then establish the most rational and radical measures to combat it. This study, although it was dressed in the most conspiratorial forms, was, however, carried out quite widely and thoroughly, and among the fairly numerous personnel of educated ministerial officials used in the matter were such persons as Yu. F. Samarin (in Riga ), I.S. Aksakov (in the Yaroslavl province and in the south), etc., and retired prof. was placed at the center of the whole matter in St. Petersburg. N.I. Nadezhdin, who was the editor of Telescope until 1836 and after that transferred his exile to Vologda, and then entered the service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (under Minister L.A. Perovsky). The materials collected by these researchers in the field are undoubtedly of great value - at least some of them - but, unfortunately, they have been little processed and even less published. According to the classification adopted by the government since 1842, schismatics and sectarians were divided into the most harmful, harmful and less harmful. Less harmful priests, or those accepting the priesthood, were considered - their number, according to official reports, was more significant due to the fact that they were less hidden; harmful those who were non-priests (i.e., those who did not accept the priesthood) were considered to be those who recognized the marriage and prayed for the tsar. In relation to both of these groups, the government did not consider its task to destroy them, but only to combat their spread. The most harmful those considered to be non-priests were those who denied marriage and refused to pray for the Tsar, and whose number was undoubtedly tens and hundreds of times greater than the data presented in the statements, and then all the sectarians, starting with the Molokans, Doukhobors, iconoclasts, Subbotniks, Judaizers, etc. and ending with whips of various categories and eunuchs. The number of sectarians, noted in the reports for individual provinces in units, tens, rarely hundreds, and even more rarely a few thousand, was actually counted in some provinces, as I have already said, in tens and even hundreds of thousands. In general, there were probably at least a million of them in Russia in the 40s. In essence, although the government, in relation to these “most harmful”, in its terminology, sects, set as its task their complete destruction, in fact, the persecution did not lead to the goal and the number of sectarians did not decrease in the least, and their mood in relation to the government and agents of power became more and more hostile. And this also applies to schismatics, even of those opinions that were considered the least harmful, and above all to the priests. Under Catherine, the priests were given the opportunity to openly establish and maintain their own monasteries and monasteries, especially in the area indicated by the government itself - along the river. Irgiz in the Saratov province. They considered the main drawback in their life to be the lack of their own bishops, due to which they had to use only the services of fugitive priests and even defrocked priests, that is, defrocked Orthodox priests, if these latter agreed to accept the Old Believers. Since the time of Metropolitan Platon, who tried to achieve the reunification of schismatics with the help of churches of the same faith, the government has sought precisely in this way to attract Old Believers-priests into the fold of the Orthodox Church; but, not wanting to irritate and rape them, it turned a blind eye to the fugitive priests, who at the beginning of the 19th century. multiplied enormously. Nikolai Pavlovich, however, did not consider it possible to put up with such an obvious violation of the established order and began to energetically pursue the fugitive priests. Then the desire to achieve the correct ordination of Old Believer priests intensified among the schismatics, for which they needed to get themselves real Old Believer bishops. A legend has been preserved that they received similar advice (or a hint) from the chief of gendarmes Benckendorff himself; but when they finally managed, by hook or by crook, to get themselves a supernumerary Metropolitan Ambrose in Constantinople and install him in the cathedra with the permission of the Austrian government in Belaya Krinitsa, in Bukovina (1847) ), then a year later the Russian government demanded from the Austrian government (which at that time listened to all the demands of Emperor Nicholas with special respect) that Ambrose be immediately removed and expelled, and it easily obtained from the Patriarch of Constantinople the eruption of Ambrose (who had previously been under court) from the rank. However, before his departure from Bukovina, Ambrose managed to ordain several bishops, who could now ordain priests for the Old Believers, who spared no expense in maintaining this new hierarchy. The Russian government caught and imprisoned both these new hierarchs and the priests they appointed in monastic prisons on a par with fugitive priests; but this only intensified the hostility of the Old Believers towards the authorities, and in parallel with the fictitious joining of the weakest of them to Edinoverie and even to Orthodoxy, the most stubborn elements joined, on the contrary, to more harmful, from the point of view of the government, non-priestly movements and sects. The persecution of schismatics even caused the emergence of new irreconcilable sects, for example, the sect of “wanderers,” which raised the refusal of passports and all obedience to authorities, whom it looked upon as Antichrist servants, as a principle and dogma. Thus, by the end of Nicholas’s reign, as a result of the persistent struggle that the government waged against schismatics and sectarians, not only the number of both did not decrease at all, but their hostile attitude towards the authorities and towards any statehood undoubtedly sharply worsened.
The number of court cases and harsh court sentences against schismatics of all kinds grew from year to year; According to official data, the number of court sentences handed down annually against schismatics in 1847–1852. was already over 500 per year, and the number of people on trial for belonging to the schism during this five-year period reached 26,456.
Thus, the gap between government and popular ideology grew and expanded during this reign, perhaps to an even greater extent than the gap between the government and the intelligentsia of that time.
Traces of them are available in the VIII volume of “History of the Ministry of Internal Affairs” by N. Varadinov (St. Petersburg, 1863) and in the famous study of N. I. Nadezhdin about eunuchs, which is a great bibliographic rarity. Compare also. S. Aksakov in his letters,” T. P. M., 1888 (letters from 1848–1851).