Autocracy and Orthodoxy However, one should not think that the relationship between autocracy and Orthodoxy was idyllic, that they were based only on the principle of “hand washes hand.” Clashes and serious conflicts often arose between them. There were cases when the autocracy

Letter to Nicholas I

Sovereign,

From the very moment Your Imperial Majesty identified for me an important and difficult sphere of activity (2), I have felt a keen need to resort to His August person to open my heart to the monarch, to lay at His feet the confession of faith, the statement of my rules, which, at the very least, it will show Your Majesty how I assess the scope of the new responsibilities that His Highest will has entrusted to me. I dare to call His attention to these lines, sketched with boundless confidence, and beg Him to notify me whether I understand His intentions and whether I am able to comply with them.

You know, Sovereign, that twenty years ago I was already in a position, if not quite similar, then at least similar to the one that was recently granted to me. Ten or twelve years of my life, when I was young and full of strength, were given to the Ministry of Public Education (3). Without returning to the special circumstances which forced me from that time on to devote myself both to another branch of public service and to the solitary pursuits in which my last years were partly spent, I will limit myself to only noting: the time has passed since the time when I revered a career in the field of public education, irrevocably closed to itself, was filled with events of enormous importance that had an extremely detrimental impact on the development of education in our fatherland. These events were unfavorable not only for us, but to the same or even greater extent for all countries of Europe: it is a moral infection, the fruits of which have already been felt and are still being felt by everyone. The general excitement of minds is its most characteristic sign; all the guarantees of the existing state of things have been revealed to be untenable, everything that we thought had been achieved is again called into question, society, which it believed had a right to hope for progress, is shaken in its political, moral and religious foundations, and the very social order is daily standing facing a matter of life and death.

Without going too far, it is enough to cast a glance into the past to become imbued with the present state of affairs in Europe and its relation to universal civilization, which has become the center without which modern society, such as it is, cannot exist and which at the same time contains itself the germ of universal destruction.

The July Revolution (4), which destroyed so many phenomena, put an end to all ideas of social progress and political improvement in Europe for at least half a century. It shocked those who most firmly believed in the future of nations, involved them in countless errors, and forced them to doubt themselves. After 1830 there is not a thinking person who did not at least once ask himself with surprise, what is this civilization?

An accomplice to the course of events, she did not even serve as a weak barrier to him; and now she has turned into a ghost, reduced to this sad question, each of us, both as a private individual and as a member of society, has already, in the depths of our souls, overthrown her from the throne. No one has tried to weigh what civilization gives and what it takes away from man and society, the sacrifices it demands and the advantages it guarantees, the relation of enlightenment to private good and public prosperity. Did not one of the creators of the July Revolution, Mr. Guizot(5), a man endowed with conscience and talent, recently proclaim from the rostrum: “Society has no more political, moral and religious convictions”? - and this cry of despair, involuntarily breaking out from all well-meaning people of Europe, no matter what views they hold, serves as the only symbol of faith that still unites them in the present conditions.

Let us hasten to say right away: Russia has so far avoided such humiliation. She still keeps in her chest religious convictions, political convictions, moral convictions - the only guarantee of her bliss, the remains of her nationality, the precious and last remains of her political future. The Government’s job is to gather them into one whole, to form from them the anchor that will allow Russia to weather the storm. But these parts are scattered by a premature and superficial civilization, dreamy systems, reckless enterprises, they are disunited, not united into a single whole, without a center, and moreover, for thirty years they have been forced to confront people and events; how to reconcile them with the present disposition of minds, how to combine them into a system that would contain the benefits of the present order, the hopes of the future and the traditions of the past? - how to begin to make education simultaneously moral, religious and classical? - how to keep up with Europe and not move away from our own place? What kind of art must one have in order to take from enlightenment only what is necessary for the existence of a great state and decisively reject everything that carries the seeds of disorder and upheaval? This is the task in all its scope, a vital question, which the state of affairs itself requires us to resolve and which we have no opportunity to evade. If the question was only about discovering the principles that maintain order and constitute the special heritage of our state (and each state is founded on its own principles), it would be enough to place on the facade of the state building of Russia the following three maxims, suggested by the very nature of things and with which in vain would minds, darkened by false ideas and regrettable prejudices, begin to argue: for Russia to strengthen, for it to prosper, for it to live - we have three great state principles left, namely:

1. National religion.

2 Autocracy.

3 Nationality.

Without a folk religion, a people, like a private person, is doomed to destruction; to deprive him of his faith means to tear out his heart, his blood, his entrails, it means to place him on the lowest level of the moral and physical order, it means to betray him. Even the pride of the people rebels against such a thought; a person devoted to his fatherland will agree just as little to the loss of one of the dogmas of the ruling Church as to the theft of one pearl from the crown of Monomakh.

The power of autocratic power is a necessary condition for the existence of the Empire in its present form. Let political dreamers (I'm not talking about the sworn enemies of order), confused by false concepts, invent an ideal state of affairs for themselves, be amazed by appearances, inflamed by theories, animated by words, we can answer them that they do not know the country, they are mistaken about its situation , her needs, her desires; we will tell them that with this mad passion for European institutions we have already destroyed those institutions that we had, that this administrative Saint-Simonism has already created endless confusion, shaken trust and disrupted the natural relations between the different classes in their development. Having accepted the chimera of limiting the power of the monarch, equality of rights for all classes, national representation in the European style, and a pseudo-constitutional form of government, the colossus will not last even two weeks; moreover, it will collapse before these false transformations are completed. This important truth is more or less obvious to the majority of the nation; it alone is capable of uniting minds that are the most opposed to each other and the most dissimilar in their degree of enlightenment. The study of the state must be deeply imbued with it, or rather, no one can study their fatherland without acquiring this clear and sincere conviction. The same truth should be guided in public education, not in the form of words of praise to the government, which does not need them, but as a conclusion of reason, as an indisputable fact, as a political dogma that ensures the tranquility of the state and is the ancestral property of everyone.

Next to this conservative principle there is another, equally important and closely related to the first - this is Nationality. In order for one to retain all its power, the other must retain all its integrity; whatever the clashes they had to endure, both of them live a common life and can still enter into an alliance and win together. The question of nationality is more complex than that of autocratic power, but it rests on equally reliable foundations. The main difficulty he concludes is the agreement of ancient and new concepts, but nationality does not consist in moving backwards, nor even in immobility; the composition of the state can and should develop like the human body: as a person ages, a person’s face changes, retaining only the main features. We are not talking about resisting the natural course of things, but only about not sticking someone else’s and artificial mask on our face, about keeping the sanctuary of our folk concepts inviolable, drawing from it, placing these concepts at the highest level among the beginnings of our state and, in particular, our public education. Between the old prejudices, which do not recognize anything that did not exist at least half a century ago, and the new prejudices, which without pity destroy everything they replace and violently attack the remains of the past, lies a vast field - there lies solid ground , a reliable support, a foundation that cannot let us down.

Thus, it is in the sphere of public education that we must first of all revive faith in monarchical and popular principles, but revive it without upheaval, without haste, without violence. Enough ruins already surround us - capable of destroying what we have erected?

Arguing that these three great levers of religion, autocracy and nationality still constitute the treasured heritage of our fatherland, which several years of special studies allowed me to get to know more closely, I consider myself entitled to add that an insane addiction to innovation without a rein and a reasonable plan, to thoughtless destruction constitutes in Russia, belonging to an extremely small circle of people, serves as a symbol of faith for a school so weak that it not only does not increase the number of its adherents, but also loses some of them every day. It can be argued that in Russia there is no doctrine less popular, for there is no system that would offend so many concepts, would be hostile to so many interests, would be more sterile and more surrounded by mistrust.

By betraying all of myself, Sovereign, to the will of Your Imperial Majesty, I consider my real duty fulfilled both in relation to my fatherland and in relation to the August Person of the Monarch, to whom, I dare say, I am tied by bonds of reverent affection and deep veneration , independent of His high purpose. I will not renew, Sovereign, assurances of my fidelity, zeal and devotion; Without hiding from myself the many difficulties of the field destined for me, I find myself all the more determined to exert all my strength to justify in your own eyes the choice that Your Imperial Majesty has deigned to make. Either the Ministry of Public Education represents nothing, or it constitutes the soul of the administrative corps. The happiest days in my life will be the days when I see this task resolved to the glory of Your Imperial Majesty, to the benefit of the fatherland, to the pleasure of all people devoted to the monarchy, imbued with the same feeling of affection and respect for the throne, equally ready to serve it with the same ardor and the number of which is not as limited as they try to claim.

You command me, Sovereign, to close the gap with yourself (there is no exaggeration in this word, for never before have conservative ideas been so brutally attacked and defended so weakly). Your Majesty can be sure that I will stand there until the last.

At the same time, I dare to hope that you will deign to take into account the circumstances in which the Ministry of Public Education was once again opened to me; the state of institutions, the state of minds and, in particular, the generation that is emerging today from our bad schools and for whose moral neglect we, perhaps, must admit, must reproach ourselves, a generation lost, if not hostile, a generation of low beliefs, deprived of enlightenment, grown old before it had time to enter into life, dried up by ignorance and fashionable sophisms, the future of which will not bring good to the fatherland. In this state of affairs, I dare to hope that Your Majesty will deign to take on the role of my guide and will show me the path that He considers necessary for me to follow; on the other hand, I dare to hope that if, like so many others, I am overwhelmed by the force of things, I find myself unable to cope with it, I bend before the magnitude of events and under the weight of my mission, if my successes do not correspond to my opinion and the expectations of Your Majesty , whose confidence can only be justified by success, in which case I dare to hope that He will deign to allow me to confess my weakness and impotence with the same sincerity and self-forgetfulness that guide my conduct and guide my pen to-day. Then I will allow myself to ask His Supreme Justice for permission to retire again with honor and take with me the conviction that, to the best of my ability, I have paid my tribute to devotion to the maintenance of order and the glory of the reign of Your Imperial Majesty.

NOTES

1. The draft autograph of a letter (in French) from S.S. Uvarov to Nicholas I, stored in the Department of Written Sources of the State Historical Museum (OPI GIM), dates back to March 1832 and is thus the first known case of Uvarov using the formula “Orthodoxy” . Autocracy. Nationality." Being then still a comrade (deputy) of the Minister of Public Education, the author of the letter addresses the emperor outlining his plans to transform - through the activities of the Ministry of Public Education - the intellectual and moral state of Russian society in order to form strong spiritual foundations for the future great and independent development of the Russian Empire. The most significant fragments of the memorandum were later included almost unchanged in the official documents of the ministry headed by Uvarov - the report “On some general principles that can serve as a guide in the management of the Ministry of Public Education” (1833) and the report “A decade of activity of the Ministry of Public Education” (1843). The text of the document was prepared for publication by A. Zorin (with the participation of A. Schenle) and under the title “Letter to Nicholas I” was first published in 1997 in the journal “New Literary Review”, No. 26. Published here according to this edition: Uvarov S. WITH. Letter to Nicholas I // New Literary Review. M., 1997. N 26. P. 96-100.

2. Uvarov speaks of his appointment at the beginning of 1832 as a fellow minister, and from 1833 as minister of public education.

3. This refers to the period of service of S.S. Uvarov in the Ministry of Public Education as a trustee of the St. Petersburg educational district.

4. We are talking about the revolution in France on July 26-29, 1830, which overthrew the restoration regime of the Bourbon dynasty and established a bourgeois monarchy led by Louis Philippe.

5. Francois Pierre Guillaume Guizot (1787-1874), French statesman, historian, publicist. One of the founders of the theory of class struggle within the framework of the so-called. "bourgeois historiography of the Restoration period". Ideologist and prominent figure in the July Revolution, member of the cabinet of several French governments after 1830.

Notes by D.V.Ermashov

On some general principles that can serve as a guide in the management of the Ministry of Public Education

Upon my assumption of the post of Minister of Public Education by Your Imperial Majesty’s highest order, I used, so to speak, the main place, the slogan of my administration, the following expressions: “Public education must be carried out in the united spirit of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality.”

At the same time, I consider myself obliged to present to Your Majesty a brief but sincere account of my understanding of the important principle that I am taking into leadership:

In the midst of the general collapse of religious and civil institutions in Europe, notwithstanding the widespread spread of destructive principles, Russia has fortunately retained a hitherto warm faith in certain religious, moral, and political concepts that exclusively belong to it. In these concepts, in these sacred remnants of her people, lies the entire guarantee of her future lot. The government, of course, especially the Ministry entrusted to me by the Highest, belongs to collect them into one whole and to tie with them the anchor of our salvation, but these principles, scattered by premature and superficial enlightenment, dreamy, unsuccessful experiments, these principles are without unanimity, without a common focus, and by which Over the past 30 years, there has been a continuous, long and stubborn struggle, how to reconcile them with the current state of mind? Will we have time to include them in a system of general education that would combine the benefits of our time with the legends of the past and the hopes of the future? How can we establish a national education that corresponds to our order of things and is not alien to the European spirit? What rule should we follow in relation to European enlightenment, to European ideas, without which we can no longer do, but which, without skillful curbing, threaten us with inevitable death? Whose hand, strong and experienced, can keep the aspirations of minds within the boundaries of order and silence and throw away everything that could disturb the general order?

Here the State task is presented in its entirety, which we are forced to solve without delay, a task on which the fate of the Fatherland depends - a task so difficult that one simple presentation of it amazes every sane person.

Delving into the consideration of the subject and seeking those principles that constitute the property of Russia (and every land, every nation has such a Palladium), it becomes clear that there are three main ones without which Russia cannot prosper, strengthen, live:

1) Orthodox Faith.

2) Autocracy.

3) Nationality.

Without love for the Faith of their ancestors, the people, as well as the individual, must perish; weakening their Faith is the same as depriving them of blood and tearing out their heart. This would be to prepare them for a lower degree in moral and political destiny. This would be treason in the extended sense. People's pride alone is enough to feel indignation at such a thought. A person devoted to the Sovereign and the Fatherland will agree as little to the loss of one of the dogmas of our Church as to the theft of one pearl from the crown of Monomakh.

Autocracy represents the main condition for the political existence of Russia in its present form. Let dreamers deceive themselves and see in vague terms some order of things that corresponds to their theories, their prejudices; we can assure them that they do not melt Russia, they do not know its situation, its needs, its desires. We can tell them that through this ridiculous predilection for European forms we are harming our own institutions; that the passion for innovation upsets the natural relations of all members of the State among themselves and impedes the peaceful, gradual development of its forces. The Russian Colossus rests on autocracy as its cornerstone; a hand touching the foot shakes the entire composition of the State. This truth is felt by the innumerable majority of Russians; they feel it fully, although they are placed among themselves at different degrees and differ in enlightenment and in their way of thinking, and in their attitudes towards the Government. This truth must be present and developed in public education. The government, of course, does not need words of praise for itself, but can it not care that the saving conviction that Russia lives and is protected by the saving spirit of the Autocracy, strong, philanthropic, enlightened, turns into an indisputable fact that should animate everyone in the days calm, as in moments of storm?

Along with these two national principles, there is a third, no less important, no less strong: Nationality. In order for the Throne and the Church to remain in their power, the feeling of the Nationality that binds them must also be supported. The question of Nationality does not have the unity that the question of Autocracy represents; but both stem from the same source and are combined on every page of the History of the Russian people. Regarding Nationality, the whole difficulty lies in the agreement of ancient and new concepts; but Nationality does not consist in going back or stopping; it does not require immobility in ideas. The composition of the state, like the human body, changes in appearance as it ages: the features change with age, but the physiognomy should not change. It would be crazy to resist this periodic course of things; It will be enough if we do not voluntarily hide our faces under an artificial mask that is not akin to us; if we keep intact the sanctuary of our popular concepts; if we accept them as the main idea of ​​the Government, especially in relation to National Education. Between the dilapidated prejudices, which admire only what we have had for half a century, and the newest prejudices, which without pity strive to destroy what exists, in the midst of these two extremes, there is a vast field on which the building of our well-being can be firmly and unharmed.

Time, circumstances, love for the Fatherland, devotion to the Monarch, everything should assure us that it is time for us, especially regarding public education, to turn to the spirit of Monarchical institutions and in them to look for that strength, that unity, that strength that we too often thought to discover in dreamy phantoms equally alien and useless to us, following which it would not be difficult to finally lose all the remnants of the Nationality, having not achieved the imaginary goal of European education.

Many other subjects belong to the general system of National Education, such as: the direction given to Russian Literature, periodical works, theatrical works; influence of foreign books; patronage provided to the arts; but an analysis of all the forces of the individual parts would entail a rather extensive presentation and could easily turn this short note into a lengthy book.

Of course, the adoption of such a system would require more than the life and strength of one or more people. It is not determined by Providence for the one who sows these seeds to reap the fruits thereof; but what does the life and strength of one mean when it comes to the good of all? Two or three generations quickly disappear from the face of the earth, but States are durable as long as the sacred spark of Faith, Love and Hope remains in them.

Is it possible for us, in the midst of the storm that is troubling Europe, in the midst of the rapid collapse of all the supports of Civil Society, in the midst of the sad phenomena surrounding us on all sides, to strengthen with weak hands the dear Fatherland on a sure anchor, on the solid foundations of a saving principle? The mind, frightened at the sight of the general misfortunes of peoples, at the sight of the fragments of the past falling around us, and not seeing the future through the gloomy veil of events, involuntarily gives in to despondency and hesitates in its conclusions. But if our Fatherland - as we are Russian and there is no doubt about it - protected by Providence, which has given us in the person of the magnanimous, enlightened, truly Russian Monarch, the guarantee of the unharmed strength of the State, must withstand the gusts of the storm that threatens us every minute, then the education of present and future generations in united spirit of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality constitutes undoubtedly one of the best hopes and the most important needs of the time and at the same time one of the most difficult tasks with which the power of attorney of the Monarch could honor a loyal subject, comprehending both the importance of it, and the price of every moment and the disproportion of his forces, and his responsibility to God, Sovereign and Fatherland.

Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality

The ideological basis for the “theory of official nationality,” which was proclaimed in 1832 by its author, the then newly appointed comrade minister (that is, his deputy) of public education, Count Sergei Semenovich Uvarov (1786-1855). Being a convinced reactionary, he took it upon himself to ideologically ensure the rule of Nicholas I, eradicating the Decembrist legacy.

In December 1832, after his audit of Moscow University, S. S. Uvarov presented a report to the emperor in which he wrote that in order to protect students from revolutionary ideas it is necessary, “gradually taking over the minds of youth, to bring them almost insensitively to the point where, to resolve one of the most difficult problems of the time (the fight against democratic ideas. - Comp.), education must merge, correct, thorough, necessary in our century, with deep conviction and warm faith in the truly Russian protective principles of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality, constituting the last anchor of our salvation and the surest guarantee of the strength and greatness of our fatherland.”

In 1833, Emperor Nicholas I appointed S. S. Uvarov as Minister of Public Education. And the new minister, announcing his assumption of office with a circular letter, stated in the same letter: “Our common duty is to ensure that public education is carried out in the united spirit of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality” (Lemke M. Nikolaev gendarmes and literature 1862- 1865 St. Petersburg, 1908).

Later, describing his activities over 10 years as a minister in a report entitled “A Decade of the Ministry of Public Education. 1833-1843", published in 1864, the Count wrote in its introduction:

“In the midst of the rapid decline of religious and civil institutions in Europe, with the widespread spread of destructive concepts, in view of the sad phenomena that surrounded us on all sides, it was necessary to strengthen the Fatherland on solid foundations on which the prosperity, strength and life of the people are based, to find the principles that constitute distinctive character of Russia and exclusively belonging to it [...]. A Russian, devoted to the Fatherland, will agree just as little to the loss of one of the tenets of our Orthodoxy as to the theft of one pearl from Monomakh’s crown. Autocracy constitutes the main condition for the political existence of Russia. The Russian colossus rests on it as on the cornerstone of its greatness [...]. Along with these two national ones, there is a third, no less important, no less strong - Nationality. The question of Nationality does not have the same unity as the previous one, but both stem from the same source and are connected on every page of the history of the Russian kingdom. Regarding Nationality, the whole difficulty lay in the agreement of ancient and new concepts, but Nationality does not force one to go back or stop, it does not require immobility in ideas. The composition of the state, like the human body, changes its appearance as it ages; features change over the years, but the physiognomy should not change. It would be inappropriate to oppose the periodic course of things; it is enough if we keep the sanctuary of our popular concepts intact, if we accept them as the main thought of the government, especially in relation to public education.

These are the main principles that should have been included in the system of public education, so that it would combine the benefits of our time with the traditions of the past and with the hopes of the future, so that public education would correspond to our order of things and would not be alien to the European spirit.”

The phrase is a symbol of an official, “from above”, speculative ideological doctrine born in the bureaucratic office, which claims to be of a nationwide character, to the title of some “Russian” or “national idea” (ironically).

Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality
Ideological justification for the “theory of official nationality”, which was proclaimed in 1832 by its author, the then newly appointed Comrade Minister (that is, his deputy) of public education, Count Sergei
Semenovich Uvarov (1786-1855). Being a convinced reactionary, he took it upon himself to ideologically ensure the rule of Nicholas I by eradicating the Decembrist legacy.
In December 1832, after his audit of Moscow University, S. S. Uvarov presented a report to the emperor in which he wrote that in order to protect students from revolutionary ideas it is necessary, “gradually taking over the minds of youth, to bring them almost insensitively to the point where, to resolve one of the most difficult problems of the time (the fight against democratic ideas. - Comp.), education must merge, correct, thorough, necessary in our century, with deep conviction and warm faith in the truly Russian protective principles of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality, constituting the last anchor of our salvation and the surest guarantee of the strength and greatness of our fatherland.”
In 1833, Emperor Nicholas I appointed S. S. Uvarov as Minister of Public Education. And the new minister, announcing his assumption of office with a circular letter, stated in the same letter: “Our common duty is to ensure that public education is carried out in the united spirit of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality” (Lemke M. Nikolaev gendarmes and literature 1862- 1S65 St. Petersburg, 1908).
Later, describing his activities over 10 years as a minister in a report entitled “A Decade of the Ministry of Public Education. 1833-1843", published in 1864, the Count wrote in its introduction:
“In the midst of the rapid decline of religious and civil institutions in Europe, with the widespread spread of destructive concepts, in view of the sad phenomena that surrounded us on all sides, it was necessary to strengthen the Fatherland on solid foundations on which the prosperity, strength and life of the people are based, to find the principles that constitute distinctive character of Russia and exclusively belonging to it (...)-. A Russian, devoted to the Fatherland, will agree just as little to the loss of one of the tenets of our Orthodoxy as to the theft of one pearl from Monomakh’s crown. Autocracy constitutes the main condition for the political existence of Russia. The Russian colossus rests on it as on the cornerstone of its greatness |...|. Along with these two national ones, there is a third, no less important, no less strong - Nationality. The question of Nationality does not have the same unity as the previous one, but both stem from the same source and are connected on every page of the history of the Russian kingdom. Regarding Nationality, the whole difficulty lay in the agreement of ancient and new concepts, but Nationality does not force one to go back or stop, it does not require immobility in ideas. The composition of the state, like the human body, changes its appearance as it ages; features change over the years, but the physiognomy should not change. It would be inappropriate to oppose the periodic course of things; it is enough if we keep the sanctuary of our popular concepts intact, if we accept them as the main thought of the government, especially in relation to public education.
These are the main principles that should have been included in the system of public education, so that it would combine the benefits of our time with the traditions of the past and with the hopes of the future, so that public education would correspond to our order of things and would not be alien to the European spirit.”
The phrase is a symbol of an official, “speculative ideological doctrine”, launched “from above”, born in the bureaucratic office, which claims to be of a nationwide character, to the title of some “Russian” or “national idea” (ironically).

Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M.: “Locked-Press”. Vadim Serov. 2003.

See what “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality” is in other dictionaries:

The principles of the official national theory, proclaimed by the Minister of Public Education S. S. Uvarov in 1834. Source: Encyclopedia Fatherland, the guiding principles of the Russian monarchy. First formulated by Nicholas I in the instructions given to the minister ... Russian history

Principles to be followed by public education. Set out by Count Sergei Uvarov upon assuming the post of Minister of Public Education in his report to Nicholas I “On some general principles that can serve as a guide in management... ... Wikipedia

- “ORTHODOXY, AUTOCRACY, NATIONALITY”, the principles of the official nationality theory (see OFFICIAL NATIONALITY THEORY), proclaimed by the Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov in 1834... encyclopedic Dictionary

The principles of the official national theory, proclaimed by the Minister of Public Education S. S. Uvarov in 1834. Political science: Dictionary reference book. comp. Prof. Science Sanzharevsky I.I.. 2010 ... Political science. Dictionary.

Wed. We Russians will not spare blood to defend the faith, the throne and the fatherland. Gr. L.N. Tolstoy. War and Peace. 3, 1, 22. Wed. The motto of his (Nicholas I) reign was: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. Count S. Uvarov. Min. adv. Ave. Wed. Un seule foi... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary

Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. Wed. We Russians will not spare blood to defend the faith, the throne and the fatherland. Gr. L. N. Tolstoy. War and Peace. 3, 1, 22. Wed. The motto of his (Nicholas I) reign was: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.… … Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

A formula that affirmed protective principles in tsarist Russia and expressed reaction. the essence of the theory of official nationality. First formulated by S.S. Uvarov in 1832, it received ironic. name Uvarov Trinity... Soviet historical encyclopedia

The principles of the official national theory, proclaimed by the Minister of Public Education of Russia S. S. Uvarov in 1834 ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality are the principles that public education should follow. Set out by Count Sergei Uvarov upon assuming the post of Minister of Public Education in his report to Nicholas I “On some general principles... ... Wikipedia

Books

• Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality, Uvarov Sergey Semenovich. Count Sergei Semenovich Uvarov (1786-1855) is one of the leading Russian statesmen of the first half of the 19th century, a landmark figure for understanding social and political processes...