The meaning of these three sacred words of our motto seems obvious to many, but, as we see in practice, their essence is not obvious to everyone, especially in our crafty and spiritually illiterate times. Let me explain these interconnected concepts that are dear to us.
1. Orthodoxy. It is not “one of many traditional” religions to which we must adhere for the utilitarian purposes of crime prevention or merely out of loyalty to the tradition of our ancestors. Orthodoxy is accurate knowledge about the structure of the world, about the meaning of history and its driving forces, without which even a daily news report will be incomprehensible, not to mention the development of the right strategy.
After all, if there is a God - and we, Black Hundreds, cannot doubt this starting point of all our thinking and self-awareness! - then, creating the world, God had a plan for its proper structure. Having rebelled against God, the creatures created free - first some of the angels who became demons, then, under their influence, some of the people - began in their pride to oppose this proper plan. Demons led by Satan, out of envy, began to confront God for power over the earthly world. For this purpose, Satan stole from God his chosen people for the Old Testament prophecy (John 8:19,44) and, having seduced this people with the national pride of earthly dominion, made them Satan's chosen "syncension of Satan" (Rev. 2:9), the engine of the "mystery of lawlessness" "(2 Thess. 2:7), that is, with his weapon of struggle for world power. And to achieve it, he must destroy, first of all, Orthodoxy as accurate knowledge about the meaning and purpose of the world.
The entire drama of history - from its described beginning in the Old Testament to its current final stage of building a global concentration camp, the kingdom of the Antichrist - is a struggle between the restraining forces of God and the subversive forces of Satan, which by the end of history will achieve temporary success in spiritually weakened humanity. But they are opposed by the forces that hold back (according to the Apostle Paul, 2 Thess. 2:7) the world from the embodiment of this scenario, and here we move on to the second concept in our sacred triad.
2. Autocracy. By the will of God, the mission of keeping the world from the rampant forces of evil was entrusted to the universal state structure, uniting many peoples under one imperial autocratic power, serving the law of God. Ecumenical - means provided as a matter of course for all peoples, even if not all of them enter it, due to their selfish foolishness. Empire means a structure and territory governed by this single legal authority. Autocracy means power, firstly, that restrains peoples from the rival power of the forces of evil, and secondly, power is independent, autocratic, independent of anyone’s political or financial influences, from the selfish desires of the aristocracy or the restless, manipulated masses of the people, but dependent only from God and having appropriate dedication through a church sacrament.
The Russian Orthodox autocratic monarchy (Third Rome) was created as the successor to the universal Eastern Roman Empire (Second Rome) according to the lofty example of the unmerged and indivisible union of the Divine and human in the incarnate Son of God - Jesus Christ: this is an unfused and indivisible symphony (consonance) of spiritual power (the Church) ) and the power of the state (Sovereign) in leading the people through their earthly life into the eternal life of the Kingdom of Heaven. No other political system on earth sets itself such a high goal, surpassing utilitarian earthly measures of benefit.
This is what the Orthodox monarchy means, which our people lost in 1917, because our leading layer ceased to be aware of its meaning and wanted to live according to the Western apostate model of the power of money, and allowed Satan's chosen people to carry out a revolution that continues to this day.
3. Nationality. In the language of modern political science - a nation. This is a value of a lower order than the first two, and to elevate it to the place of God or to place its will in the place of the supreme state power is a sin before God. Moreover, the so-called “will of the people” in the so-called “democracy” is a deceptive manipulation of the masses, purposefully fooled, for the “free” legalization of the power of money, which is controlled by Satan’s chosen people. This is the fundamental law of democracy, no matter how pompous constitutions it is dressed up in.
And it was the Russian people who, by the will of God, fell to the greatest extent to embody the Law of God in their statehood and to create the strongest holding universal Empire at its last historical stage - the Third Rome. This was achieved due to the fact that the Russian people united Orthodoxy and the nation in their culture and history - in the same unmerged and indivisible way as in their statehood. Thus, our nationality (nation), having placed itself in the service of God's plan, sanctified its nationality, nationality, putting as the basis of our national values not narrow-tribal selfishness, but universal responsibility before God. This is what the word Russian means.
Thus, a Russian person only by blood, who does not complement his origin by serving this high goal of God’s Plan, is not yet fully Russian. This is still only a biological vessel that needs to be filled with Russian content. And the one who has among his ancestors people from other nations, but inextricably and faithfully united his destiny with the culture, religion and restraining goal of the Russian people, he has become its integral member. These are, for example: Aksakov (a third of the noble noble families in Rus' had Tatar roots), Bagration, Dal, Diterichs, Nilus and many many others.
So, the triad of our main values and our motto: “For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland” is not “archaic”, but the basis of our national identity, our ideology and strategy, all the more important in the current troubled times. We need these ideals given to us by God now as true guidelines by which we determine the right direction of our activities, regardless of whether the ideal of Orthodox monarchical statehood is achievable in our days. The path to its restoration, of course, is incredibly difficult, but the main thing for us should not be when, how and to what extent this ideal is achievable or not, but whether it is true or not. If it is true as God’s Plan for the Russian people (Russian Idea), then there is simply no other way for the life of our people. All others will be the path to death.
The current time of troubles has brought our people very close to the mortal threshold, given those powerful forces chosen by Satan that are actively working from without and from within to destroy both the soul and body of the Russian people. These forces brought their non-Russian proteges to power in our Fatherland, who, even often being Russian by blood, recognized Satan’s chosen people and their global empire of the United States (a prototype of the kingdom of the Antichrist) as their masters and allies and are ready to “mutually benefit and effectively” build their personal well-being in the service of this anti-Russian force, exploiting the Russian people to the point of wear and tear and suppressing the forces of their resistance.
The Union of the Russian People was recreated in 2005 precisely to organize this Russian resistance. In fact, the restoration of historical Russian statehood is now possible only in the form of a “revolution,” as Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Klykov put it in his last testament interview. By this word, he, of course, did not mean street barricade battles, but a radical change in the existing state system and its ideology, a return to the Orthodox autocratic monarchy - through the self-organization of the Russian people at all social levels. In fact, on the scale of the twentieth century, this process is a counter-revolution, as one of the most worthy leaders of the RNC, board member A.S., correctly writes in his book “Reconciliation is Impossible.” Turik [since May 2007, Chairman of the Union].
Let us, following the Law of God as the basis of our national self-awareness and God’s great plan for the Russian people as our task, live according to it, no matter what and without calculating God’s timing. Because, I repeat the obvious, there is simply no other way of salvation: they all lead to death.
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 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 a distinctive character Russia and it exclusively belonging […]-. 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).
| 6. Ideology. The theory of official nationality In an effort to resist revolutionary and liberal ideas, the autocracy resorted not only to repression. The king understood that views can only be opposed by other views. The official ideology of Nikolaev Russia became the so-called. "the theory of official nationality". Its creator was the Minister of Education, Count S.S. Uvarov. The basis of the theory was the “Uvarov trinity”: Orthodoxy - autocracy - nationality. According to this theory, the Russian people are deeply religious and devoted to the throne, and the Orthodox faith and autocracy constitute the indispensable conditions for the existence of Russia. Nationality was understood as the need to adhere to one’s own traditions and reject foreign influence. Calm, stable, beautifully quiet Russia was contrasted with the restless, decaying West. The “theory of official nationality” clearly reveals a pattern in Russian history: any turn to conservatism and conservationism is always combined with anti-Westernism and emphasizing the peculiarities of one’s own national path. The “Theory of Official Nationality” was used as the basis for teaching in schools and universities. Conservative historians S.P. became its guides. Shevyrev and M.P. Pogodin. It was widely promoted in the press through the efforts of such writers as F. Bulgarin, N. Grech, N. Kukolnik and others. Russia, in accordance with the “theory of official nationality,” was supposed to look happy and peaceful. Benckendorff said: “Russia’s past is amazing, its present is more than magnificent, as for its future, it is above everything that the most ardent imagination can imagine.” Doubting the splendor of Russian reality in itself turned out to be either a crime or evidence of madness. So, in 1836, by direct order of Nicholas I, P.Ya. was declared crazy. Chaadaev, who published bold and bitter (although far from indisputable) reflections on the history of Russia and its historical fate in the Telescope magazine. At the end of the 40s, when revolutions began in Europe, it became obvious that Uvarov’s attempt to counter the revolutionary threat by instilling devotion to the throne and the church failed. Sedition penetrated more and more into Russia. A dissatisfied Nicholas fired Uvarov in 1849, relying only on suppressing free thought through repression. This marked a deep ideological crisis in power, which finally alienated society. |
5.2. Protective alternative
The theory of "official nationality". The Decembrist cause had a strong influence on the entire government activity of the new Emperor Nicholas I. For himself, he concluded that the entire nobility was in an unreliable mood. Noticing that a large number of people associated with revolutionary unions were from the nobility, he did not trust the nobility, suspecting them of seeking political dominance. Nicholas did not want to rule with the help of the noble class; he tried to create a bureaucracy around himself and rule the country through obedient officials. Having punished the Decembrists, Nicholas showed his readiness to begin reforms provided that the autocratic system remained unchanged, but he intended to carry them out without the participation of social forces. In turn, the nobility distanced itself from the bureaucracy of the new reign. It was intimidated by the Decembrist cause and itself withdrew from public activities. There was an alienation between the authorities and society. The government believed that the fermentation of the 20s. stemmed from superficial upbringing and free-thinking, borrowed from foreign teachings, therefore it was necessary to pay attention to the “upbringing” of the younger generation, give strength in the upbringing to “truly Russian principles” and remove from it everything that would contradict them. All state and public life was to be based on these same principles. To such primordial beginnings of Russian life, according to the ideologist of the reign of Nicholas, Minister of Public Education and Spiritual Affairs S.S. Uvarov, included “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality,” which were the basis of the so-called theories of "official nationality"
, which became the ideological expression of the protective direction.
But the main provisions of the above theory were formulated in 1811 by the historian N.M. Karamzin in his "Note on Ancient and New Russia". These ideas were included in the coronation manifesto of Emperor Nicholas I and subsequent legislation, justifying the need for the Russian state to have an autocratic form of government and serfdom, and S. Uvarov added the concept of “nationality”. He considered the proclaimed triad “the key to the strength and greatness” of the Russian Empire. The concept of “nationality” was considered by S. Uvarov as an original feature of the Russian people, as a primordial commitment to tsarist autocracy and serfdom.
The essence of Uvarov’s idea of Russian life was that Russia is a completely special state and a special nationality, unlike the states and nationalities of Europe. On this basis, it is distinguished by all the main features of national and state life: it is impossible to apply the demands and aspirations of European life to it. Russia has its own special institutions, with an ancient faith, it has preserved patriarchal virtues, little known to the peoples of the West. First of all, this concerned popular piety, the people’s complete trust in the authorities and obedience, simplicity of morals and needs. Serfdom retained much of what was patriarchal: a good landowner better protects the interests of the peasants than they could themselves, and the position of the Russian peasant is better than the position of the Western worker.
Uvarov believed that the main political task was to contain the influx of new ideas into Russia. “Stable” serf Russia was contrasted with the restless West: “there” - riots and revolutions, “here” - order and peace. Writers, historians, and educators should have been guided by these ideas.
Uvarov's vision of the political system was quite unique. Uvarov sought to combine Russia’s assimilation of the European education system with the preservation of its own traditional socio-political system. “In the entire space of state economy and rural economics,” he declared, “the following are necessary: the Russian system and European education; the Russian system - for that is only useful and fruitful that is in accordance with the present state of affairs, with the spirit of the people, with their needs, with their political rights; European education, because more than ever we are obliged to peer into what is happening outside the borders of the fatherland, to peer not for blind imitation or reckless envy, but for the healing of our own prejudices and for learning the best.”
The preservation of the Russian system was conceived by Uvarov as relying on the fundamental foundations of Russian history, such as Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. As is known, this concept was subjected to the most merciless criticism in democratically or progressively minded circles of Russian society, as a result of which Uvarov’s “triune formula” in the Russian democratic tradition appears only with the definition “notorious.” The main thing in Uvarov’s “formula” is an indication of the need for any movement forward, for any reform aimed at further modernization and Europeanization of Russia, to take into account the uniqueness of its way of life, and this position is not so easy to challenge.
Naturally, in addition to the official ideologists, there were thinkers who were far from the government and Nicholas I. They were already organized into two well-known camps of “Westerners” and “Slavophiles”. It turned out that both of these camps were equally alien to the government circle, equally far from its views and works, and equally suspicious of it. It is not surprising that the Westerners found themselves in this situation. Admiring Western culture, they judged Russian reality from the heights of European philosophy and political theories; they, of course, found it backward and subject to merciless reform. It is more difficult to understand how the Slavophiles ended up in the opposition. More than once the government of Emperor Nicholas I (through the mouth of the Minister of Public Education Count S.S. Uvarov) announced its slogan: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. These same words could also be the slogan of the Slavophiles, for they pointed to those foundations of the original Russian order, church, political and social, the clarification of which was the task of the Slavophiles. But the Slavophiles understood these fundamentals differently than the representatives of the “official nationality.” For the latter, the words “Orthodoxy” and “autocracy” meant the order that existed in modern times: the Slavophiles saw the ideal of Orthodoxy and autocracy in the Moscow era, where the church seemed to them independent of the state as a bearer of the conciliar principle, and the state seemed “zemsky”, in which belonged, according to K. Aksakov, “to the government the power of power, to the land – the power of opinion.” The Slavophiles considered the contemporary system to be perverted due to the dominance of bureaucracy in the sphere of church and state life. As for the term “nationality,” it officially meant only that set of traits of the dominant Russian tribe in the state, on which the given state order was based; Slavophiles, on the other hand, looked for features of the “national spirit” in all the Slavs and believed that the political system created by Peter the Great “comforts the national spirit,” and does not express it. Therefore, they treated all those whom the Slavophiles suspected of serving the “official nationality” with hostility; they stayed very far from official spheres, arousing not only suspicion, but also persecution.
As we see, the actions of Nicholas I, carried out in accordance with the theory of official nationality, were equally alien to both Slavophiles and Westerners. Both of these movements tried to interpret the “Uvarov” triad in their own way, which displeased Nicholas I.
The official ideology of Nikolaev Russia became the “theory of official nationality”, the author of which was the Minister of Education Count S.S. Uvarov, a highly educated man who set as his goal to combine the protective policy of Nicholas I with the development of education and culture of the state.
The basis of the theory was the “Uvarov trinity”: Orthodoxy – autocracy – nationality.
According to this theory, the Russian people are deeply religious and devoted to the throne, and Orthodox faith And autocracy constitute indispensable conditions for the existence of Russia. Features of the conclusions of S.S. Uvarov was to recognize autocracy as the only possible form of government in the Russian state. Serfdom was seen as an undeniable benefit for the people. The sacred nature of autocracy was emphasized, Orthodoxy was recognized as the only possible religion of the state, which meets all the needs of the people and ensures the inviolability of royal power. These postulates aimed to prove the impossibility and unnecessaryness of fundamental social changes in Russia, to explain the need to strengthen autocracy and serfdom
Nationality was understood as the need to adhere to one’s own traditions and reject foreign influence.
Russia, in accordance with the “theory of official nationality,” was supposed to look happy and peaceful.
Benckendorff said: “Russia’s past is amazing, its present is more than magnificent, as for its future, it is above everything that the most ardent imagination can imagine.”
The concept of “nationality” was considered by S. Uvarov as an original feature of the Russian people, as a primordial commitment to tsarist autocracy and serfdom.
The essence of Uvarov’s idea of Russian life was that Russia is a completely special state and a special nationality, unlike the states and nationalities of Europe. On this basis, it is distinguished by all the main features of national and state life: it is impossible to apply the demands and aspirations of European life to it. Russia should not repeat the Western path of development, based on revolutionary upheavals and despotic regimes; it is necessary to look for its own path, based on its own historical past and the characteristics of the current state of Russia. Guided by this principle, in state transformative activities Uvarov acted as a staunch supporter of Russia’s original evolutionary path in the general mainstream of world civilization. Russia has its own special institutions, with an ancient faith, it has preserved patriarchal virtues, little known to the peoples of the West. This concerned popular piety, complete trust of the people in the authorities and obedience, simplicity of morals and needs. Serfdom retained much of what was patriarchal: a good landowner better protects the interests of the peasants than they could themselves, gives them guaranteed housing and food, i.e., according to the theory of S.S. Uvarov’s conclusion is undeniable that the conditions of existence of the Russian peasant are better than the conditions of the Western worker.
The main political task is to curb the influx of new ideas into Russia. “Stable” serf Russia was contrasted with the restless West: “there” – riots and revolutions, “here” – order and peace.
The main thing in Uvarov’s “formula” is an indication of the need for any movement forward, for any reform aimed at further modernization and Europeanization of Russia, to take into account the originality and patriarchal nature of its way of life, the traditions on which the life of the entire people rests, and the indisputability of the power of the monarch.
Historian Andrei ZUBOV talked about Count Uvarov and his famous “triad” about the character himself, his views, personal qualities, and social circle. And also about what prompted him to create the formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” In the final part of the article, offered to the reader, the author comments on “each of the words” of the triad.
Andrey ZUBOV, column leader, Doctor of Historical Sciences, professor at MGIMO, executive editor of the two-volume “History of Russia. XX century":
- Sergei Semenovich Uvarov (1785-1855) - Minister of Public Education for 17 years (1833-1849), permanent President of the Academy of Sciences from 1818 until his death, elevated to count on July 1, 1846 - best known as the author formulas “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” But do we understand now, 180 years later, the meaning of this Uvarov triad, which is so often recalled by both politicians and publicists? In order to comprehend a thought, one must first know the person who expressed the thought. Now, when our people are again looking for themselves, gradually agreeing with the forgotten principle that “man does not live by bread alone,” it seems to me very timely to talk about this significant Russian statesman, scientist, and thinker.
 |
| Coat of arms of the Counts Uvarov |
He was a staunch opponent of the principle formulated by William Gladstone - “Only freedom can teach freedom.” “The liberation of the soul through enlightenment must precede the liberation of the body through legislation,” he asserts in his famous speech at the Pedagogical Institute. In a report of 1832, Uvarov writes: “In the current state of things and minds, it is impossible not to multiply the number of mental dams wherever possible. Not all of them, perhaps, will turn out to be equally firm, equally capable of fighting destructive concepts; but each of them can have its own relative merit, its own immediate success.”
Alexander I wanted to overtake the destructive propaganda of the socialists and the Illuminati and enlighten the people before they had time to revolt. Uvarov strives for the same thing. He formulates his principle - to protect the immature mind of the people with dams and at the same time give them “a correct, thorough education, necessary in our century,” combining it “with deep conviction and warm faith in the truly Russian protective principles of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality.” Uvarov realizes that this is “one of the most difficult tasks of our time.” But in a positive solution to this problem is “the last anchor of our salvation and the surest guarantee of the strength and greatness of our fatherland.”
And was Uvarov wrong? Did he, in formulating his principles in this way, pursue some kind of “narrow-class serfdom interests”, which was what he was accused of first by the leftist press of old Russia, and then by Soviet propaganda? After all, the victory of the Bolshevik conspiracy in 1917, a victory that destroyed Russia and plunged the Russian people into innumerable bloody torments, this victory was achieved precisely because of the savagery, lack of education of the overwhelming majority of Russian people and the one-sided, incorrect, non-religious and unpatriotic education of many of those whom They were usually called “intelligentsia” in Russia. “The irreligious detachment from the state, characteristic of the political worldview of the Russian intelligentsia, determined both its moral frivolity and its lack of efficiency in politics,” stated Pyotr Struve in 1909 in Vekhi.
Of course, the fact that Russian society has become anti-state and irreligious is a huge and predominant fault of the Russian imperial power itself. But the correction of the mistakes of the past was not at all about throwing away the humiliated Orthodox faith and the state disgraced by absolutism and serfdom, but in restoring the dignity of the Church as the Body of Christ, as “the pillar and affirmation of the Truth,” and in restoring the Russian people in their civil and political dignity. In the second quarter of the 19th century, few people thought so. Uvarov was one of them. Let us not forget that Uvarov consciously contrasted his “triad” with the triad of revolutionary France - freedom, equality, brotherhood. Let us briefly consider each of the words of the “triad”, probably deeply thought out and weighed by Uvarov.
Orthodoxy. We are not talking here about official external religiosity, nor about some kind of confessional chauvinism. This is something else: the atheism of the 18th century and the mockery of faith and the Church are rejected. It was typical for absolutism to consider religion only a means for the moral curbing of the common people, who were unable to be guided in their actions by pure reason and needed myths. Absolutism also demanded personal loyalty to the sovereign and did not justify this loyalty on any religious grounds. Absolute monarchy was declared a good in itself, as a rational fact. If religious sanction was proclaimed by absolute monarchs, it was only for simpletons.
Uvarov says otherwise. State power that is not based on faith in God, that is not in conformity with the prevailing confession among the people, and that does not proceed from this confession in its actions, is not God-given legal power, but usurpation. And such usurpation will either be stopped by society itself, or will destroy it. In the article “A General View of the Philosophy of Literature,” as was customary due to censorship circumstances of the time, replacing the word “politics” with the word “literature,” Uvarov writes: “If literature throws off the providential bonds of Christian morality, it will destroy itself with its own hands, for Christianity brings ideas without which society, such as it is, cannot exist for a moment.” He warns: “Without love for the faith of their ancestors, the people, like the individual, must perish.”
Uvarov is quite sincere here. Historian S.M. Solovyov did not hesitate to assert that “Uvarov is an atheist, who does not believe in Christ even in a Protestant way.” This is clearly not true. The same as his other statement that “in his entire life Uvarov has not read a single Russian book.” Generally bilious and often biased in his judgments about his contemporaries, Soloviev was especially bilious and extremely biased towards Uvarov, who in the first years of the historian’s scientific career did him every favor and until the last days of his life highly valued his talent. We simply don’t know anything about Uvarov’s personal piety, but nowhere did he show himself to be a religious skeptic, much less an “atheist.” In Uvarov's scientific research, much attention is paid to the transition from Greek paganism to Christianity, from Neoplatonism to the patristic worldview, and he always emphasizes the significance of this transition. Uvarov devotes a special work to an interesting author of the 5th century, Nonnus of Panopolitan, the author of two surviving poems, “The Acts of Dionysus” and “The Gospel of John,” arranged in hexameters*. The conversion of a highly educated pagan mystic to the most sublime Christianity and the perfect formulation of this conversion in a hexametric poem was most likely close to Uvarov himself. The Christian faith in Uvarov’s scientific constructions always appears as the highest achievement of the human spirit, as the final result of spiritual development, to which humanity has long been moving through the speculations of India, the Greek mysteries, the searches of Plato, Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus, Nonna.
That is why, and not because of the political predilections of Nicholas’s reign, Uvarov puts “Orthodoxy” in his triad. Orthodoxy was valued by Uvarov not only as the Russian national version of Christianity and his personal faith - he saw in Orthodoxy the cultural foundation, the heritage of Greek antiquity, which the Latin West was deprived of. The culture of Ancient India, which was just beginning to open up to Europe as a related European Aryan civilization, the processing of the Indian tradition by pagan Greek antiquity and, finally, the flowering of the entire previous culture and its moral and religious completion in the Greek version of Christianity - Orthodoxy - this is the treasure that Uvarov sought to transfer to Russia. Let us not forget that Uvarov was a student and correspondent of Friedrich Schlegel, who in 1808 published the famous work “On the Language and Worldview of the Indians,” in which he shocked the European cultural world with proof that the cultural ideas of the West were ultimately of Indo-Aryan origin. Uvarov plans to create an Asian Academy and a little later creates the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages in Moscow to develop oriental knowledge. He convinces Batyushkov, Zhukovsky, Gnedich, Dashkov to return Russia to its ancient heritage, translate classics from Greek, and in 1820 publishes a Greek poetic anthology. The great work of translating the Iliad and Odyssey into Russian hexameter was carried out by Gnedich and Zhukovsky with the constant caring support of Uvarov, which both translators write about in the prefaces to the first editions of the poems they translated. Uvarov himself has been studying Greek from Friedrich Gröfe for 15 years and masters it perfectly. All this is only the basis necessary for Russia to accept its rightful heritage - Orthodoxy in all its spiritual and cultural fullness. Not a pseudo-Orthodox ritual belief, but, in the words of the Apostle, “the wisdom of God, secret, hidden, which God ordained before the ages for our glory” (1 Cor. 2:7).
This is the cultural aspect of the “orthodoxy” of the triune formula. But there is also a political aspect. Uvarov puts Orthodoxy before autocracy. A liberty unheard of in absolutism. Christianity must limit the autocracy of monarchs. Christian law is higher than royal law. Uvarov was confident that a cultural Orthodox society would naturally limit autocracy, give it a framework, and, on the other hand, would create a moral framework for itself.
It is no coincidence that in contrasting Uvarov’s formula with the revolutionary French one, “Orthodoxy” corresponds to “freedom.” True freedom without Christ, without faith, without love for one’s neighbor is impossible in principle. Such freedom is only self-delusion. The French Revolution, by proclaiming freedom as its principle, enslaved more people than any of the old royal orders. Man has become a slave of fear, a hostage of the guillotine, a captive of insane ideologies. And I had to pay for freedom of spirit with my life. Uvarov was confident that deep Orthodox education was the only reliable basis for political and civil freedom. He did not oppose Orthodoxy to freedom, but created freedom through Orthodoxy.
Autocracy for Uvarov was not at all synonymous with monarchical absolutism. In his political essays, Uvarov always emphasized that absolutism is an imperfect political form. Sometimes he called it forced, sometimes imposed. He believed that the ideal form was a constitutional monarchy. The “Russian system”, developed by Uvarov during the reign of Alexander I, assumed a progressive movement from an absolute monarchy to a “mature” parliamentary state, the model of which for the thinker was Great Britain, with its unwritten constitution, and France after the restoration, with the constitutional charter of 1814. How the learned philologist Uvarov knew very well that in Greek the word “autocrat” - “autocrat” was understood not in the sense of “absolute monarch”, but in the sense of an independent, capable subject, not limited by anyone, for example, a young man who has left tutelage, or a state not subordinate to any other. A fanatical adherent of unlimited absolutism, Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich could put his own meaning into the understanding of the second member of Uvarov’s triad and really did put it, especially since he was not strong in classical languages. Uvarov knew this, did not dissuade the king, but he himself acted in accordance with a deeper and more correct understanding of the term. He knew that “history is the supreme judgment of peoples and kings”, that “the spirit of the times, like the formidable Sphinx, devours those who do not comprehend the meaning of its prophecies” and that “it is reckless to try to imprison a mature youth in the narrow confines of an infant’s cradle.”
At the end of the 1840s. Uvarov publicizes his dispute with the Corsican nobleman, Napoleon’s sworn enemy, the ideologist of unlimited absolutism, Count Pozzo di Borgo, in which he blames him for “an irresistible aversion to the democratic element.” He explains his commitment to this democratic element this way: all people are equal before God, all are children of their Creator, and therefore have equal personal dignity.
It was not by chance that Uvarov placed autocracy against the French ugalitu. Here again, as in the case of Orthodoxy and freedom, there is not opposition, but addition. Uvarov was convinced that a republic, whether democratic or aristocratic, generates extreme inequality, and as a result, rebellion. The monarch, as a hereditary ruler, is equally distant from all his subjects and equally close to everyone. A monarch, but only a wise and God-fearing monarch, will be able to preserve true equality among the people - equality before the supreme power. Natural abilities, origin, connections, luck always create inequality, and inequality, not restrained by a monarch independent of people, will try to strengthen and multiply itself. Without a king, the rich will become even richer, the poor - even poorer; those in power are even more powerful, those without power are even more powerless. Therefore, Uvarov was convinced, only monarchical autocracy is able to ensure equality, so natural for a Christian state. But autocracy must be controlled by the people. After all, the monarch may not turn out to be wise; he may, having enslaved himself to sin, lose the fear of God. In a sense, according to Uvarov, not only the monarch, but also every citizen who enjoys political rights should be autocratic and independent. What Uvarov meant by the concept of “autocracy” was an anticipation of the idea of a people's monarchy.
The third principle of the triad, “nationality,” remained just as misunderstood as the first two. “By nationality we meant only serfdom,” states Uvarov S.S. in the article. Brockhaus and Efron. The Uvarov “nationality” was dubbed “state-owned”. All this is infinitely far from Uvarov’s views. “Nationalism” is a general romantic principle of the early 19th century. The Romantics tried to carefully demonstrate what was inherent in their people, their own nationality, since distortions by foreign influences could harm the people’s soul and interfere with its natural maturation and development. But at the same time, the romantics clearly distinguished between the uniqueness of each people and the universality of world culture. The national soul is a European education. This was a principle common to romantics, and Uvarov followed it. He dreamed of developing the soul of the Russian people through proper European education and, tirelessly, worked to study the origins of Russian culture, looking for them in India, among the Greeks, in Platonism. Professor Mikhail Kachenovsky, who considered all Russian written sources of the pre-Tatar era to be a crude fake, ridiculed Uvarov for his inclusion of ancient Greek lyricists in Russian poetry. But Uvarov saw cultural and even linguistic continuity between the Hellenes and the Russians, and hoped that Russia, turning to its spiritual origins, would experience the Renaissance and acquire its own cultural foundations, perfect and lasting. He dreamed of seeing the Russians as a nation no less cultural, but at the same time no less original, than the Italians, British, Germans, and French. This was the main meaning of his concept of “nationality”. Reflecting on his activities after Uvarov’s death, Granovsky wrote: “The exceptional and harmful predominance of foreign ideas in the matter of education gave way to a system that emerged from a deep understanding of the Russian people and their needs... Indisputable facts prove how quickly our science has moved in these seventeen years and how much more independent and self-reliant it has become... Russia's mental connection with European education has not been weakened; but the attitude has changed to our benefit.”
At the beginning of the twentieth century, as if continuing the work of Uvarov, Sanskrit began to be added to the Greek and Latin languages in gymnasiums. 1917 stopped this national cultural construction and, having destroyed the cultural layer of society, turned the Russians into Mikhail Kachenovsky’s never-before-existent savages.
But Uvarov’s “nationality” also had political goals. Contrasting his concept with the republican French one, he puts nationality against “brotherhood” - fraternitu. You can declare that all people are brothers, but few will feel such kinship. The brotherhood within one people is much more noticeable. It is no coincidence that it is common for a civil war to be called fratricidal. One can reach universal brotherhood only through family, clan, and national brotherhood, that is, through “nationality.” If the lesson of Uvarov’s “nationality” had been more deeply learned, perhaps the higher and lower in Russia would have been able to reunite through mutual concessions, and we would not have reached the madness of multimillion-dollar fratricide in the twentieth century. But the Uvarov triad did not become the official ideology of Russia. Like her creator himself, she was rejected, and what was left of her outwardly was misrepresented.
Once upon a time, Pushkin and Uvarov were friends and comrades in the Arzamas brotherhood. Later their paths diverged. Uvarov was jealous of Pushkin’s fame, envied his informal, unburdened closeness to the Court, and the fact that, bypassing Uvarov, the Tsar himself declared himself the poet’s censor. Pushkin repaid Uvarov in kind: he called him a “big scoundrel,” mocked the minister in caustic and evil epigrams, even hinting at the theft of some “government firewood” by the rich man Uvarov. But, in reality, no one defined Uvarov’s principles, his triad, better than the brilliant poet in the famous sketch of 1830: “Two feelings are wonderfully close to us...” Autocracy is the independence of a person, based on nationality - love for the native hearth, for the tombs of the fathers - is rooted in the will of God Himself, in true Orthodoxy. Can you say it better?
*S.S.Ouvaroff. NonnosvonPanopolis, der Dichter. SPb. 1818.