Slavophilism. Essence and main ideas

Russian direction social thought, opposed to Westernism. Its adherents focused on the original development of Russia, its religious-historical and cultural-national identity and sought to prove that the Slavic world was called upon to renew Europe with its economic, everyday, moral and religious principles. The Westerners stood on the t.zr. the unity of humanity and the laws of its historical development and believed it was inevitable for Russia to follow the same historical paths as the Western European peoples who had gone ahead. At the heart of the socio-political differences between these two intellectual movements were deep philosophical differences. Florovsky wrote that “Slavophilism” and “Westernism” are very inaccurate names, which only give rise to misunderstandings and false interpretations. In any case, these are not only and not so much two historical and political ideologies, but two integral and irreducible worldviews" (Florovsky G. Ways of Russian Theology. Paris, 1937. P. 249). S. is a deeply religious doctrine that considers the church and faith as the foundation, the basis of all historical and social realities. For their part, representatives of Westernism were not distinguished by religiosity, in philosophical and historiosophical constructions they adhered to the ideas of secularism. S. as a worldview developed as a result of philosophical discussions with Westernism among the Russian nobility in the 30s and 40s 19th century Samarin wrote that both circles - Westerners and Slavophiles - met every day and formed, as it were, one society. Disputes were conducted around the main problem: whether the world is ruled by a freely creative will or the law of necessity. Questions were also discussed about what is the difference between the Russian and Western European Enlightenment - in the mere degree of development or in the very nature of the educational principles, and therefore whether Russia will have to borrow these principles from the West or look for them in the Orthodox-Russian, spiritual life. An important topic of debate, notes Samarin, was the question of the attitude of the Orthodox Church to Latinism and Protestantism: is Orthodoxy only a primitive environment, designed to become the basis for higher forms of religious worldview, or is it the intact fullness of revelation, edges in the West. the world, under the influence of Latin-German ideas, came to a bifurcation into opposite poles. S.'s supporters agreed that Russia had a mission to lay the foundations of a new pan-European enlightenment, based on truly Christian principles preserved in the bosom of Orthodoxy. Only Orthodoxy, in their opinion, is characterized by a free element of spirit, a striving for creativity, it is devoid of that obedience to necessity, which is characteristic of the Western European society with its rationalism and the dominance of material interests over spiritual ones, which ultimately led to disunity, individualism, the fragmentation of the spirit into its constituent elements. S.'s philosophical ideas received their justification and development in Ch. arr. in the works of Kireyevsky “On the nature of the enlightenment of Europe and its relation to the enlightenment of Russia” (1852), “On the need and possibility of new principles for philosophy” (1856) and Khomyakov “About Humboldt” (1849), “On the article of Kireyevsky “On the nature of the enlightenment of Europe and its relation to the enlightenment of Russia" (1852), "Notes of Kommersant World History", "Letters on Modern Philosophy" (1856), etc. The views of the main representatives of Slavophil philosophy - Kireevsky, Khomyakov, K. S. Aksakov, Samarin - at least 3 common features are characteristic. Firstly, this is the doctrine of the integrity of the spirit. Organic unity not only permeates the church, society and man, but is also an indispensable condition for the knowledge, education and practical activity of people. S. denied the possibility of comprehending truth through individual cognitive abilities of a person, be it feelings, reason or faith. Only the spirit in its living integrity is capable of containing the truth in its entirety, only the combination of all cognitive, aesthetic, emotional, moral and religious abilities with the obligatory participation of will and love opens up the opportunity to know the world as it is, in its living development, and not in the form of abstract concepts or sensory perceptions. Moreover, true knowledge is accessible not to an individual person, but only to such a collection of people united by a single love, that is, to a conciliar consciousness. The beginning of conciliarity in the philosophy of S. appears as a general metaphysical principle of being, although conciliarity characterizes primarily the church collective. The concept of conciliarity takes on a broad meaning in S., the church itself is understood as a kind of analogue of a cathedral society. Conciliarity is a multitude united by the power of love into a free and organic unity. Only in conciliar unity does a person acquire his true spiritual independence. Sobornost is the opposite of individualism, disunity and denies subordination to k.-l. authority, including the authority of church hierarchs, for its integral feature is the freedom of the individual, his voluntary and free entry into the church. Since truth is given only to the conciliar consciousness, then the true faith, according to the Slavophiles, is preserved only in the national conciliar consciousness. Secondly, the Slavophiles are characterized by the opposition of internal freedom to external necessity. All of them emphasized the primacy of freedom, emanating from a person’s inner convictions, and noted the negative role of external restrictions on human activity, the harmfulness of a person’s subordination to the dominance of external circumstances. S. sought to bring a person out from under the domination of external forces, principles of behavior imposed from outside; it advocated such behavior, which would be entirely determined by internal motives coming from the heart, spiritual and not material interests, since true upbringing and behavior are not subject to external necessity and are not justified by it. A person must be guided by his conscience, and not by a rationalistic determination of benefit. While rightly emphasizing the need for a conscientious principle, the Slavophiles at the same time underestimated the need for legal regulation of people's behavior. In the weakness of external legal forms and even in the complete absence of external legal order in Russia. They saw the positive, not the negative, side of social life. At the same time, they saw the depravity of Western European orders in the fact that Western. the society took the path of “external truth, the path of the state.” The third characteristic feature of the Slavophil worldview was its religiosity. Slavophiles believed that, ultimately, faith determines the movement of history, life, morality, and thinking. Therefore, the idea of ​​true faith and true church lay at the basis of all their philosophical constructions. Herzen, who highly valued Kireevsky’s intelligence and philosophical erudition, noted with bitterness that “between him (i.e. Kireevsky) and us there was a church wall” (Herzen A.I. Collected works: In 30 vol. M., 1956. T. 9. P. 159). The Slavophiles were convinced that only the Christian worldview and the Orthodox Church could lead humanity onto the path of salvation, that all the troubles and all the evil in the human community stem from the fact that humanity has moved away from the true faith and has not built a true church. However, they did not identify the historical church, that is, the really existing Russian church. the Orthodox Church, with that Orthodox Church of Paradise capable of becoming a single church of all believers. Christian motifs in the works of the Slavophiles had a great influence on the development of Russian culture. religious and philosophical thought. Mn. rus. historians of philosophy early XX century consider S. as the beginning of the development of distinctive and original Russian. philosophy, which put forward a number of new, original ideas, which were not developed in European philosophy before the Slavophiles, and if they were developed, then not with such completeness and thoroughness. Slavophiles did not deny the achievements of Western European culture; they highly valued the external development of the West. life, treated Western European science with deep respect. But their active rejection was caused by the dominance of individualism, disunity, fragmentation, isolation of the spiritual world of people, the subordination of spiritual life to external circumstances, the dominance of material interests over spiritual ones. All this, they believed, was a consequence of rationalism, which became predominant in the West. thinking due to waste. Christianity, i.e. Catholicism (Latinism, as Kireyevsky wrote), from the true Christian religion. Due to the fact that the Roman hierarchy introduced new dogmas into the faith, Kireyevsky reasoned, “that first bifurcation occurred in the very basic beginning of Western dogma, from which first scholastic philosophy developed within faith, then reformation within faith and, finally, philosophy outside faith. The first rationalists were scholastics; their offspring are called Hegelians" (Kireevsky I.V. Criticism and Aesthetics. M., 1979. P. 296). In the philosophy of Hegel, the Slavophiles saw the pinnacle of Western development. rationalism, with which both the achievements of the latter and its incurable vices became especially clearly visible. Chief among them is the destruction of the integrity of the human spirit, the absolutization of logical thinking, which, in their opinion, was separated in rationalism from other cognitive abilities and contrasted with them. Philosophical ideas of S. in the 60s. received their development in the ideology of pochvennichestvo, the main representatives of which were Dostoevsky, Grigoriev, Strakhov, and in the 70-80s. - in the works of Danilevsky and partly K.N. Leontiev.

Representatives of one of the directions of Russian. society thoughts sir. 19th century - Slavophilism, which appeared for the first time in the form of an integral system of views in 1839. They justified and approved the special path of history.

development of Russia, fundamentally different, in their opinion, from Western countries. Europe. S. saw the originality of Russia in the absence, as it seemed to them, of class in its history. struggle, in Russian land community and artels, in Orthodoxy, which S. represented as the only true Christianity. The same features of the original development of S., to a greater or lesser extent, were transferred to foreign Slavs, especially the southern ones; sympathy for the Crimea was one of the reasons for the name of the movement itself (S., i.e., Slav-lovers), given to them by Westerners - Ch. S.'s opponents in social and ideological disputes of the 30s and 40s. In addition, this name expressed the desire of Westerners to emphasize S.’s connections with literature. archaists like A.S. Shishkov, who was ironically called a Slavophile already in the 10s. 19th century In the spirit of Pan-Slavism, S. assigned tsarist Russia a leading role in relation to all glories. peace.

S. was characterized by denial. attitude to the revolution, monarchism and religious and philosophical concepts.

By origin and social status, the majority of S. belonged to the middle landowners, representing the noble intelligentsia; a few came from the merchant and raznochin environment, from the lower Orthodox clergy. The greatest role in the development of S.'s system of views in the 40-50s. played by A. S. Khomyakov, I. V. Kireevsky, partly by K. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin. Prominent S. were also P. V. Kireevsky, A. I. Koshelev, I. S. Aksakov, D. A. Valuev, F. V. Chizhov (1811-77), V. A. Panov (1819-49) , I. D. Belyaev, A. F. Gilferding, A. N. Popov, V. I. Lamansky, N. D. Ivanishev (1811-74), V. N. Leshkov (1810-81), N. A Popov. In the 50s V. A. Cherkassky joined S. They were close to S. in the 40-50s. writers V. I. Dal, S. T. Aksakov, A. N. Ostrovsky, A. A. Grigoriev, F. I. Tyutchev, N. M. Yazykov. F. I. Buslaev, O. M. Bodyansky, V. I. Grigorovich, I. I. Sreznevsky, M. A. Maksimovich, N. A. Rigelman, G. P. Galagan paid great tribute to S.’s views.

The center of S. was Moscow, its lit. salons of A. A. and A. P. Elagin, D. N. and E. A. Sverbeev, N. R. and K. K. Pavlov, where S. communicated and encountered disputes with Westerners. Under the conditions of the Nikolaev reaction, S. did not have the opportunity to clearly and fully express their views, which aroused suspicion among the government, were subject to censorship harassment, some of the S. were under police surveillance, and found themselves under arrest for a short time (Samarin, Chizhov, I. S. Aksakov). S. did not have a permanent printed organ for a long time, ch. arr. due to censorship barriers. Pre-printed in "Moskvityanin"; from a distance several collections of articles - "Sinbirsky collection", 1844, "Collection of historical and statistical information about Russia and the peoples of the same faith and tribes", 1845, "Moscow collections", 1846, 1847 and 1852. After the death of Nicholas I and a certain to soften the censorship oppression, S. began to publish their own magazines “Russian Conversation” (1856-60), “Rural Improvement” (1858-59) and newspapers “Molva” (1857), “Parus” (1859) and later “Den” (1861-65, with the appendix of the newspaper "Shareholder"), "Moscow" (1867-68), "Moskvich" (1867-68), "Rus" (1880-85), etc.

Ideological S.'s constructions were generated by Russian. reality inherent in it in the 30-50s. contradictions. The influence of idealism also affected S.’s views. philosophical systems of F. Schelling and G. Hegel, ethical. and aesthetic doctrines of conservative German. romanticism, religious-mystical Eastern teachings Church Fathers, French ist. and socio-political. Literatures of the 20-40s. S.'s views have undergone a noticeable evolution. If in the 40-50s. it was a unified system of views, although not without contradictions, then after the 60s. there was none. Khomyakov, br. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov died before 1861. Main. representatives of S. in the reforms. time - I. S. Aksakov, Samarin, N. Ya. Danilevsky, Koshelev, Cherkassky, differed widely and widely among themselves. Ultimately, objectively, the interests of those noble landowners, whose life, economy and way of life were under the determining influence of capitalism, found expression in S.’s ideology. relations that strengthened during the era of the fall of serfdom in Russia. This was the ideology of the bourgeois-landowner class. essentially moderately liberal in its political orientation. According to Ch. Russian question In reality, that is, on the issue of serfdom, S. took a very definite liberal position, already from the end. 30s advocating decisively for the abolition of serfdom “from above” with the provision of lands to the communities of the liberated peasants. plots for ransom in favor of landowners. Samarin, Koshelev and Cherkassky were among the chapters. figures preparing and carrying out the cross. reforms of 1861. During the years of this reform, complete closeness between S. and the Westerners was practically established: both then represented the mutually converging interests of the liberal nobles and the bourgeoisie.

In ideological disputes of the 40-50s. on the most important issue about the path of history. Russia's development, S. opposed the Westernizers and opposed broad rapprochement with the West. Europe and Russia’s rapid assimilation of Western European forms and techniques. political life and order. In the S.'s struggle against Europeanization, their conservatism was evident. At the same time, S. spoke out for the development of trade and industry, joint stock company. and banking, for the construction of railways. and the use of machines in the village. x-ve. S. attached great importance to societies. opinion (by Crimea was meant the public opinion of the enlightened liberal-bourgeois, propertied sections of the population), they advocated the convening of a Zemsky Sobor (Duma) from elected representatives of all societies. layers, but at the same time objected to the constitution and the k.-l. formal restrictions on autocracy. In the spirit of liberal ideology, S. defended the free expression of societies. opinions, sought the development of openness, the elimination of censorship, the establishment of a public court with the participation of elected representatives of the population, and opposed corporal punishment and the death penalty.

East. S.'s views, fundamentally idealistic, were inherent in the spirit of romanticism. historiography idealization of old, pre-Petrine Rus' with its supposedly peaceful, patriarchal, ignorant socio-political. struggle of societies by system. Ancient Rus' S. was represented by harmonious. a society devoid of contradictions, not knowing internal upheavals, demonstrating the unity of the people and the king, the “land”, “zemshchina” and the state, “power”. Peter I S. was accused of arbitrary violation of organic. ist. development of Russia, violence. the introduction of alien Russians. beginnings of Western-European ideas, forms, orders, morals and tastes. Since the time of Peter I, according to S., the “authorities”, the state, have opposed themselves to the “zemshchina”, the state of Imperial Russia has risen above the people, the nobility and intelligentsia have broken away from the people. life, having unilaterally and externally adopted Western European. culture, neglecting the native language and way of life. life. Meanwhile, it is “the common people who are the foundation of the entire social building of the country” (Aksakov K.S., cited in the book: Brodsky N.L., Early Slavophiles, M., 1910, p. 112). But the people were interpreted by S. in the spirit of German conservative romanticism, in the spirit of the school of F. Savigny; idealizing patriarchy and the principles of traditionalism, S. was arbitrarily attributed a special, essentially ahistorical.

Slavophilism

Russian character "people's spirit" S. M. Soloviev in Art. “Schletser and the anti-historical direction” (1857), directed against history. constructions of S., rightly pointed out the denial of S. with such an understanding of the people of any possibility of history. development. But, based on idealism. ideas about the unchanging “national spirit”, S. called on the intelligentsia to get closer to the people, to study their life and way of life, culture and language. These calls are practical. the activities of S. themselves in collecting Russian cultural monuments. people were important, contributed to the awakening of the national. self-awareness. S. did a lot to collect and preserve Russian monuments. culture and language (collection of folk songs by P. V. Kireevsky, Dahl’s dictionary of the living Great Russian language, etc.). They (especially Belyaev, partly Samarin and others) laid a solid foundation in Russian. historiography, the study of the history of the peasantry in Russia. S. made a significant contribution to the development of Slavic studies in Russia, to the development, strengthening and revitalization of literary and scientific ties between the Russian public and foreign Slavs; they played the main role in the creation and activities of Slavic committees in Russia in 1858-1878.

With criticism of the historian. S.'s views were advocated in the 40-50s. S. M. Solovyov, K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin. With revolutionary-democratic S.'s positions were criticized by V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov. For the pre-revolutionaries rus. historiography (A. N. Pypin, P. N. Milyukov, N. P. Kolyupanov, M. O. Gershenzon, S. A. Vengerov) was characterized by the reduction of the entire social and ideological struggle in Russia in the middle. 19th century exclusively to the disputes between S. and Westerners. In the “History of Russian Social Thought” by R.V. Ivanov-Razumnik, S. and Westerners were portrayed as representatives of the intelligentsia “in general,” outside the class, outside the class. group that fought against the reaction. forces of the “era of official philistinism”, their disputes were presented as a “great schism” in Russian history. intelligentsia. G.V. Plekhanov was one of the first to try to determine the class. the nature of S.’s views. But in his “History of Russian Social Thought,” Plekhanov scientifically and unlawfully used the terms “Westernism” and “Slavophilism,” applying them to historical. Russian development process society thoughts since the 17th century. It is also unlawful to identify S.’s views with the official theory. nationality, which Plekhanov had and sometimes manifests itself in the works of individual owls. historians. Some authors (V. Ya. Bogucharsky, N. S. Rusanov, P. B. Struve and N. A. Berdyaev) tried to establish ideological-genetic. connections between S. and populism, between Westerners and Russians. Marxists; these attempts are scientifically untenable.

Many provisions are Russian. pre-revolutionary historiography about S. was inherited by modern bourgeois. Western-European and Amer. authors (E. Lempert, O. Clark, R. Tompkins, G. Kohn, etc.). Partially, these provisions spread to the West through the works of Russian. emigrants (N.A. Berdyaev, G.V. Vernadsky, V.V. Zenkovsky, etc.). Means. Socialist historians and sociologists are interested in studying Slavic ideology, especially their connections with foreign Slavs. countries The Polish historian A. Walitsky analyzed S.'s worldview as a whole, presenting it as one of the manifestations of a “conservative utopia”; S.'s ideas and worldview are analyzed by him in comparison with other ideas and types of worldviews, but in isolation from real society and politics. S.’s activities, which reduces the significance and scientific validity of such an analysis.

Sov. historians, historians of philosophy, literature, economics. thoughts (A. G. Dementyev, S. S. Dmitriev, S. I. Mashinsky, S. A. Nikitin, A. S. Nifontov, N. L. Rubinshtein, N. G. Sladkevich, N. A. Tsagolov) studied social-political, economic, philosophical, literary-aesthetic. and ist. S.'s views, their activities, journalism and artistic literature. inheritance. In recent decades, a significant number of new sources on the history of S. have been identified and published.

Lit.: Lenin V.I., Economic. the content of populism and its criticism in Mr. Struve’s book, Complete. collection op., 5th ed., vol. 1 (vol. 1); him, More on the question of the theory of implementation, ibid., vol. 4 (vol. 4); him, Persecutors of Zemstvo and Annibals of Liberalism, ibid., vol. 5 (vol. 5); Chernyshevsky N. G., Essays on the Gogol period in Russian. liters, Full. collection op. t. 3, M., 1947; by him, Notes on journals of 1857, ibid., vol. 4, M., 1948; his, People's stupidity, in the same place, vol. 7, M., 1950; Kostomarov N.I., On the importance of criticality. works of K. Aksakov in Russian. history, St. Petersburg, 1861; Pypin A.N., Characteristics of lit. opinions from the 20s to the 50s, 3rd ed., St. Petersburg, 1906; Linitsky P., Slavophilism and liberalism, K., 1882; Maksimovich G. A., The teaching of the first Slavophiles, K., 1907; Brodsky N. L., Early Slavophiles, M., 1910; Gershenzon M., Historical. notes about Russian society, M., 1910; Plekhanov G.V., Westerners and Slavophiles, Soch., vol. 23, M.-L., 1926; Rubinstein N., Historical. theory of Slavophiles and its class. roots, in the book: Rus. historical liters per class. Illumination, g. 1, M., 1927; Derzhavin N., Herzen and the Slavophiles, “Marxist Historian”, 1939, No. 1; Dmitriev S.S., Slavophiles and Slavophilism, ibid., 1941, No. 1; him, Rus. public and the seven hundredth anniversary of Moscow (1847), IZ, vol. 36, M., 1951; his, The approach should be concrete-historical, "Questions of Literature", 1969, No. 12; Dementiev A.G., Essays on Russian history. journalism 1840-1850, M.-L., 1951; Tsagolov N. A., Essays in Russian. economical thoughts of the period of the fall of serfdom, M., 1956; Pokrovsky S. A., Falsification of Russian history. political thoughts in modern times reaction bourgeois Literature, M., 1957; Nikitin S. A., Slav. to-you in Russia in 1858-1876, M., 1960; Sladkevich N. G., Essays on the history of societies. thoughts of Russia in con. 50s - early 60s XIX, century, L., 1962; Gillelson M., Letters from Zhukovsky about the ban on “European”, “Russian Literature”, 1965, No. 4; him, Unknown journalists. speeches by P. A. Vyazemsky and I. V. Kireevsky, ibid., 1966, No. 4; Lit. criticism of the early Slavophiles. Discussion, "Questions of Literature", 1969, NoNo 5, 7, 10, 12; Gratieux A., A. S. Khomiakov et le mouvement Slavophile, t. 1-2, P., 1939; Christoff P. K., An introduction to nineteenth-century Russian Slavophilism, v. 1, A. S. Xhomjakov, The Hague, 1961; Walicki A., W kregu konserwatywnej utopii, Warsz., 1964.

S. S. Dmitriev. Moscow.

Slavophiles - briefly

Slavophiles are representatives of Slavophilism - a socio-political movement of the Russian intelligentsia of the 19th century, proclaiming a special path of development of Rus', unlike Western countries; Orthodoxy, as a true religion as opposed to Catholicism, the existence of a certain exceptional Russian civilization, distinguished by its special spirituality

History of the Slavophiles

Wikipedia dates the beginning of Slavophilism to the end of the 15th - mid-16th centuries, when in Rus' in religious circles a discussion developed between two camps: the “Josephites” and the Volga elders. But that “Slavophilism” did not overcome the boundaries of the church community and did not attract the attention of the public (if there was one at all in Rus' at that time). “Classical” Slavophilism is a product of the development of social processes in the first third of the 19th century.

The campaigns of Russian armies in Europe during the Napoleonic wars allowed many Russians, who had not previously known European reality, to see and appreciate it firsthand. Educated Russian officers discovered that in terms of comfort, order, civilization, and pleasant life, Europe was ahead of Russia. The slogans of the Great French Revolution, the ideas of the encyclopedists, and parliamentarism had a significant influence on the leading Russian people. The Decembrist uprising is the result of these observations, reflections, and disputes. Moreover, the Decembrists were not some kind of closed sect, a small group, but were representatives of a significant part of the Russian noble intelligentsia, which could not but frighten the authorities.

During the same period, after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Europe was swept by a wave of nationalism. Peoples, especially those that were either under the yoke of other, not their own monarchies: Greeks, Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, or fragmented between many small states: Germans, Italians - “suddenly” realized their exclusivity, uniqueness, difference from others, gained a sense of national dignity, discovered a common historical destiny, language, and traditions. European trends have not bypassed Russia either. A manifestation of Russian nationalism was the widespread opinion among some intellectuals that the reason for the backwardness and inferiority of Rus'

“The receptive character of the Slavs, their femininity, lack of initiative and great ability to assimilate and plasticize make them primarily a people in need of other peoples; they are not completely self-sufficient” (A. Herzen)

is the activity of Peter the Great, who tried to establish European orders in Russia, that is, the pernicious influence of the West. The autocracy secretly supported such judgments, although the criticism of the great ancestor by the Romanovs was unpleasant, and there were quite a few Germans among the highest dignitaries of the Empire.

Views of the Slavophiles

• The ideal state is pre-Petrine Rus'
• Ideal social structure - peasant community
• The Russian people are God-bearers
• Orthodoxy is the only true religion in Christianity
• Europe is a center of debauchery, revolutions, religious heresies

The essence of the ideas of the Slavophiles, Slavophilism is the affirmation of the existence of a special Russian civilization, differing in the laws of development from other Christian countries and peoples

Criticism of the Slavophiles by Herzen

- “The state life of pre-Petrine Russia was ugly, poor, wild”
- “(Slavophiles) believed that sharing the prejudices of the people means being in unity with them, that sacrificing one’s reason, instead of developing reason among the people, is a great act of humility.”
- “To return to the village, to the artel of workers, to the secular gathering, to the Cossacks is another matter; but to return not in order to consolidate them in motionless Asian crystallizations, but in order to develop, free the principles on which they are based, to cleanse them of all sediment, distortion, of the wild meat with which they have become overgrown.”
- “The mistake of the Slavs was that it seemed to them that Russia once had its own development, obscured by various events and, finally, by the St. Petersburg period. Russia has never had this development and could not have it.”
- “The idea of ​​nationality is a conservative idea - protecting one’s rights, opposing oneself to another; it contains both the Judaic concept of the superiority of the tribe, and aristocratic claims to purity of blood and primacy. The nationality, like a banner, like a battle cry, is only surrounded by a revolutionary aura when the people fight for independence, when they overthrow the foreign yoke.”
- “One powerful thought of the West... is able to fertilize the embryos dormant in the patriarchal Slavic life. The artel and the rural community, the division of profits and the division of fields, the secular gathering and the union of villages into volosts governing themselves - all these are the cornerstones on which the temple of our future free communal life is built. But these cornerstones are still stones... and without Western thought our future cathedral would remain with the same foundation.”

Representatives of the Slavophiles

• I. S. Aksakov (1823-1886) - publicist, poet
• K. S. Aksakov (1817-1860) - publicist, historian, writer
• S. P. Shevyrev (1806-1864) - historian, literary critic, journalist, professor at Moscow University
• A. S. Khomyakov (1804-1860) - poet
• P. V. Kireevsky (1808-1856) - folklorist, writer
• M. P. Pogodin (1800-1848) - historian, journalist, publicist
• Yu. F. Samarin (1819-1876) - publicist
• F. V. Chizhov (1811-1877) - industrialist, public figure, scientist
• V. I. Dal (1801-1872) - scientist, writer and lexicographer

The printed organ of the Slavophiles - “Moskvityatnin”

Magazine "Moskvityanin"

The magazine “Moskvitatnin”, in which Slavophiles presented their ideas, was published from 1841 to 1856. Until 1849 it was published once a month, then twice a month. “Moskvitatnin” was published by M. P. Pogodin, and he also edited it. The main employees of “Moskvityanin” were S. P. Shevyrev, F. N. Glinka, M. A. Dmitriev, I. I. Davydov. In 1850, “Moskvitatnin” began to be published by the so-called “young editors” - A. Ostrovsky, A.

Russian philosophy of the 19th century Westernism and Slavophilism

Grigoriev, E. Edelson, B. Almazov. Collaborators with the magazine were A. I. Artemyev, A. F. Veltman, P. A. Vyazemsky, F. N. Glinka, N. V. Gogol (scenes from “The Government Inspector”, “Rome”), V. I. Dal, V. A. Zhukovsky, M. N. Zagoskin, N. M. Yazykov...
- In 1849, the magazine published articles on literature and history, numerous literary works: prose and poetry. The standard section includes critical notes and various news sections.
- In 1850 - articles devoted to reviews of domestic and foreign history and literature, poems and prose, various critical notes, articles on art history, news from the world of politics and science, epistolary works, etc.
- In 1851 - biographical descriptions, stories, novellas and poems, notes on the history of Russia, European and domestic news, data on ethnography.
- In 1852, the magazine contained prose and poetry, foreign literature, science (articles on history), historical materials, criticism and bibliography, journalism, foreign books, modern news, news from Moscow and various articles.
- In 1853 - various literary works: poems and stories, various critical notes, contemporary news about the life of European countries, historical articles, information on foreign literature.
- In 1854 - literary works, critical notes, information on the history of Russia, modern notes, various geographical data, experiments with biographical characteristics.
- In 1855 - articles on geography, literature, art history, Russian history, religion, the history of the Orthodox Church, various literary works - poems, stories and short stories, works on the history of the exact sciences.
- In 1856 - materials on the history of Russia, literary criticism and philology, philosophy, modern politics of European states, materials for the biography of Suvorov, various letters and notes, news from Moscow and the Russian Empire as a whole, news about holidays and much more.

Ideas of the Slavophiles today

The ideas of the Slavophiles were popular during the reign of Nicholas I, but with the coming to power of his son, the liberal Tsar-Liberator Alexander II, they lost their charm. Indeed, under Alexander, Russia firmly and confidently took the road of capitalist development along which the countries of Europe were moving, and walked along it so successfully that the views of the Slavophiles about some special path for Russia looked like an anachronism. The First World War stopped Russia's victorious march towards capitalism, and the February and October revolutions of 1917 completely turned the country back. The attempt to return to the high road of human development, undertaken in the 90s of the last century, failed. And here the ideas of Aksakov and the company were very useful. After all, the Slavophiles, today they are called patriots in contrast to Westerners - liberals, clearly and most importantly, flattering the pride of the people, proclaim that they cannot be an equal and respected member of the Western community because it, this community is deceitful, depraved, weak, cowardly, hypocritical and two-faced, in contrast to the Russian - brave, wise, proud, courageous, direct and honest; that Russia has a special path of development, a special history, traditions, spirituality

Westerners and Slavophiles

When the caravan turns back, a lame camel is ahead

Eastern wisdom

The two dominant philosophical thoughts in Russia in the 19th century were Westerners and Slavophiles. This was an important debate from the point of view of choosing not only the future of Russia, but also its foundations and traditions. This is not just a choice of which part of civilization this or that society belongs to, it is a choice of a path, a determination of the vector of future development. In Russian society, back in the 19th century, there was a fundamental split in views on the future of the state: some considered the states of Western Europe as an example for inheritance, the other part argued that the Russian Empire should have its own special model of development. These two ideologies went down in history, respectively, as “Westernism” and “Slavophilism.” However, the roots of the opposition of these views and the conflict itself cannot be limited only to the 19th century. To understand the situation, as well as the influence of ideas on today's society, it is necessary to delve a little deeper into history and expand the time context.

The roots of the emergence of Slavophiles and Westerners

It is generally accepted that the split in society over the choice of their path or the inheritance of Europe was brought about by the Tsar, and later by Emperor Peter 1, who tried to modernize the country in a European way and, as a result, brought to Rus' many ways and foundations that were characteristic exclusively of Western society. But this was only one, extremely striking example of how the issue of choice was decided by force, and this decision was imposed on the entire society. However, the history of the dispute is much more complex.

Origins of Slavophilism

First, you need to understand the roots of the appearance of Slavophiles in Russian society:

1. Religious values.
2. Moscow is the third Rome.
3. Peter's reforms

Religious values

Historians discovered the first dispute about the choice of development path in the 15th century. It took place around religious values. The fact is that in 1453 Constantinople, the center of Orthodoxy, was captured by the Turks. The authority of the local patriarch was falling, there was more and more talk that the priests of Byzantium were losing their “righteous moral character,” and in Catholic Europe this had been happening for a long time. Consequently, the Muscovite kingdom must protect itself from the church influence of these camps and carry out cleansing (“hesychasm”) from things unnecessary for a righteous life, including from “worldly vanity.” The opening of the patriarchate in Moscow in 1587 was proof that Russia has the right to “its own” church.

Moscow is the third Rome

Further definition of the need for one’s own path is associated with the 16th century, when the idea was born that “Moscow is the third Rome,” and therefore should dictate its own model of development. This model was based on the “gathering of Russian lands” to protect them from the harmful influence of Catholicism. Then the concept of “Holy Rus'” was born. Church and political ideas merged into one.

Peter's reform activities

Peter's reforms at the beginning of the 18th century were not understood by all his subjects. Many were convinced that these were measures that Russia did not need. In certain circles, there was even a rumor that the tsar was replaced during his visit to Europe, because “a real Russian monarch will never adopt alien orders.” Peter's reforms split society into supporters and opponents, which created the preconditions for the formation of “Slavophiles” and “Westerners.”

Origins of Westernism

As for the roots of the emergence of the ideas of Westerners, in addition to the above reforms of Peter, several more important facts should be highlighted:

• Discovery of Western Europe. As soon as subjects of Russian monarchs discovered the countries of the “other” Europe during the 16th-18th centuries, they understood the difference between the regions of Western and Eastern Europe. They began to ask questions about the reasons for the lag, as well as ways to solve this complex economic, social and political problem. Peter was under the influence of Europe; after his “foreign” campaign during the war with Napoleon, many nobles and intelligentsia began to create secret organizations, the purpose of which was to discuss future reforms using the example of Europe. The most famous such organization was the Decembrist Society.
• Ideas of the Enlightenment. This is the 18th century, when European thinkers (Rousseau, Montesquieu, Diderot) expressed ideas about universal equality, the spread of education, and also about limiting the power of the monarch. These ideas quickly found their way to Russia, especially after the opening of universities there.

The essence of ideology and its significance

Slavophilism and Westernism, as a system of views on the past and future of Russia, arose in the years 1830-1840. The writer and philosopher Alexei Khomyakov is considered one of the founders of Slavophilism. During this period, two newspapers were published in Moscow, which were considered the “voice” of the Slavophiles: “Moskvityanin” and “Russian Conversation”. All articles in these newspapers are full of conservative ideas, criticism of Peter’s reforms, as well as reflections on “Russia’s own path.”

One of the first ideological Westerners is considered to be the writer A. Radishchev, who ridiculed the backwardness of Russia, hinting that this was not a special path at all, but simply a lack of development. In the 1830s, P. Chaadaev, I. Turgenev, S. Soloviev and others criticized Russian society. Since the Russian autocracy was unpleasant to hear criticism, it was more difficult for Westerners than for Slavophiles. That is why some representatives of this movement left Russia.

Common and distinctive views of Westerners and Slavophiles

Historians and philosophers who study Westerners and Slavophiles identify the following subjects for discussion between these movements:

• Civilizational choice. For Westerners, Europe is the standard of development. For Slavophiles, Europe is an example of moral decline, a source of harmful ideas. Therefore, the latter insisted on a special path of development of the Russian state, which should have a “Slavic and Orthodox character.”
• The role of the individual and the state. Westerners are characterized by the ideas of liberalism, that is, individual freedom, its primacy over the state. For Slavophiles, the main thing is the state, and the individual must serve the general idea.
• The personality of the monarch and his status. Among Westerners there were two views on the monarch in the empire: either it should be removed (republican form of government) or limited (constitutional and parliamentary monarchy). Slavophiles believed that absolutism is a truly Slavic form of government, the constitution and parliament are political instruments alien to the Slavs. A striking example of this view of the monarch is the 1897 population census, where the last emperor of the Russian Empire indicated “owner of the Russian land” in the “occupation” column.
• Peasantry. Both movements agreed that serfdom was a relic, a sign of Russia’s backwardness. But the Slavophiles called for its elimination “from above,” that is, with the participation of the authorities and nobles, and Westerners called for listening to the opinions of the peasants themselves. In addition, the Slavophiles said that the peasant community is the best form of land management and farming. For Westerners, the community needs to be dissolved and a private farmer created (which is what P. Stolypin tried to do in 1906-1911).
• Freedom of information. According to Slavophiles, censorship is a normal thing if it is in the interests of the state.

  Westerners and Slavophiles

  Westerners advocated freedom of the press, the free right to choose a language, etc.

• Religion. This is one of the main points of the Slavophiles, since Orthodoxy is the basis of the Russian state, “Holy Rus'”. It is Orthodox values ​​that Russia must protect, and therefore it should not adopt the experience of Europe, because it will violate Orthodox canons. A reflection of these views was Count Uvarov’s concept of “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality,” which became the basis for the construction of Russia in the 19th century. For Westerners, religion was not something special; many even talked about freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

Transformation of ideas in the 20th century

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, these two trends underwent a complex evolution and were transformed into directions and political movements. The theory of the Slavophiles, in the understanding of some intelligentsia, began to transform into the idea of ​​“Pan-Slavism”. It is based on the idea of ​​uniting all Slavs (possibly only Orthodox) under one flag of one state (Russia). Or another example: the chauvinistic and monarchist organizations “Black Hundreds” arose from Slavophilism. This is an example of a radical organization. The constitutional democrats (cadets) accepted some of the ideas of the Westerners. For the socialist revolutionaries (Socialist Revolutionaries), Russia had its own model of development. The RSDLP (Bolsheviks) changed their views on the future of Russia: before the revolution, Lenin argued that Russia should follow the path of Europe, but after 1917 he declared his own, special path for the country. In fact, the entire history of the USSR is the implementation of the idea of ​​one’s own path, but in the understanding of the ideologists of communism. The influence of the Soviet Union in the countries of central Europe is an attempt to implement the same idea of ​​​​pan-Slavism, but in a communist form.

Thus, the views of Slavophiles and Westerners were formed over a long period of time. These are complex ideologies based on the choice of a value system. These ideas went through a complex transformation throughout the 19th-20th centuries and became the basis of many political movements in Russia. But it is worth recognizing that Slavophiles and Westerners are not a unique phenomenon in Russia. As history shows, in all countries that lagged behind in development, society was divided into those who wanted modernization and those who tried to justify themselves with a special model of development. Today this debate is also observed in the states of Eastern Europe.

Features of social movements in the 30-50s of the 19th century

Slavophiles and Westerners are not the only social movements in Russia in the 19th century. They are simply the most common and well-known, because the sport of these two areas is still relevant to this day. Until now in Russia we see ongoing debates about “How to live further” - copy Europe or stay on your path, which should be unique for each country and for each people. If we talk about social movements in the 30-50s of the 19th century in the Russian Empire, they were formed under the following circumstances

This must be taken into account since it is the circumstances and realities of time that shape people’s views and force them to commit certain actions. And it was precisely the realities of that time that gave rise to Westernism and Slavophilism.

P.V. Kireevsky, A.I. Koshelev, I.S. Aksakov and others.

Sources of Slavophilism

The most important sources of Slavophilism in literature are usually called two: European philosophy (Schelling, Hegel) and Orthodox theology. Moreover, there has never been any unanimity among researchers on the question of which of the two mentioned sources played a decisive role in the formation of Slavophil teaching.

The influence of the philosophy of Schelling, Hegel, and the sentiments of European romanticism on the Slavophiles was studied in the works of A.N. Pypina, V.S. Solovyova, A.N. Veselovsky, S.A. Vengerova, V. Guerrier, M.M. Kovalevsky, P.N. Milyukova. A.L. Blok is a Russian publicist and philosopher of Western orientation, the father of the famous poet A.A. Blok, even expressed the opinion that Slavophilism in essence is only some peculiar reflection of Western European teachings, mainly the philosophy of Schelling and Hegel.

The ground for the emergence of the Slavophile movement was prepared by the Patriotic War of 1812, which sharpened patriotic feelings. The Russian people faced the question of national self-determination and national vocation. There was a need to define the spirit of Russia and its national identity, and Slavophilism represented the answer to these requests.

Main points

• one-sidedness and insufficiency of rationalism as the primary principle of Western European thought
• the resulting need for new principles of philosophy
• conciliarity of thinking and living faith (instead of abstract reason) as the basic principles of the new, future philosophy
• recognition of special national qualities in the Slavs in general and in the Russian people in particular as the key to the implementation of “original Russian philosophy” and “realization of the ideal of a new universal life”

Stages of development

Slavophilism as an integral direction of social thought existed for a year.

The period of formation of Slavophilism (1839-1848)

Slavophilism originated in 1839 in an article by A.S. Khomyakov “On the Old and the New” and in the polemics of A.S. Khomyakov and I.V. Kireyevsky regarding this article.

The focus of Slavophilism in the 40s. there were Moscow literary salons of the Elagins, Sverbeevs, and Pavlovs. Sharp and meaningful ideological debates took place here, as a result of which two ideological movements, Slavophiles and Westerners, finally took shape.

"Moscow in the forties took an active part for and against the murmolki... Disputes were renewed at all literary and non-literary evenings... two or three times a week. On Monday we gathered at Chaadaev’s, on Friday at Sverbeev’s, on Sunday at A.P. Elagina"

The Slavophiles publish the magazine "Moscow Observer", founded by pooling, since the year it was replaced by "Moskvityanin". In and around the same year, two “Moscow literary and scientific collections” were published, which attracted the attention of the authorities.

The period of establishment of Slavophilism as one of the leading movements of Russian social thought (1848 - 1855)

Slavophilism is being transformed into an integral worldview. The historical and philosophical side of Slavophilism was developed in the theory of communal life, set out by A.S. Khomyakov and updated K.S. Aksakov. K.S. Aksakov developed a political theory of “non-statehood of the Russian people.” According to this theory, a true civil order is possible only where the state does not interfere in the affairs of the people, and the people in the affairs of the state. Aksakov believed that it was necessary to restore the ancient civil order, to give the people the opportunity to live a spiritual and moral life, and not a political one.

• - Messrs. - “theoretical” Slavophilism, when the main ideologies of the “Moscow Slavs” were developed in discussions with Westerners and within the circle itself.

• - Messrs. - “practical” stage. It is associated with the active attempts of the Slavophiles to implement their ideals in public life.

One of the directions of Russian social thought is Slavophilism, which appeared in the 30s of the 19th century. Supporters of this philosophical movement believed that Russia has its own, original path of development. The Slavic world, according to the views of the Slavophiles, must renew the Western world with its moral, economic, religious and other principles. This was the special mission of the Russian people - to lay the foundations for a new enlightenment in Europe, based on Orthodox principles. Slavophiles believed that it was Orthodoxy that had a creative impulse and was devoid of the rationalism and dominance of material values ​​over spiritual values ​​inherent in Western culture.
The founders of Slavophil philosophy are Ivan Kireevsky, Alexey Khomyakov, Yuri Samarin and Konstantin Aksakov. It was in the works of these authors that Slavophilism received its ideological form, according to which Russia has a unique, special path of development. The difference between Russia and other countries is due to its historical development, vastness of territory, population size and the characteristics of the character of the Russian person - the “Russian soul”.
The philosophy of the Slavophiles can be briefly described by three foundations of the historical path - Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. Despite the fact that the official government in the country adhered to the same principles, the philosophy of the Slavophiles was noticeably different from the state ideology. Slavophiles strove for true, pure, undistorted Orthodoxy, while the state used faith only as an external attribute, devoid of true spirituality. The Slavophiles also denied the subordination of the church to the state.
Imperial, Peter's Russia was perceived with hostility by supporters of this trend. In fact, Slavophilism became a kind of reaction to the introduction of Western values ​​into Russian culture. They promoted a return to communal traditions, considering them the original way of life of the Russian peasantry. They denied private property, not considering it something sacred and unshakable. The owner was considered solely in the role of manager.
At the initial stage of the formation of the ideology of Slavophilism, they did not have their own printed publication. Slavophiles published their articles in various collections and newspapers, for example “Moskovityanin”, “Sinbirsky Collection” and others. By the second half of the 19th century, they also had their own print media, which were subject to strict censorship - the authorities were suspicious of the Slavophil movement because of their rejection of Peter’s Russia. These were the magazines “Russian Conversation” and “Rural Improvement”, as well as the newspapers “Moskva”, “Moskvich”, “Parus”, “Rus”, “Den” and “Molva”.
It is worth paying attention to the fact that despite their conservatism, the Slavophiles had elements of democracy - they recognized and ardently defended the supremacy of the people, freedom of personality, conscience, speech and thought.
The ideological opponents of the Slavophil movement were Westerners who advocated the development of Russia along the Western path, catching up with European countries. But the Slavophiles did not completely deny European values ​​- they recognized the achievements of Europe in the field of science, education and promoted not separation from the West, but Russia’s occupation of its unique place in world civilization.

Slavophiles

Literature

Tsimbaev N.I. Slavophilism. – M., 1986.

Berdyaev N.A. Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov. – M., 1912.

Berdyaev N.A. Origins and meaning of Russian communism. – M., 1990.

Tsimbaev N.I. Liberals of the forties // Essays on Russian culture. T. 4. Social thought. M.: Publishing house Mosk. University, 2003.

Tonkikh Vladimir Alekseevich, Yaretsky Yuri Lvovich. History of political and legal thought in Russia. – M.: Vlados, 1999.

Ideological disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles continued from approximately the mid-1830s to the end of the 1840s. Herzen called the 40s " an era of excited mental interests", and Annenkov - " a wonderful decade».

Westerners and Slavophiles were united critical attitude to the present. They were critical of the Nicholas political system, the domestic and foreign policies of Nicholas I, they were staunch supporters of the abolition of serfdom. But they assessed Russia's past differently. They defended different paths for Russia's development.

The history of Slavophilism begins in 1839. In the winter of 1839/1840, Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov presented his work “ About old and new”, which was a response to both Chaadaev and supporters of the official ideology. Khomyakov posed the questions in his work: “Which is better, old or new Russia?”, Has Russia lost the fundamental principles of its development, the features of the Russian path of development. The discussion of Khomyakov's work took place in the salon of Avdotya Petrovna Elagina, the mother of the Kireevsky brothers. The friends agreed that, meeting every week on Fridays in Avdotya Petrovna’s salon, they would discuss the issues raised by Khomyakov. The following Friday, Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky presented his article for discussion. The article was called “In response to Khomyakov.” These articles by Khomyakov and Kireevsky are considered by researchers to be program documents of Slavophilism.

Slavophilism is divided into early and late. The turning point between them was 1861. In 1856, the Kireyevsky brothers passed away. In 1860, Khomyakov died of cholera. In 1860, Konstantin Sergeevich Aksakov died. The ideologists of Slavophilism died. Since 1861, the circle of Slavophiles was headed by Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov and F.V. Chizhov. But soon the circle broke up.

In early Slavophilism they distinguish two periods: 1839 – 1855. - the time of development of the philosophical, religious and historical concept of the Slavophiles. 1855 - 1861 - participation of Slavophiles in public life, preparation of peasant reform. The years 1855-1860 were the time of Alexander’s “thaw”, as defined by F.I. Tyutcheva. There was a liberalization of the political regime. The publication of new newspapers and magazines was allowed. The ban on the literary and journalistic activities of Slavophiles was lifted. Slavophiles achieved the opportunity to publish their own magazines and newspapers. In 1856-1860 they published the magazine “Russian Conversation”, and in 1857 the newspaper “Molva”.

Slavophiles came from wealthy noble families and did not serve anywhere. They did not have departments at Moscow University. In the 1840s, like the Westerners, they failed to obtain permission to publish their magazine. Slavophiles could develop their ideas only in literary salons. Their appearances in print in the 40s were very rare. Unable to publish their works, they wrote little. Therefore, the Slavophil teaching was not widely known in society. Slavophilism did not receive recognition among professors and students. The idol of Moscow youth was Granovsky.

Without having their own journal, Slavophiles of the 1840s sometimes published their works in the journal “Moskvityanin”, published by Uvarov professors Pogodin and Shevyrev. Pogodin and Shevyrev shared the ideas of the official ideology. Since Slavophiles sometimes published in Moskvityanin, their ideas began to be identified with the official ideology, and the Slavophiles were called ideologists of autocracy. This led to a distorted perception of Slavophilism by contemporaries. Slavophiles were not ideologists of the Russian autocracy.

The government, distrustful of all manifestations of independent thought, perceived the Slavophiles as a political party, and their desire to wear beards as an outward sign of belonging to this party. In 1849, Slavophiles were ordered to shave their beards as incompatible with the rank of nobility. The Slavophile circle had no significance as a political party. Nevertheless, the authorities established secret surveillance over the Slavophiles, their letters were illustrated (read). The Moscow police opened a “Case of Slavophiles”. Slavophiles were under constant police surveillance until 1857. Authorities in the era of Nicholas I limited the participation of Slavophiles in the journal and literary life of Russia. The censorship was picky about their work.

The circle of Slavophiles included Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov, Ivan and Pyotr Kireevsky, Konstantin and Ivan Aksakov, Yuri Fedorovich Samarin, Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev and others. The Slavophiles were people of very high culture.

There was no ideological unity within the circle. True Slavophiles are identified, including Khomyakov and Ivan Kireevsky; and the fanatics of Slavophilism, who absolutized certain ideas of Khomyakov and Kireyevsky, distorting their views. The ideologist of ultra-Slavophilism was Konstantin Aksakov.

The main ideologist of true Slavophilism was Khomyakov. He was born in 1804 in Moscow into a wealthy noble family. His mother was born Kireyevskaya, a deeply religious woman of strict morals. Khomyakov was closely related to the Kireevsky brothers. Khomyakov was a younger contemporary of the Decembrists, knew many of them, but was never carried away by their political ideas. Khomyakov was a multifaceted person. He became a wonderful theologian, philosopher, philologist, historian, publicist, and poet. He had a strong character, personal courage, enormous self-control, and was a very proud, freedom-loving person. He had a developed sense of self-esteem. He never revealed his weaknesses. Will and reason prevailed over feelings in him. His favorite words were pride and freedom. In 1836, he married Ekaterina Yazykova, the sister of the poet Yazykov. Their marriage was rarely happy, impeccable.

Khomyakov had a deep dialectical mind and a phenomenal, photographic memory (he knew everything he read word for word and after many years could quote any lines from a quickly leafed through book; in one night he could read several thick books taken from the library in the evening until the morning).

Khomyakov was characterized by a love of freedom, and his teaching can be called the teaching of freedom. He believed that the beginning of freedom lies in Orthodoxy, the spirit of the Russian people, in Russian village life, in the Russian mentality. The West does not know true freedom, since the way of life of Europeans is strictly rational.

Slavophiles were religious thinkers.

Khomyakov created Slavophil theology. Khomyakov's religious consciousness was free from dogma. He gave his understanding to the church. The Church should not cause fear in a person; it offers only faith. According to Khomyakov, Christianity is freedom in Christ. The Church accepts only free people into its fold. The Church is not a doctrine, not an institution. The Church is a living organism of truth and love. Khomyakov's theology differed from official theology. Khomyakov wrote to I. Aksakov: “I allow myself to disagree in many cases with the so-called opinion of the church.” Khomyakov was the first secular religious thinker in Orthodoxy. Khomyakov could not publish his theological works in Russia in Russian. Spiritual censorship did not allow their publication. The official church could not tolerate Khomyakov’s freethinking. Professors of theological academies were unkind to Khomyakov's theology. Khomyakov's theological works were first published abroad in French. These works were translated by Samarin into Russian and published after Khomyakov's death. For Khomyakov, the only source of religious consciousness was love of God. Khomyakov believed that only in the church there is freedom. Freedom is realized in unity. Sobornost is one of the basic concepts of Slavophilism. Conciliarity means the free unity of people in faith and love for God.

Khomyakov considered Orthodoxy to be the true religion (Chaadaev considered Catholicism to be the true religion). Russian Orthodoxy has preserved Christianity in its original purity.

The Slavophiles' solution to the problem"Russia - West" . Interested in issues of human development, thinkers of the 1840s paid special attention to the Russian question, “household affairs.” Slavophiles noted in Chaadaev’s first philosophical letter his idea about the influence of the country’s situation on its fate, but unlike its author, they put their fatherland at the center of humanity, since the Russian people know the truth, the same for all humanity. They believed that it was Russia that would unite the common concepts of humanity, preserving the “ancient Russian element” 1. Slavophiles spoke out on the issue of the destiny of the Russian people, but did not pay significant attention to the topic of the influence of the country's geopolitical position on its history. This can be explained by the Slavophiles’ idea of ​​the decisive role of religion in the self-knowledge of the people. From this provision it follows that the geographical location of the country cannot influence the degree of religiosity of the people.

Slavophiles believed in a special path of development for Russia. They were not a monopoly on this idea. Both official ideologists (Uvarov), and Chaadaev, and Westerners argued that Russia has its own destiny in world history. But they defined it differently.

Slavophilism was a peculiar reaction to the thoughtless imitation of everything European by the Russian nobility. They believed that Russia has its own internal sources of development and should not accept the spiritual culture of the West. You can only borrow technical achievements. They objected to the Europeanization of Russia. Russia should not become like the West. Westerners were not supporters of assimilating Russia to the West; they criticized thoughtless imitation. The assimilation of Western culture should occur consciously.

Slavophiles argued that Russia and the West have different spiritual sources of development, different types of culture. The culture of the West developed under the influence of the Catholic religion, and the culture of Russia - under the influence of the Orthodox religion. The West is characterized by philistinism, individualism, rationalism, and private property.

Russia is characterized by collectivism, conciliarism, and communal land use. The concept of the sanctity of private property is alien to the Russian people. If the teaching of Westerners states that the main value is the individual, then for the Slavophiles the main value was the people. The fate of the country is determined by the people. The Slavophiles belittled the personal principle in history and elevated the social principle.

Fundamental ideas of the Slavophiles- belief in a special path of evolution of Russian society, Russia is called upon to fulfill a special mission in relation to the West, it must show it the path to freedom. The origins of Russian life are Orthodoxy, the Russian Orthodox soul, the rural community, and the traditions of collectivism. Orthodoxy is a true religion that reveals divine truth.

The main source of Russian culture is Orthodoxy.

Slavophiles also assigned traditions a regulating role in the life of the people. The peculiarity of their interpretation of the role of customs in history was the idea that traditions, regulating social relations in accordance with religious and moral principles, excluded the need for legislative registration of established customs. Customs replaced laws. Categorical non-recognition of the law was characteristic of K. Aksakov, who believed that legal norms are a coercive force and do not perform an educational function. K. Aksakov proceeded from the belief that the Russian people were destined to accomplish a “moral feat” - to create a “moral order of life.” The Russian people, following the “moral path,” live by their inner faith, their convictions. “All power lies in moral conviction. This treasure is in Russia, because she always believed in him and did not resort to contracts» 2. Since customs were based on beliefs, and beliefs on concepts formed by the church, customs, replacing the law, extended one order of life to all lands, argued I.V. Kireyevsky. “This widespread monotony of the custom was probably one of the reasons for its incredible strength, which has preserved its living remains even to our time through all the resistance of destructive influences...” 3. This point of view was shared by all Slavophiles, with the exception of Khomyakov, who considered law as a necessary element of state and social life. In the works of I. Kireevsky and K. Aksakov, there is no doubt that a society that has existed for centuries on the basis of monotonous customs is losing its ability to develop.

The assessments of people's life given by I. Kireevsky and K. Aksakov are less historic than Khomyakov's concept. Their interpretation of Russia's past was determined by a number of premises that they took on faith. They believed in the existence of fundamental principles in the life of the Russian people, which determined the purity of their spiritual life and the characteristics of the Russian path. One of them is pure Christianity, without any admixture of the pagan world, which spread its influence over the entire “former” Russia. Another beginning was strong, monotonous, ubiquitous customs that guaranteed against changes in the social structure. The third condition for the existence of the “former” Russia was that the power of unchangeable custom excluded autocracy and made it impossible to introduce laws. I. Kireevsky has the following general definition of the foundations of people’s life: “this is a social structure, without autocracy and slavery, without noble and vile; these customs are centuries-old, without written codes, emanating from the church and strong in the agreement of morals with the teachings of faith; these holy monasteries, nurseries of the Christian order, the spiritual heart of Russia..." 4. This picture of the Christian life of the Russian people, created by the imagination of I. Kireevsky, can be assessed as an idealized image of Russia. A one-sided view of history (focusing attention mainly on two factors of life - Orthodoxy and community), as well as exaggerating the role of the Russian church, determined I. Kireevsky’s interest in returning Russia “to the life-giving spirit that its church breathes” 5 . The folk life of ancient Russia was idealized to the maximum in the works of K. Aksakov. He had no doubt that the Russian people were deeply religious, he understood. He believed that Russia constantly stood for its soul, for its faith, which was unshakable. The teaching of I. Kireevsky and K. Aksakov, based more on faith than on historical facts, exaggerated certain features of people's life.

Westerners assessed the Slavophil teaching about the foundations of Russian life as idealized. Herzen saw the main mistake of Slavophilism in the separation of their theoretical constructions from historical realities. He wrote to Samarin in 1864: “You, like all idealists and theologians, don’t care, you build the world a priori, you know what it should be like by revelation, but it’s worse for him if it’s not what it should be.” ! If you were just an observer, you would be stopped by facts that contradict your opinion...” 6.

Westerners have never denied the significant role of religion in the history of mankind and the Russian people. But they disputed the opinion of the Slavophiles about the decisive influence of the Russian Church on popular concepts and life. Comparing the influence of the Catholic and Orthodox churches on society, Herzen noted differences that are also emphasized in modern historical science. According to Herzen, the Russian Church had little interest in the worldly problems of the people, while the Catholic Church had a strong influence on society. “The Eastern Church has always been more deeply and broadly concerned with dogma and has not carried it into life. Catholicism, more one-sided, was supplemented by life, on which it had the strongest influence...” 7 .

The Slavophile concept emphasized the deep religiosity of the Russian people, which they considered as a distinctive feature of Russia, its spiritual advantage over Europe. Westerners expressed their point of view on this issue, basing their opinions on their own observations, proverbs, notes, and historical research. They did not consider the Russian people so religious as to be guided in their lives primarily by divine commandments. Commenting on the opinion of the Frenchman Margeret, who served in the personal guard of Boris Godunov and False Dmitry I, about the religious tolerance of the Russian people, Herzen considers the lack of hostility towards non-believers as a consequence of the insufficient rooting of religion among the people. In his opinion, not only the internal, but also the external, ritual side of religion “did not have deep roots” 8.

The Westernizers’ view of the pre-Petrine period of Russian history differed significantly from the assessment of it by both Chaadaev and the Slavophiles. For the “Basmannian philosopher” he was colorless, leaving behind no cultural monuments. A.S. Khomyakov did not share Chaadaev’s idea that everything that is best and moral belongs to the European peoples. He perceived Chaadaev's first philosophical letter as disrespect for the Russian people, national humiliation, and a demand for a complete break with the past of his country. Khomyakov believed that the people have the right to respect themselves, but contempt for the people kills their strength. The self-respect of a people requires reverence for its ancestry, language, and religion. Another no less interesting idea of ​​Khomyakov: the Russian people proved their strength by independently throwing off the Mongol yoke 9 . A.S. Khomyakov did not deny the obvious fact that Russia is lagging behind in the development of material culture. He saw the main reason for the slow evolution in the rule of the Mongols over Russia. Unlike Chaadaev, Khomyakov insisted on the significance of Rus''s mission in saving the West from ruin by nomads. According to him, Rus' became a wall that protected the Christian world from the Mohammedan 10. Refuting Chaadaev’s opinion about the insignificance of Russia’s past, Khomyakov argued that only a great people could have such legends and songs, full of soul and feelings; the proverbs of the people testify to their intelligence, “and aren’t proverbs the fruit of the long-standing magnificent life of the people?”

Slavophiles assessed the pre-Petrine era as a period when Russia developed on the basis of its spiritual traditions, and the basis of the Russian path was determined by Orthodoxy, which opened up the opportunity for the people to come closer to understanding God, to see love and freedom in him. Orthodoxy, the only true teaching, shaped the values ​​of love for one's neighbor, collectivism, and the desire for conciliarity. Khomyakov, seeing in Christianity a force that forms and ennobles the soul of the Russian people, calling it a “life-giving force”, without which the Russian land could not be restored, still did not consider religion the only factor in the development of the country. According to Khomyakov, ideally the church is the concentration of truth, the beginning of goodness, life and love. For this, the church must be enlightened and triumph over earthly principles. Not in any period of Russian history, in any country in the world, Khomyakov argued, has the church yet achieved such a position and influence on society.

The Slavophiles wanted to promote the Orthodox education of people's souls, seeing this as the main source of their spiritual wealth. A.S. Khomyakov was confident that the union of soul and body, in which he saw the truth of man’s earthly life, was revealed not by Western civilization, but by the Word of God 11 . Both Westerners and Slavophiles were looking for the truth of existence, but some considered it possible to understand it with reason, others believed that truth is a revelation of God, therefore, it cannot be improved, “one must first of all believe, and then confess this truth for the good of the common body and spirit "

Seeing the meaning of earthly existence in the comprehension of divine truth, the Slavophiles perceived spiritual life as the highest sphere of human existence. Believing that the soul of the Russian people is religious, the Slavophiles did not recognize Russia’s lag behind the West in spiritual life, since the essence of religion remains unchanged forever. “Consequently, we do not lag behind other enlightened nations in this regard...” Since the West and Russia have different spiritual principles in their lives, the Russian people must rely on their religious and moral strengths.

According to Khomyakov, Orthodox Russia attached little importance to everything external, material, formal, legal; for it, the main thing was the life of the spirit. Khomyakov made an attempt to substantiate the religious advantages of the Russian people. The Russian people first adopted culture from Christianity; they did not have a pre-Christian culture, they did not have that oppressive cultural past that prevented Western Europe from becoming truly Christian. We adopted Christianity almost as children. The Russian people began their history as Christians. Our paganism was not cultural, it was barbaric, childish. The Russian soul is Christian by nature. The peaceful life of the agricultural community formed the basis of Russian history. The spirit of a peaceful community, and not the spirit of a militant squad, creates Russian history. The Russian people are humble, and therefore already Christian people.

Russian community Slavophiles considered it one of the foundations of the Russian path of development. In reality, the community was a socio-economic form of life. The Slavophiles saw in the community the perfect expression of Christian communication in love; they perceived it as a religious community. They idealized the community.

The political ideal of the Slavophiles is people's autocracy. The people do not need to participate in political life. The people have a religious vocation. The people transferred power to the king, who is obliged to take care of the people and protect their interests. Power is a duty, a duty, not a privilege, not a right. The king must treat the people like a father treats his children. The monarch must be a deeply religious person, rule on the basis of laws based on the commandments of God. It is necessary to create a Zemsky Sobor with legislative functions. He will represent the interests of the people. Their political ideal was utopian. Slavophiles sharply criticized the corrupt Russian bureaucracy. Slavophiles did not support the policies of real power. Slavophiles proposed eliminating the class division of society. Their projects for the liberation of peasants provided for the abolition of serfdom by the state and the provision of land to peasants for a large ransom.

The social ideal of the Slavophiles is a free Orthodox society.

Many years after the end of the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles, in 1860-1861, thinking about the possibility of finding a compromise between opponents back in the 1840s, Herzen, highlighting ideas that could not lead to agreement between the parties, wrote: “ We might not quarrel over childish worship of the childhood period of our history; but, taking their Orthodoxy seriously, but seeing their church intolerance in both directions - towards science and towards schism - we had to become hostile against them” 12. According to Herzen, Westerners could not agree with the Slavophile assessment of the meaning of life of the Russian people. Westerners noted the non-dialectical nature of I. Kireevsky’s view of the Russian past, disagreeing with his assessment of the church as the guiding star of the people. Herzen characterized his view as a search for salvation in the dark forest of mysticism. Herzen believed that the Slavophiles idealized the Russian people, and their ideological opponents sought a reasonable solution to social issues: “It was not we who transferred our ideal to the Russian people, and then, as happens with people who get carried away, we ourselves began to admire it as a godsend.”

The Slavophiles themselves assessed their views as the doctrine of “reasonable progress”, the “Russian direction” (Khomyakov). According to the Slavophiles, a person must voluntarily submit to the wise tradition of the folk collective. This idea was conservative, as it deprived the individual of autonomy and the right to free choice.

Some researchers classify the teachings of the Slavophiles as conservative, others as liberal.

1 Khomyakov A.S. A few words about the philosophical letter (Printed in the 15th book of “Telescope”) (Letter to Mrs. N.) // Khomyakov A.S. Works in two volumes. M., 1994. T. 1. P. 450.

2 Aksakov K.S. On the basic principles of Russian history // Complete Works. M., 1889. T. 1. P. 11-15. Him. About the same // Ibid. pp. 16-23.

3 Kireevsky I.V. In response to A.S. Khomyakov // Russian idea. M., 1992. P. 69.

4 Ibid. pp. 72-73.

5 Ibid. P. 72.

6 Herzen A.I. Letters to the enemy... T. 18. P. 280.

7 He is the same. Diary 1842-1845. T. 2. P. 357.

8 Ibid. P. 364.

9 Khomyakov A.S. A few words about philosophical writing... T. 1. P. 454.

10 Ibid. P. 453.

11 Khomyakov A.S. A few words about philosophical writing... P. 459.

12 Herzen A.I. Past and thoughts... T. 9. P. 133.