Who belonged to the Slavophiles. The main representatives of Slavophilism. The history of the emergence of Slavophilism

inspired Russian society to believe in motionless ideals of antiquity; it was a purely conservative faith. The first Slavophiles preached free development ideals of antiquity; they were Progressive Patriots. The main means to achieve the goal of the "official nationality" was the "guardianship" of society and the fight against protest, while the Slavophils stood for freedom of thought and speech. But in the essence of the ideals, the two theories touched on many points.

The emergence of Slavophilism

Slavophilism arose as a result of:

1) romanticism, which awakened nationalistic aspirations among many peoples of Europe,

5) finally, there was a basis for patriotic sympathies in native literature: in the poetry of Pushkin, Zhukovsky, later Lermontov, national-patriotic sentiments had already affected; in their creations, the search for their native culture has already been determined, the ideals of the people - family, state and religious - have been clarified.

The main representatives of Slavophilism

The Slavophile school took shape around the second half of the 1830s: the Kireevsky brothers (Ivan and Peter), Khomyakov, Dm. Valuev, Aksakovs (Konstantin and Ivan), Yuri Samarin - these are the most prominent figures of Slavophilism, who developed this doctrine in philosophical, religious and political terms. At first they were friends with the "Westerners", but then they parted ways: Chaadaev's philosophical letters severed their last ties.

Views of the Slavophiles - briefly

In search of an independent type of Russian culture, Slavophilism acquired a democratic character, a tendency to idealize antiquity and a tendency to pan-Slavism(the dream of uniting all the Slavs under the Russian state). The Slavophiles, in some respects, came close to the liberal part of Russian society (democratism), but in others to the conservative part (the idealization of antiquity).

The first Slavophiles were well-educated people, inspired by ardent faith in their teaching, independent and therefore courageous. They believed in the great future of Russia, bowed before "Holy Russia", said that Moscow was the "third Rome", that this new civilization would replace all the outdated cultures of the West and save the "rotting West" itself. From their point of view, Peter I committed a sin by delaying the independent development of the Russian people. The Slavophiles expounded the theory of the existence of "two worlds": eastern, Greek-Slavic - and western. They pointed out that Western culture is based on the Roman Church, ancient Roman education, and its state life is based on conquest. They saw a completely different order of things in the Eastern Greek-Slavic world, the main representative of which is the Russian people. Eastern Christianity is Orthodoxy, the distinguishing feature of which is the invariable preservation of the universal tradition. Orthodoxy is therefore the only true Christianity. Our education is of Byzantine origin; if it was inferior to the Western one in the external development of the mind, then it exceeded it in a deep sense of living Christian truth. The same difference is visible in the state structure: the beginning of the Russian state differs from the beginning of Western states in that we did not have conquest, but there was a voluntary calling of rulers. This basic fact is also reflected in the entire further development of social relations: we did not have violence associated with conquest, and therefore there was no feudalism in its European form, there was no that internal struggle that constantly divided Western society; there were no estates. The land was not the personal property of the feudal aristocracy, but belonged to the community. The Slavophiles were especially proud of this "community". They said that the West had only very recently reached the idea of ​​creating a "community" (Saint-Simonism), an institution whose institution had existed for centuries in the Russian countryside.

Thus, before Peter the Great, according to the Slavophils, our development proceeded naturally. Religious consciousness was the main moral force and guide in life; folk life was distinguished by the unity of concepts and the unity of morals. The state was a vast community; power belonged to the king, representing the general will; the close connection of the members of this great community was expressed by zemstvo sobors, a popular representation that replaced the ancient vecha. With such a liberal idealization of antiquity (veche, cathedrals) was associated the most enthusiastic admiration for the simple Russian people, the "God-bearer"; in his life, the Slavophiles saw the embodiment of all Christian virtues (love for neighbors, humility, lack of selfishness, piety, ideal family relationships). Therefore, the modified formula of the official ideology of the era of Nicholas I became the slogan of Slavophilism: autocracy ( limited by the Slavophiles to the Zemstvo Sobors), orthodoxy ( with spiritual assemblies and ward powers) and nationality ( with community, cathedrals and freedom of development). Standing on this point of view, the Slavophiles were often strict critics of Russian modernity, and therefore, if not all, then many of them, should be attributed to the opposition figures of that time.

SLAVOPHILISM- the direction of Russian philosophy, social thought and an integral organic part of the culture of the 19th century, based on the idea of ​​the identity of Russia, its difference from the West.

According to the Slavophiles, Western rationalism with its cult of material production and corporality, which are justified and substantiated in rationalist philosophy, leads to the spiritual enslavement of people. V. G. Belinsky, an implacable critic of Slavophilism, wrote: “The phenomenon of Slavophilism is a fact, remarkable to a certain extent, as a protest against unconditional imitation and as evidence of the need of Russian society for independent development.”

Slavophilism arose in the late 1830s and practically ceased to exist as a special trend in social thought at the very beginning of the 1860s with the death of its inspirers and founders I.V. Kireevsky, Khomyakov and K.S. Aksakov.

Supporters of this trend initially called themselves "Easterners", "Muscovites", "Moscow direction", "Moscow party" in contrast to the Westerners of St. Petersburg; the term "Slavophilism" arose just among Westerners and over time took root in the minds of contemporaries and became commonly used.

As a cultural phenomenon, Slavophilism declared itself for the first time in 1839 in the handwritten work of A.S. Khomyakov About old and new and handwritten essay by I.V. Kireevsky In response to A.S. Khomyakov written shortly after the first. After some time, a circle of like-minded people formed around Khomyakov, developing the doctrine of Slavophilism and leading a debate with supporters of the Western concept. At first, the discussions did not go beyond the walls of the Moscow salons of P.Ya. The tribune of the Slavophiles was the newspapers "Molva", "Parus", the magazines "Moskovityanin", "Russian conversation", "Rural improvement". They also published the Simbirsk Collection (1844), the Moscow Collection (1846, 1847, 1852), and the Collection of Historical and Statistical Information about Russia and the Peoples of the Same Faith and Common Tribe (1845).

The recognized leaders of Slavophilism were A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky, brothers K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, Yu.F. Samarin. Historians, philologists, poets also gravitated towards this direction of social thought, in particular, I.D. Belyaev, the author of a historical study Peasants in Russia, A.F. Gilferding and P.V. Kireevsky, who studied and collected samples of Russian folk art, the compiler of the famous dictionary of the Russian language V.I. Dal, poets F.I. Tyutchev and N.M. Yazykov.

However, the main attention in Slavophilism was paid to the problems of the philosophy of history and the independence of the historical path of Russia. In short, the idea of ​​the originality of the path of Russia is based among the Slavophiles on several basic postulates: Orthodoxy, autocracy and the role of the peasant community.
The Slavophiles believed that the path of development followed by Western Europe was unacceptable for Orthodox Russia with its traditions, even though these traditions were subjected to deformations and distortions due to external influence.

The foundations of Russian identity did not escape such influence. In particular, the Slavophils believed that in Russian Orthodoxy, ritualism pushed into the background the very spiritual content of the faith, that the official church of their time had become too fused with the secular authorities and did not fulfill its spiritual destiny. The same autocracy, which, according to the Slavophiles, being a specific feature of the identity of Russia, should be not only an apparatus of coercion, but also a moral force that unites society, and, along with the undeniable authority of the monarch, be based on broad popular representation.

Among the phenomena that had a special and decisive influence on the development of Russia, the Slavophiles singled out the peasant community as a unique phenomenon inherent only in Russia, which has no analogues in Europe.

Slavophilism as a cultural and social movement differed from Western philosophical schools and trends.

Members of the Slavophile circle Khomyakov, brothers Aksakov, Kireevsky, Samarin did not create complete philosophical or socio-political systems.

SLAVOPHILE

SLAVOPHILE

Russian direction social and philosophy of the 1840s-1850s, whose representatives protested against one-sided imitation of the West and set themselves the task of finding "the beginnings of Russian enlightenment" different from "Western enlightenment". They saw these differences in Orthodoxy as the faith of the Universal Church, in a peaceful beginning and in the main course of Russian. history, community and other tribal features of the Slavs. Sympathy for the Slavs, especially the southern ones, gave rise to the name "S", which does not fully reflect the essence of their views and was given to them by their ideological opponents, the Westerners. (For the first time, S. was named Russian conservative political and literary figure Admiral A.S. Shishkov and his supporters.) Various options for self-name: “original”, “natives” (Koshelev), “Orthodox-Slavic direction” (Kireevsky), “ Russian direction ”(K. Aksakov) - did not take root.
Slavophilism as a social thought arises, like, in con. 1830s after the publication of "Philosophical Writing" P.Ya. Chaadaev, but the prerequisites for Slavophilism were formed earlier, during discussions of members of the Pushkin circle of writers and philosophers on historical issues. The first work written in the spirit of S. can be considered “A few words about philosophical writing”, attributed, as, to A.S. Khomyakov (1836). The main problems posed by S. were first formulated in Khomyakov's articles “On the Old and the New” and I.V. Kireevsky “Answer A.S. Khomyakov" (1839). Yu.F. Samarin and K.S. Aksakov. Active S. were P.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Koshelev, I.S. Aksakov, D.A. Valuev, A.N. Popov, V.F. Chizhov, A.F. Hilferding, later - V.I. Lamansky and V.A. Cherkassky. M.P. joined S. on many issues. Pogodin and S.P. Shevyrev, poets N.M. Yazykov and F.I. Tyutchev, writers ST. Aksakov, V.I. Dahl, historians and linguists I.D. Belyaev, P.I. Bartenev, M.A. Maksimovich, F.I. Buslaev and others.
In the 1840s S. were subjected to censorship persecution, so most of them were concentrated in the literary salons of Moscow, where they tried to influence and spread their ideas among the educated public. In this S. published mainly in the journal M.P. Pogodin "Moskvityanin". They published (partly together with Westerners, since the final break between the two parts of a single community of free-thinking and opposition-minded intellectuals occurs only in the second half of the 1840s) collections of articles and journals. "Library for education". On the second floor. 1850s jur began to come out. "Russian conversation", "Rural improvement", gas. "Molva" and "Sail".
After the reform of 1861, S. as a direction of social thought ceased to exist, incl. and because of the death of its main representatives: Kireevsky, K. Aksakov, Khomyakov. However, philosophy. the foundations of Slavophilism were developed precisely in the 1850s-1870s. in articles and excerpts by I.V. Kireevsky, Khomyakov's letters to Samarin "On Contemporary Phenomena in the Field of Philosophy", in the works of Samarin ("Letters on Materialism", 1861, in a polemic about Kavelin's book "Problems of Psychology", 1872-1875).
In philosophy. in relation to S. - pronounced personalists. They were formed under the influence of East-Christian patristics, German. idealism, first of all F.V.J. Schelling (I. Kireevsky) and G.V.F. Hegel (Samarin, K. Aksakov), and romanticism. Their doctrine is based on the human personality as the central, fundamental reality of created being. The main integrating factor of human existence is proclaimed, understood as "about the relationship of the living Divine personality and the human personality" (I. Kireevsky). Faith ensures the integrity of the human spirit as the basis of "believing thinking" that connects all the cognitive person "in full accord." Thus, faith is a full-fledged knowledge of the religious and moral life of a person.
However, it exists only in the community as a union of individuals who have renounced their arbitrariness (monastery, peasant), - in the Church, and the Church - in the people. Through this structure, the fertile principles of faith are realized in culture (other Russian) and in the Cosmos (Russian Earth). This is the necessary and messianic ministry of the people and the state. Faith turns out to be the "limit of understanding" of the people (Khomyakov) and the basis of nationality - the central aesthetics and philosophy of history of S.
From these positions, S. criticized app. philosophy, manifested, from their point of view, both in rationality and in sensationalism. The rationality and bifurcation of S. were considered the main characteristics of Western European culture. Assimilation of the beginnings of this culture Rus. An educated society under Peter I led to a break between the “public” and the “people” (K. Aksakov) and the emergence of “European-Russian education” (I. Kireevsky). The task of the new stage Rus. S.'s history was seen not in a return to previous forms of life and not in further Europeanization (as), but in the assimilation, processing and further development of the achievements of the West. culture based on the Orthodox faith and the Russian people.
In their social views, S. tried to combine (actively participated in the reform of 1861, advocated the abolition of censorship, corporal punishment, and the death penalty, understood the modernization of the Russian economy) and (the preservation of the peasant community, patriarchal forms of life, autocracy, and the inviolability of the Orthodox faith). Politically unlimited autocracy had to be limited in the moral sense by faith and popular opinion based on it. Public S. had a great influence on the figures of the national revival of the Slavic peoples of the second. floor. 19th century
In the articles of Khomyakov, Samarin, K. Aksakov, it appears not only as raw material, but also as a formative art, creating its unique originality. The expression of the ideals of the people in the appropriate images and forms is the justification of the artist's personal creativity and the condition for its usefulness. The struggle of nationality and imitation forms the main movement in S. Rus. literature, art and science (hence their disputes with Westerners about Russian history, about Gogol's work, about the "natural school", about nationality in science).
The ideas of S. served as a starting point for the development of the views of N.Ya. Danilevsky and K.N. Leontiev (so-called), partly Vl. Solovyova, V.V. Rozanov. S. influenced the Trubetskoy brothers, participants in the collection. "Milestones", V.F. Erna, P.A. Florensky, M.A. Novoselov, V. Zenkovsky, I.O. Lossky, the Eurasians, and others. This influence was not limited to religious thought (for example, the Russian community of S. significantly influenced the views of A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky, as well as Russian).

Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .

SLAVOPHILE

representatives of one of the directions Russian societies. and philosophy thoughts of the 40s and 50s gg. 19 v. who spoke with the justification of the original path of the historical. development of Russia, fundamentally different from the path of Western Europe. The identity of Russia, according to S., in the absence of class struggle in its history, in Russian the landed community of the kings, in Orthodoxy as the only true Christianity. The same features of the development of S. were also seen among foreign Slavs, especially the southern ones, sympathy for which was one of the reasons for the name of the direction itself. (WITH., i.e. Slavic people) given to them by Westerners.

S.'s views took shape in ideological disputes that escalated after the publication of Chaadaev's Philosophical Letter. Ch. writers, poets, and scientists A. S. Khomyakov and I. V. Kireevsky played a role in developing the views of S. (articles written in 1839 and not intended for publication by Khomyakov “On the Old and the New” and I. V. Kireevsky “In response to A. S. Khomyakov”), K. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin. Prominent S. were P. V. Kireevsky, A. I. Koshelev, I. S. Aksakov, D. A. Valuev, F.V. Chizhov, I.D. Belyaev, A.F. Gilferding, later V. I. Lamansky, V.A. Cherkassky. Close to S. in social and ideological positions in the 40-50s gg. were writers V. I. Dal, S. T. Aksakov, A. N. Ostrovsky, A. A. Grigoriev, F. I. Tyutchev, H. M. Yazykov. Historians, Slavists, and linguists F. I. Buslaev, O. M. Bodyansky, V. I. Grigorovich, I. I. Sreznevsky, and M. A. Maksimovich paid great tribute to S.’s views. The focus of S. in the 40s gg. was Moscow, lit. salons of A. A. and A. P. Elagin, D. N. and E. A. Sverbeev, ?. ?. and K.K. Pavlovs. Here S. communicated and argued with Westerners. Mn. works S. subjected to censorship harassment, some of the S. were under police supervision, were arrested. S. did not have a permanent press organ for a long time, ch. arr. due to censorship. were printed preim. v magazine"Moskvitian"; from afar several collections of articles in the 40s - early 50s gg. After some softening of the censorship oppression of S. in con. 50s gg. published magazine"Rus. conversation" (1856-60) , "Rural improvement" (1858-59) and the newspapers "Molva" (1857) and "Sail" (1859).

In the 40s and 50s gg. on the most important question of the path of history. development of Russia, S. opposed, in contrast to the Westerners, against the assimilation of the forms of Western Europe by Russia. political life. At the same time, they considered it necessary to trade and industry, stock and banking, strva zhel. roads and the use of cars in the villages. economy. S. advocated the abolition of serfdom "from above" with the provision cross. earth communities. allotment for ransom. Samarin, Koshelev and Cherkassky were among the active figures in the preparation and conduct of cross. reforms of 1861. S. gave a large society. opinion, which meant the enlightened liberal-bourgeois. layers, defended the idea of ​​convening a Zemsky Sobor from elected representatives of all societies. layers, but objected to the constitution and c.-l. formal restriction of autocracy. The S. sought the elimination of censorship, the establishment of a public court with the participation of elected representatives of the population, the abolition of corporal punishment and the death penalty.

Philos. S.'s views were developed ch. arr. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky, and later Samarin and represented a kind of religious-philosophical. teaching. Genetically philosophy the concept of S. goes back to east patristics, at the same time is largely associated with Western European. irrationalism and romanticism 1st floor. 19 v. One-way analytics rationality, rationalism, as well as sensationalism, which, according to S., led in the West to the loss of spiritual integrity by a person, they opposed the concepts of “willing mind” and “living knowledge” (Khomyakov): S. argued that the full and highest is given to more than one logical ability. conclusions, but mind, feeling and will together, i.e. spirit in its living integrity. Holistic, providing the true and complete, is inseparable, according to S., from faith, from religion. The true faith that came to Russia from its purest source - east churches (Khomyakov), determines, in their opinion, a special historical. mission Russian people. The beginning of "cathedralism" (free community) characterizing, according to S., east church, was seen by them in Russian community. Rus. communal cross. landownership, S. believed, would introduce into the science of political economy an “original economic view" (I. S. Aksakov). Orthodoxy and the community in the concept of S. - deep foundations Russian souls. Generally philosophy S.'s concept opposed the ideas of materialism.

Historical S.'s views were inherent in the spirit of Romantic. historiography of the old, pre-Petrine Russia, which S. imagined harmonious. a society devoid of contradictions, who did not know internal upheavals that manifested the people and the tsar, the “zemshchina” and “authorities”. According to S., since the time of Peter I, who arbitrarily violated the organic. the development of Russia, became above the people, the nobility and, unilaterally and outwardly assimilating the Western European. culture, detached from nar. life. Idealizing patriarchy and the principles of traditionalism, S. understood in the spirit German conservative romanticism. At the same time, S. called on the intelligentsia to get closer to the people, to study their life and way of life, culture and language.

S. influenced many prominent figures nat. revival and national-liberate. movements glory. peoples who were under the yoke of Austria. empire and sultan Turkey (Czechs V. Ganka, F. Chelakovsky, at one time K. Gavlicek-Borovsky; Slovaks L. Shtur, A. Sladkovich; Serbs P. Negosh, M. Nenadovich, M. Milicevic; Bulgarians R. Zhinzifov, P. Karavelov , L. Karavelov and others) . The impact of S.'s ideas in the ideology and activities of the Slavic communities in Russia since 1858, in the organization of broad societies, was noticeably affected. help south. Slavs in their struggle for liberation, especially in 1875-78.

Aesthetic and lit.-critical. S.'s views are most fully expressed in the articles of Khomyakov, K. S. Aksakov, and Samarin. Criticizing the judgments of V. G. Belinsky and the "natural school" in Russian arts. literature (Samarin's article "On the Opinions of Sovremennik, Historical and Literary", 1847), S. at the same time opposed "pure art" and substantiated the need own development paths for Russian literature, art and science (Khomyakov's articles "On the Possibility Russian arts. schools", 1847; K. S. Aksakova "About Russian outlook”, 1856; Samarin "Two words about nationality in science", 1856; A. N. Popova "About modern direction of the plastic arts", 1846). Artistic, in their opinion, should have reflected certain aspects of reality that corresponded to their theoretical principles - community, patriarchal orderliness of folk life, "" and the religiosity of the Russian people.

In the years revolutionary situation 1859-61 happened means. convergence of views of S. and Westerners on the basis of liberalism. In the post-reform period as a special direction of societies. thought ceased to exist. I. S. Aksakov, Samarin, Koshelev, Cherkassky continued their activities, they differed significantly in their views among themselves. Under the influence of S., it developed. Some conservative features of S.'s teachings developed in the 70s and 80s gg. in the spirit of nationalism and pan-Slavism so-called. late S. - N. Ya. Danilevsky and K. N. Leontiev. S.'s ideas were refracted in a peculiar way in religious philosophy. concepts con. 19 - early 20 centuries (Vl. Solovyov, Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Karsavin, Florensky, Eurasians and others) . With criticism of the ideology of S. were revolutionary Democrats Belinsky, Herzen, Ogaryov, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov.

Rypin A. N., Characteristics lit. opinions from the twenties to the fifties gg., St. Petersburg, 19068; Plekhanov? V. Westerners and S., Op., T. 23, M.-L., 1926; Dmitriev S. S., S. and Slavophilism, "Historian-Marxist", 1941, No. 1; Lit. early S., “Vopr. literature”, 1969, .№ 5, 7, 10, 12; Yankovsky Yu. Z., From history Russian social-lit thought 40-50s gg. 19th century, K., 1972; Popov V.P., Social and functions of early Slavophilism in book.: Problems of humanism in Russian philosophy, Krasnodar, 1974; Lit. views and creativity S. 1830-1850 gg., M., 1978; Riasanovsky N.V., Russland und der Westen. Die Lehre der Slawophuen, Munch., 1959; Christoff P. K.. An introduction to nineteenth-century Russian Slavophilism, v. 1-A. S. Xomjakov, s "-Gravenhage, 1961;

see also lit. to the articles Kireevsky, Khomyakov.

S. S. Dmitriev.

Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editors: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983 .

SLAVOPHILE

representatives of the idealistic Russian currents. societies. thoughts ser. 19th century, substantiating the need for the development of Russia along a special (in comparison with the Western European) path. It was, according to the objective sense, utopian. Russian transition program nobility on the path of bourgeois. development. During this period in developed countries Zap. In Europe, the contradictions of capitalism have already been revealed and its criticism has been deployed, while in Russia it has become more and more decomposed. I got up about the fate of Russia: to follow the path of the bourgeoisie. democracy, as the revolutionaries and certain enlighteners (Granovsky and others) essentially suggested, along the path of socialism (understood utopianly), as Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky and other revolutionaries wanted. democrats, or along some other path, as S. suggested, speaking with a kind of conservative utopia (see G. V. Plekhanov, Soch., vol. 23, pp. 116 and 108) - Russian. a form of feudal socialism.

Slavophilism in own. sense of the word (it should be distinguished from pochvennichestvo and late Slavophiles, the ideological basis of which was prepared by S.) was formed in 1839 (when Khomyakov and Kireevsky, after lengthy discussions, set forth their views - the first in the article "On the Old and the New", and the second - in the article "In response to A. S. Khomyakov") and fell apart by 1861, when the reform led to a crisis in their doctrine. Among the S. are also K. Aksakov and Yu. Samarin (who, together with Khomyakov and Kireevsky, formed the main core of the school), I. Aksakov, P. Kireevsky, A. Koshelev, I. Belyaev, and others.

At the center of C's ideas is the concept of Russian history, its exclusivity, which, according to C., was determined by the following. features: 1) community life; 2) the absence of conquests, social struggle at the beginning of Russian. history, the obedience of the people to power; 3) Orthodoxy, to which they opposed the "living integrity" of Catholicism. This view was untenable in all its constituent parts: the general prevalence of the community among undeveloped peoples was then already sufficiently known; lack of antagonisms in societies. life of Ancient Russia is historical. myth, which was also noted by the modern. im criticized by S.; the absolutization of the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism led S. to the obscuration of their common Christ, noted by Herzen. origins. According to S., idyllic. Ancient Russia was violated by the introduction of alien principles that perverted (but did not destroy, especially among the people) the primordial principles of Russian. life, as a result of which the Russian. split into antagonists. groups - the keepers of these principles and their destroyers. In this distorted Russian. The history of the concept contained statements that, however, gave a certain impetus to the development of Russian. societies. thoughts: attracting a new historical. material, increased attention to the history of the peasantry, community, Rus. folklore, to the history of the Slavs.

In their socio-political concept and S. critically assessed the modern. them rus. , characteristic of her Western-European. state orders, lawsuit, church, court. and military organization, way of life, morality, etc., which more than once brought S. persecution by the officers. circles. In these protests, especially in the 30s and early. 40s, reflected indignation against the government's blind borrowing of some Western European. forms, against cosmopolitanism.

However, at the same time, S. did not notice that the advanced Russian. has long been popular. Protesting against serfdom and putting forward projects for its abolition in the 1950s and 1960s, the S. defended the interests of the landowners. S. believed that the peasants, united in communities, should be interested only in their internal. life, and only the state should deal with politics (the concept of "land" and "state"), which S. thought of themselves as a monarchy. Political S.'s program adjoined the ideology of pan-Slavism, subjected to sharp criticism by Chernyshevsky.

The sociological concept of S., developed by Ch. arr. Khomyakov and Kireevsky, the basis of societies. life considered people's thinking, determined by the nature of their religion. Historical the way of those peoples, to-rye possessing a true religion and, consequently, a true system of thinking, is true; but peoples possessing a false religion and therefore false thinking develop in history through an external, formal structure, rational jurisprudence, and so on. According to S., only in the Slavic peoples, mainly in Russian, are the true principles of societies laid down. life; the rest of the peoples develop on the basis of false principles and can find it only by accepting Orthodox civilization. S. was criticized "right" European. historiography, while noting its validity. shortcomings (Hegelian philosophy of history, post-Hegelian historiography, etc.), as well as the vices of Europe itself. civilization (the prosperity of "factory relations", the emergence of "deceived hopes", etc.). However, S. were unable to understand the fruitful trends app. reality, especially socialism, to Krom they were sharply negative.

Φ and l o s. the concept of S., developed by Kireevsky and Khomyakov, was a religious-idealistic. a system that has its roots, firstly, in Orthodox theology and, secondly, in Western Europe. (especially late Schelling). S. criticized Hegel for the abstractness of his first principle - the absolute idea, which turns out to be a subordinate moment (see A. S. Khomyakov, Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 1, M., 1900, pp. 267, 268, 274 , 295–99, 302–04); traits of "rationality" they found even in the "philosophy of revelation" of late Schelling. Contrasting the abstract beginning of Hegel's beginning and recognizing the general vice of the Western European. idealism and materialism "lack of will", Khomyakov developed voluntaristic. variant of objective idealism: "... the world of phenomena arises from the free power of the will", the basis of being is "... the free power of thought, willing ..." (ibid., p. 347). Rejecting rationalism and as one-sidedness and believing that knowledge should include the entire "fullness" of human abilities, S. saw the basis of knowledge not in sensibility and reason, but in a kind of "life-knowledge", "internal knowledge" as the lowest level of knowledge, to- paradise "... in German philosophy is sometimes under a very vague expression of direct knowledge ..." (ibid., p. 279). "Life-knowledge" should be correlated with the mind ("reasonable sight"), to-ry S. do not think of themselves as separated from the "highest degree" of knowledge - faith; faith must permeate all forms of knowledge. activities. According to Kireevsky, "... the direction of philosophy depends... on the concept that we have about the Holy Trinity" (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 1, M., 1911, p. 74). In this sense, S. is irrationalistic. reaction to Western Europe. rationalism. And yet abs. penetration into the “willing mind”, according to S., is impossible “with earthly imperfection”, and “... it is only given to a person to strive along this path and it is not given to complete it” (ibid., p. 251). Thus, S. corresponds to religious voluntarism in ontology in the theory of knowledge.

Advanced Russian. Thought subjected S. sharp criticism. Even Chaadaev, the publication of "Philosophical Letter" to-rogo (1836) served as one of the strongest impetus for the consolidation of S., in the correspondence of the beginning. 30s, in the "Apology of a Madman" (1837, publ. 1862) and other works. criticized S. for "leavened", for the desire to divide the peoples. Granovsky argued with S.'s understanding of the role of Peter in the history of Russia, their interpretation of the history of Russia and its relationship to the West, their idea of ​​the exclusivity of Russian. communities. Granovsky was supported to a certain extent by S. M. Solovyov and Kavelin, and especially by Belinsky and Chernyshevsky; Granovsky also criticized Herzen for his sympathy for S., which he subsequently overcame. Trying to establish a single obshchenats. antifeod. and anti-government. front, revolutionary Democrats sought to use critical in relation to Russian. reality moments in the teachings of S., noting them put. side - criticism of imitation of the West (Belinsky, Herzen), an attempt to clarify the specifics of Russian. history, incl. the role of the community in it (Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky). However, adhering to these issues opposite to the Slavophile views, the revolutionary. Democrats subjected S. to sharp criticism, which intensified as it became clear that tact. unity with them. Revolutionary. Democrats condemned S.'s ideas about the "decay of the West" as retrograde; history, especially the role of Peter in it, and the character of the Russian. people as submissive and politically passive, their demand for the return of Russia to pre-Petrine orders, their false interpretation of the historical. the role and prospects for the development of Russian. communities. Revolutionary. Democrats emphasized that, demanding nationality and the development of nat. culture, S. did not understand what a nationality was, and did not see the fact that a truly original culture had already developed in Russia. With all the versatility of the attitude of the revolutionary. Democrats to S. is summarized in the words of Belinsky that his convictions are "diametrically opposed" to the Slavophiles, that the "Slavophile trend in science" does not deserve "... any attention either in academic or literary terms..." ( Poln. sobr. soch., v. 10, 1956, p. 22; v. 9, 1955, p. 200).

In the future, the ideas of S. fed on the flow of reactions. ideologies - new, or later, Slavophilism, (Danilevsky, Leontiev, Katkov, etc.), religion. Solovyov (who criticized S. on a number of issues); later - reaction. currents of the late 19th - early. 20 centuries, up to the ideology of Russian. white emigration - Berdyaev, Zenkovsky and others. Bourges. authors of the 20th century they saw in Slavophilism the first original Russian philosophical and sociological system (see, for example, E. Radlov, Essay on the History of Russian Philosophy, P., 1920, p. 30). Marxists, beginning with Plekhanov (see Soch., vol. 23, 1926, pp. 46-47, 103, etc.), have criticized this interpretation of Slavophilism. In the literature of the 40s. 20th century there has been an exaggerated progress. the significance of certain aspects of the teachings of S., which arose on the basis of ignoring the social essence of the ideology of S., its relationship to the course of development of philosophy in Russia (see N. Derzhavin, Herzen and S., "Istorik-Marxist", 1939, No 1; S. Dmitriev, S. and Slavophilism, ibid., 1941, No 1; V. M. Shtein, Essays on the development of Russian social and economic thought in the 19th–20th centuries, Leningrad, 1948, ch. 4). Overcome in the 50s - 60s. (see S. Dmitriev, Slavophiles, TSB, 2nd ed., vol. 39; A. G. Dementiev, Essays on the history of Russian journalism. 1840–1850, M.–L., 1951; Essays on the history of philosophy and social and political thought of the peoples of the USSR, vol. 1, M., 1955, pp. 379–83; 217–37, M. F. Ovsyannikov, Z. V. Smirnova, Essays on the History of Aesthetic Teachings, M., 1963, pp. 325–28, History of Philosophy in the USSR, vol. 2, M., 1968, p. 205 –10, etc.), this tendency again made itself felt, an example of which is the refusal of A. Galaktionov and P. Nikandrov from their so-called sp. in decree. their book (see their article "Slavophilism, its national origins and in the history of Russian thought", "VF", 1966, No 6). The same trend was revealed in the discussion "On Literary Criticism of Early S." ("Questions of literature", 1969, No. 5, 7, 10; see No. 10 about the results of the discussion in S. Mashinsky's article "Slavophilism and its interpreters"): its representatives (V. Yanov, B. Kozhinov), focusing on the positive aspects of the teachings and activities of S., they sought to revise in this regard the assessment of the place and importance of S. in the history of Russian. thoughts, while representatives of the opposite trend (S. Pokrovsky, A. Dementiev), bringing S.'s doctrine closer to the ideology of the official. nationalities, sometimes ignored the complexity and heterogeneity of their concepts. In general, Slavophilism is still waiting for a comprehensive concrete historical approach. analysis, especially his philosophy., istorich. and aesthetic ideas.

Z. Kamensky. Moscow.

On the place of S. in the history of Russian. culture and philosophy. S. are creative. Russian direction thoughts, born in the transitional cultural and historical. era - revealing the first fruits of bourgeois. civilization in Europe and the design of nat. self-consciousness in Russia, "with them begins the turning point of Russian thought" (A. I. Herzen, Sobr. soch., vol. 15, 1958, p. 9). In the future, the range of problems put forward (following Chaadaev) by S. became the subject of intense controversy in Russian. cultural and historical thoughts. The ideology of S. and the Westerners opposed to it took shape by the 40s. 19th century as a result of controversy in the environment of the emerging Russian. intelligentsia. And S. and proceeded from the same ideas about the originality of Russian. historical of the past. However, the Westerners, who drew a single path for all the peoples of the civilized world, considered this identity as an anomaly that needed to be corrected according to the European models. progress and in the spirit of rationalism. enlightenment. S., on the other hand, saw in her a pledge of all humanity. vocations of Russia. The divergence was rooted in the difference in the historiosophical views of both groups. S. found in the nationality, nationality "natural." And considered the world historical. as an aggregate, successions. activities of these unique people. integrity. In a view of the history of mankind, S. was avoided as a nationalist. isolationism, and mechanical. leveling, characteristic, in their opinion, for the position of Westerners inclined towards the arts. "transplant" Western-European. societies. forms in Russian soil. S. were convinced that in the family of peoples for Russia struck her historical. hour., because app. culture has completed its circle and needs to be healed from the outside.

The theme of the crisis app. culture, sounded in Russian. societies. thoughts from the end of the 18th century. and intensified by the 30s. 19th century (D. Fonvizin, N. Novikov, A. S. Pushkin, V. Odoevsky and ""), conceptually ends with S .: "European enlightenment ... has reached ... full development ...", but gave birth to "deceived hope" and "dreamless emptiness", for "... with all the conveniences of external improvements in life, life itself was deprived of its essential meaning ...". "... Cold destroyed" the roots of European. enlightenment (Christianity), there was only "... a self-moving knife of the mind, recognizing nothing but itself and personal experience, this self-ruling ...", this logical activity, detached "... from all other cognitive forces of man .. ." (Kireevsky I.V., Poln. sobr. soch., v. 1, M., 1911, p. 176). Thus, S. bitterly notice "in the far West, in the land of holy miracles" associated with the cult of material progress, the triumph of rationality, selfishness, the loss of spiritual integrity and guiding spiritual morals. criteria in life. This early critique of flourishing bourgeoisism was voiced simultaneously with a similar Kierkegaardian critique, which later became canonical. place not only in Christ. existential philosophy, but in almost all subsequent philosophy of culture. But if this criticism leads Kierkegaard to the path of voluntarism. individualism and irrationalism, then S. find a foothold in the idea of ​​catholicity (free fraternal community) as a guarantee of a holistic person and true knowledge. Keeper of the conciliar spirit - "intact" religion. truth - S. saw in Russian. soul and Russia, seeing the norms of "choral" harmony in the foundations of the Orthodox Church and in the life of the cross. communities. Responsible for spiritual trouble Western-Europe. S.'s life was considered Catholicism (his legalism, the suppression of a person by a formal organizational principle) and (his leading to a devastating self-closure of the individual). Contrasting types of European and Russian. a person, therefore, is not racially naturalistic in S., but morally spiritual in nature (compare with the later analysis of Russian psychology in the novels of Dostoevsky and with Ap. separate aspirations" (ibid., p. 210), the "Slav" thinks from the center of his "I", and considers it his moral duty to keep all his spiritual forces gathered in this center. The doctrine of the whole person is developed in S.'s ideas about the hierarchical. the structure of the soul, about its "central forces" (Khomyakov), about the "internal center of the spirit" (I. Kireevsky), about the "core, as it were, a focus from which a self-originating key" beats personality (Samarin). This christ. , ascending to the east. patristics, was perceived by Yurkevich and formed the basis of the ideological and artistic. Dostoevsky's concept of "man in man".

Fragmentation of Europe type, the substitution of reason for a holistic spirit found, according to S., in the last word of the Western European. thoughts - in idealism and epistemology. After going through the school of Hegel and the Schellingian criticism of Hegel, S. turned to ontology; philosophy is not recognized as the key to the knowledge of S.. speculation that gives rise to a hopeless circle of concepts, but a breakthrough to being and staying in existential truth (they saw in patristics the germ of a "higher philosophical beginning"). Subsequently, this train of thought received systematic. completion in the "philosophy of being" by Vl. Solovyov. The cognition of the truth turns out to be dependent on the "correct state of the soul," and "separated from the striving of the heart," is regarded as "entertainment for the soul," i.e. frivolity (see ibid., p. 280). Thus, at this point, S. are among the initiators of the new European. philosophy of existence.

From the desire of S. to embody a holistic life, an Orthodox culture is born, in a swarm of Russian. religious began to take over Europe. enlightenment (cf. Solovyov's idea of ​​a "great synthesis"). S.'s social hopes for idyllic are also utopian. the path of life-building in Russia, not connected with formal legal norms (S. suggest "" between the state, on which the people - the source of power shifts ungrateful administrative functions, and the community, building life according to the norms of consent, a conciliar way). Thus, according to the patriarchal-minded S., the community and the individual in it, as it were, do not need legal. guarantees of their freedom. (S. claimed this, despite their own life - their publications were subjected to repeated censorship bans, and they themselves were subject to administrative persecution.) Social

Representatives of one of the directions of Russian. societies. thoughts ser. 19th century - Slavophilism, which appeared for the first time in the form of an integral system of views in 1839. Substantiated and approved a special way of ist.

development of Russia, fundamentally different, in their opinion, from the countries of the West. Europe. The originality of Russia S. saw in the absence, as it seemed to them, in its history of the class. wrestling, in Russian land community and artels, in Orthodoxy, to-roe S. was presented 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 direction itself (S., that is, Slavic lovers), given to them by Westerners - ch. S.'s opponents in the social and ideological disputes of the 1930s and 1940s. In addition, this name expressed the desire of Westerners to emphasize the connection of S. with lit. 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 glory. peace.

For S. were characterized by negative. attitude to the revolution, monarchism and religious-philosophical concepts.

By origin and social status, most of the S. belonged to the middle landowners, represented the noble intelligentsia, a few came from a merchant and raznochin environment, from the lower Orthodox clergy. The greatest role in the development of the system of views of S. in the 40-50s. played by A. S. Khomyakov, I. V. Kireevsky, partly by K. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin. P. V. Kireevsky, A. I. Koshelev, I. S. Aksakov, D. A. Valuev, F. V. Chizhov (1811–77), and V. A. Panov (1819–49) were also prominent , 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.. Close to S. were 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. Rigel’man, and G. P. Galagan paid great tribute to the views of S.

Moscow was the center of S., its lit. the salons of A. A. and A. P. Elagin, D. N. and E. A. Sverbeev, N. R. and K. K. Pavlov, where S. communicated and clashed in 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 pr-va, were subjected to censorship harassment, some of S. were under police supervision, found themselves under arrest for a short time (Samarin, Chizhov, I. S. Aksakov). S. did not have a permanent press organ for a long time, ch. arr. due to censorship. Printed premier. in "Moskvityanin"; published a few collections of articles - "Sinbirsky collection", 1844, "Collection of historical and statistical information about Russia and the peoples of her same faith and tribe", 1845, "Moscow collections", 1846, 1847 and 1852. After the death of Nicholas I and some To mitigate the oppression of censorship, S. began to publish their own magazines, Russkaya Beseda (1856–60), Sel. 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. Affected in the views of S. as well as the influence of idealistic. philosophical systems of F. Schelling and G. Hegel, ethical. and aesthetic doctrines of the conservative German. romanticism, religious-mystical. Eastern teachings. Church Fathers, French ist. and socio-political. lit-ry 20-40s. S.'s views have undergone a marked 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. Osn. representatives of S. in the post-reform. time - I. S. Aksakov, Samarin, N. Ya. Danilevsky, Koshelev, Cherkassky, in many ways and far diverged from each other. In the end, objectively in the ideology of S., the interests of those landowning nobles, whose life, economy and way of life were under the decisive influence of the capitalist, found expression. relations that grew stronger in the era of the fall of serfdom in Russia. It was the ideology of the bourgeois-landlord class. essence, moderately liberal in its political orientation. According to ch. the question of Russian reality, that is, on the issue of serfdom, S. took a well-defined liberal position, already from the end. 30s speaking resolutely for the abolition of serfdom "from above" with the provision of lands to the communities of the liberated peasants. allotments for redemption in favor of the landowners. Samarin, Koshelev and Cherkassky were among Ch. figures preparing and holding the cross. reforms of 1861. During the years of this reform, the complete closeness of the S. and the Westerners was practically established: both then represented the mutually converging interests of the liberal nobles and the bourgeoisie.

In the ideological disputes of the 40-50s. on the most important question of the path ist. development of Russia, S. opposed, in contrast to the Westerners, against a wide rapprochement with the West. Europe and the rapid assimilation by Russia of the forms and techniques of Western European. political life and order. In the struggle of S. against Europeanization, their conservatism was manifested. At the same time, S. spoke in favor of the development of trade and industry, joint stock. and banking, for the construction of railroads. and the use of machines in the village. x-ve. S. attached great importance to societies. opinion (by which they understood the public opinion of the enlightened liberal-bourgeois, propertied strata of the population), advocated the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor (Duma) from selected representatives of all societies. layers, but at the same time objected to the constitution and to.-l. formal restriction of autocracy. In the spirit of liberal ideology, S. defended the free expression of societies. opinions, sought the development of publicity, the elimination of censorship, the establishment of a public court with the participation of elected representatives of the population, opposed corporal punishment and the death penalty.

East S.'s views, basically idealistic, were inherent in the spirit of the romantic. historiography, the idealization of the old, pre-Petrine Russia with its allegedly peaceful, patriarchal, ignorant socio-political. struggle of societies in formation. Ancient Russia S. was represented by harmonica. a society devoid of contradictions, not knowing internal upheavals, showing the unity of the people and the tsar, "land", "zemshchina" and the state, "power". Peter I S. was accused of arbitrary violation of the organic. ist. development of Russia, violence. bringing in alien Russian. the beginnings of Western-European. ideas, forms, orders, manners and tastes. From the time of Peter I, according to S., "authority", the state themselves opposed themselves to the "zemshchina", the state of imperial Russia rose above the people, the nobility and intelligentsia broke away from the people. life, one-sidedly and outwardly assimilating the Western European. culture, neglecting the native language and way of life. life. Meanwhile, it is precisely “the common people that are the foundation of the entire social building of the country” (K. S. Aksakov, cited from the book: N. L. Brodsky, 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. arbitrarily attributed a special, in fact ahistorical.

Slavophilism

Russian character. "folk spirit". S. M. Solovyov in Art. "Schlozer and anti-historical direction" (1857), directed against the East. S.'s constructions, rightly pointed out the denial of S., with such an understanding of the people, in fact, any possibility of the ist. development. But, based on the idealistic ideas about the unchanging "folk spirit", S. called on the intelligentsia to draw closer to the people, to study their life and way of life, culture and language. Calls these and practical. the activities of S. themselves, in collecting cultural monuments of the Russian. people were important, contributed to the awakening of the nat. self-awareness. S. did a lot to collect and preserve the monuments of Russian. culture and language (a collection of folk songs by P. V. Kireevsky, a dictionary of the living Great Russian language by Dahl, etc.). They (especially Belyaev, partly Samarin and others) laid a solid foundation in Russian. historiography to 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 the Slavic committees in Russia in 1858-1878.

With criticism. views S. acted in 40-50-ies. S. M. Soloviev, K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin. With revolutionary-democratic. S.'s positions were criticized by V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. G. Chernyshevsky, and N. A. Dobrolyubov. For the pre-revolutionary Russian 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 to the middle. 19th century exclusively to the disputes of 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", out of class, out of class. groups that fought against the reactionaries. forces of the "epoch of official philistinism", their disputes were presented as a "great split" in the history of Russian. intelligentsia. GV Plekhanov was one of the first to try to define the class. the nature of S.'s views. But in his "History of Russian Social Thought" Plekhanov scientifically illegally used the terms "Westernism" and "Slavophilism", applying them to the ist. the process of development of Russian. societies. thought since the 17th century. It is also illegal and the identification of S.'s views with the theory of official. 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 the ideological and genetic. links between S. and populism, between Westerners and Russian. Marxists; these attempts are scientifically untenable.

Many provisions of the Russian prerevolutionary historiography about S. inherited modern bourgeois. Western European and Amer. authors (E. Lempert, O. Clark, R. Tompkins, G. Cohn, etc.). Partially, these provisions spread in the West through the works of Rus. emigrants (N. A. Berdyaev, G. V. Vernadsky, V. V. Zenkovsky, etc.). Means. Socialist historians and sociologists show interest in studying the ideology of S., especially their relations 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 the real social and political. S.'s activities, which reduces the significance and scientific validity of such an analysis.

Owls. historians, historians of philosophy, literature, economics. thoughts (A. G. Dementiev, S. S. Dmitriev, S. I. Mashinskiy, S. A. Nikitin, A. S. Nifontov, N. L. Rubinstein, N. G. Sladkevich, N. A. Tsagolov) studied social-political, economic, philosophical, literary-aesthetic. and ist. S.'s views, their activities, journalism and art.-lit. inheritance. In recent decades, a significant number of new sources on the history of S.

Lit .: Lenin V.I., Economic. the content of populism and its criticism in Mr. Struve's book, Poln. coll. soch., 5th ed., vol. 1 (vol. 1); his, Still on the question of the theory of realization, ibid., vol. 4 (vol. 4); him, Persecutors of the Zemstvo and Annibals of liberalism, ibid., vol. 5 (vol. 5); Chernyshevsky N. G., Essays on the Gogol period, Russian. lit-ry, Full. coll. op. v. 3, M., 1947; his own, Notes on journals of 1857, ibid., vol. 4, M., 1948; his own, Folk stupidity, ibid., vol. 7, M., 1950; Kostomarov N.I., On the importance of critical. works of K. Aksakov in Russian. history, St. Petersburg, 1861; Pypin A.N., Characteristics lit. opinions from the 20s to the 50s, 3rd ed., St. Petersburg, 1906; Linitsky P., Slavophilism and liberalism, K., 1882; Maksimovich G. A., Teachings of the first Slavophiles, K., 1907; Brodsky N. L., Early Slavophiles, Moscow, 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. the theory of the Slavophiles and its class. roots, in the book: Rus. historical liters per class. lighting, g. 1, M., 1927; Derzhavin N., Herzen and the Slavophiles, "Historian-Marxist", 1939, No 1; Dmitriev S. S., Slavophiles and Slavophilism, ibid., 1941, No 1; his own, Rus. the public and the 700th anniversary of Moscow (1847), IZ, vol. 36, M., 1951; his, The approach must be concrete-historical, "Questions of Literature", 1969, No 12; Dementiev A. G., Essays on the history of Russian. 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 history in Russian. political thoughts in modern reaction bourgeois literature, M., 1957; Nikitin S. A., Slav. k-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; Hillelson M., Zhukovsky's letters on the prohibition of the "European", "Rus. lit-ra", 1965, No 4; his own, Unknown journalistic. 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 - representatives of Slavophilism - the socio-political movement of the Russian intelligentsia of the 19th century, proclaiming a special, dissimilar to the countries of the West, the path of development of Russia; Orthodoxy, as a true religion, as opposed to Catholicism, the existence of some exceptional Russian civilization, distinguished by its special spirituality

History of the Slavophiles

Wikipedia dates the beginning of Slavophilism to the end of the 15th - the middle of the 16th centuries, when a discussion broke out in religious circles in Russia between two camps: the "Josephites" and the Trans-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 any at all in Russia 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 the Russian armies in Europe during the Napoleonic wars allowed many Russians, who had not known European reality before, to see and appreciate it with their own eyes. Educated Russian officers found that in terms of comfort, order, civility, pleasantness of 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 progressive Russian people. The uprising of the Decembrists 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.

In the same period, after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, a wave of nationalism swept over Europe. The 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, originality, 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 opinion that spread among some intellectuals that the reason for the backwardness and

“The receptive nature of the Slavs, their femininity, lack of initiative and a great ability to assimilate and plasticity make them predominantly a people in need of other peoples, they are not completely satisfied with themselves” (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 tacitly supported such judgments, although the criticism of the great ancestor of the Romanovs was unpleasant, and there were enough Germans among the highest dignitaries of the Empire.

Views of the Slavophiles

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

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

Criticism of the Slavophiles by Herzenym

- “The state life of pre-Petrine Russia was ugly, poor, wild”
- “(Slavophiles) believed that to share the prejudices of the people means to be in unity with them, that to sacrifice one’s mind instead of developing the mind of the people is a great act of humility”
- “Returning 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 fix them in motionless Asian crystallizations, but in order to develop, free the principles on which they are based, cleanse them of everything superficial, distorting, of the wild meat with which they are overgrown”
- “The mistake of the Slavs was that it seems to them that Russia once had a development peculiar to it, obscured by various events and, finally, by the Petersburg period. Russia has never had this development and could not have”
- “The idea of ​​nationality is a conservative idea - defending one's rights, opposing oneself to another; it contains both the Judaic concept of the superiority of the tribe, and the aristocratic claims to the purity of blood and to primacy. Nationality, like a banner, like a battle cry, is only surrounded by a revolutionary halo when the people are fighting for independence, when they overthrow the foreign yoke.
- “One powerful thought of the West ... is able to fertilize the embryos dormant in the patriarchal life of the Slavs. The artel and the rural community, the division of profits and the division of fields, the secular gathering and the merging of villages into volosts that govern themselves - all these are the cornerstones on which the temple of our future free-communal life is being built. But these cornerstones are still stones ... and without Western thought, our future cathedral would have remained on 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

Printing organ of the Slavophiles - "Moskvityatnin"

Magazine "Moskvityanin"

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

Russian philosophy of the 19th century Westernism and Slavophilism

Grigoriev, E. Edelson, B. Almazov. A. I. Artemiev, A. F. Veltman, P. A. Vyazemsky, F. N. Glinka, N. V. Gogol (scenes from The Inspector General, 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 is critical notes, various news headings.
- 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 creativity, etc.
- In 1851 - biographical descriptions, stories, novels and poems, notes on the history of Russia, European and domestic news, data on ethnography.
- In 1852, the journal contained prose and poetry, foreign literature, sciences (articles on history), historical materials, criticism and bibliography, journalism, foreign books, contemporary news, news of Moscow, and various articles.
- In 1853 - various literary works: poems and stories, various critical notes, current 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, contemporary notes, various geographical data, experiments on biographical characteristics.
- In 1855 - articles on geography, literature, art history, the history of Russia, religion, the history of the Orthodox Church, various literary works - poems, novels 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 Slavophils 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. After all, under Alexander, Russia firmly and confidently embarked on the road of capitalist development, which the countries of Europe were moving on, and walked along it so successfully that the views of the Slavophiles about some kind of 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 reversed the country. An 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, as opposed to the Westernizers - liberals, intelligibly 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 duplicitous, in contrast to the Russian - bold, wise, proud, courageous, direct and honest; that Russia has a special path of development, a special history, traditions, spirituality

Westernizers and Slavophiles

When the caravan turns back, a lame camel is ahead

Eastern wisdom

The two dominant philosophical thoughts in 19th century Russia are Westernizers and Slavophiles. It was an important dispute in terms of choosing not only the future of Russia, but also its foundations and traditions. This is not just a choice to which part of civilization this or that society belongs, it is a choice of a path, a determination of the vector of future development. Back in the 19th century, a fundamental split took place in Russian society in the 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 as "Westernism" and "Slavophilism" respectively. 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, we need to go a little deeper into history and expand the temporal context.

The roots of the emergence of Slavophiles and Westernizers

It is generally accepted that the split in society over the choice of one's path or the inheritance of Europe was introduced by the tsar, and later by the emperor Peter 1, who tried to modernize the country in a European way and, as a result, brought to Russia many ways and foundations that were characteristic exclusively for Western society. But this was only 1, an extremely vivid example of how the issue of choice was decided by force, and this decision was imposed on the whole society. However, the history of the dispute is much more complicated.

Origins of Slavophilism

To begin with, you should deal with the roots of the emergence of Slavophiles in Russian society:

1. Religious values.
2. Moscow is the third Rome.
3. Reforms of Peter

religious values

Historians discovered the first dispute about the choice of the path of development 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 has been happening for a long time. Consequently, the Muscovite kingdom must protect itself from the ecclesiastical influence of these camps and carry out a cleansing (“hesychasm”) of things unnecessary for a righteous life, including “worldly vanity.” The opening of the patriarchate in Moscow in 1587 was proof that Russia had the right to have “its own” church.

Moscow is the third Rome

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

Reformatory activity of Peter

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

Origins of Westernism

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

• Discovery of Western Europe. As soon as the subjects of the 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 lagging behind, as well as ways to solve this complex economic, social and political problem. Under the influence of Europe was Peter, after the "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 XVIII century, when the thinkers of Europe (Rousseau, Montesquieu, Diderot) expressed ideas about universal equality, the spread of education, and also about limiting the power of the monarch. These ideas quickly came 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 1830-1840. One of the founders of Slavophilism is the writer and philosopher Alexei Khomyakov. During this period, two newspapers were published in Moscow, which were considered the "voice" of the Slavophiles: "Moskvityanin" and "Russian conversation". All articles of these newspapers are saturated with conservative ideas, criticism of Peter's reforms, as well as reflections on "Russia's own path."

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

Common and distinctive views of Westerners and Slavophiles

Historians and philosophers who are engaged in the study of Westernizers and Slavophiles identify the following subjects for discussion between these currents:

• Civilization Choice. For Westerners, Europe is the standard of development. For the Slavophiles, Europe is an example of moral decline, a source of pernicious ideas. Therefore, the latter insisted on a special path for the 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 common idea.
• The personality of the monarch and his status. Among Westerners, there were two views on the monarch in the empire: he should either be removed (republican form of government) or limited (constitutional and parliamentary monarchy). The Slavophiles believed that absolutism is a truly Slavic form of government, the constitution and parliament are political instruments alien to the Slavs. A vivid example of such a view of the monarch is the 1897 census, where the last emperor of the Russian Empire in the column "occupation" indicated "the owner of the Russian land."
• Peasantry. Both currents agreed that serfdom was a relic, a sign of Russia's backwardness. But the Slavophiles urged to liquidate it "from above", that is, with the participation of the authorities and the nobles, and the Westerners urged to listen to the opinion of the peasants themselves. In addition, the Slavophiles said that the peasant community is the best form of land management and farming. For the Westerners, the community must be dissolved and a private farmer created (which P. Stolypin tried to do in 1906-1911).
• Freedom of information. According to the Slavophiles, censorship is a normal thing if it is in the interests of the state.

  Westernizers and Slavophiles

  Westerners stood for freedom of the press, free choice of language, and so on.

• Religion. This is one of the main points of the Slavophiles, since Orthodoxy is the basis of the Russian state, "Holy Russia". It is the Orthodox values ​​that Russia must protect, and therefore it should not adopt the experience of Europe, because it will violate the Orthodox canons. A reflection of these views was the concept of Count Uvarov "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality", which became the basis for building 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 - beginning of the 20th century, these two currents underwent a complex evolution and were transformed into directions and political currents. 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 (perhaps only Orthodox) under one flag of one state (Russia). Or another example: the chauvinistic and monarchist organizations “Black Hundreds” arose out of Slavophilism. This is an example of a radical organization. The Constitutional Democrats (the Cadets) adopted 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 announced his own, special path for the country. In fact, the entire history of the USSR is the realization of the idea of ​​its 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 the Slavophiles and Westernizers were formed over a long period of time. These are complex ideologies based on the choice of a value system. These ideas underwent a complex transformation during the 19th-20th centuries and became the basis of many political currents in Russia. But it is worth recognizing that Slavophiles and Westernizers 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 Westernizers are far from all the social movements of Russia in the 19th century. It’s just that they are 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 unceasing disputes about "How to live on" - copy Europe or stop on your own 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 the realities of the time that form the views of people and force them to commit certain actions. And it was the realities of that time that gave rise to Westernism and Slavophilism.

Slavophilism is one of the currents of Russian social thought in the middle of the 19th century, which defended the idea of ​​national identity and a special historical path for the development of Russia.

Slavophilism is one of the currents of Russian social thought in the middle of the 19th century, which defended the idea of ​​national identity and a special historical path for the development of Russia. The term Slavophiles was introduced by their Western opponents. The Slavophils themselves perceived it as an offensive nickname. “We should have been called not Slavophiles, but, in contrast to the Westerners, rather, natives or originals; but even these nicknames would not fully characterize us, ”said A. I. Koshelev (Koshel s in A. I. Zapiski, M .: 1091. P. 92). Members of Khomyakov's circle preferred to call themselves the "Moscow direction" or the "Moscow party", but the term Slavophiles was fixed in historical science.

In Russian historical science, the concept of Slavophiles was used at different times to define phenomena that had different chronological and ideological frameworks. In con. 19 - beg. 20th century this term defined the widest range of Slavic sympathies. At the same time, not only Khomyakov and his associates were called Slavophiles, but also conservative thinkers from M, N. Katkov to L. A. Tikhomirov. A similar understanding of the term "Slavophiles" was adhered to by the conservatives themselves. 19 -beginning 20 centuries, and their critics from the liberal camp (Soloviev V.S. The national question in Russia, St. Petersburg, 1888; Kireev A.A. Slavophilism and nationalism. Answer to Mr. Solovyov. St. Petersburg, 1890 ). “In the eyes of our liberal intelligentsia, from Belinsky to the present day,” noted M. O. Gershenzon, “Slavophilism is characterized by adherence to Orthodoxy and narrow political conservatism.” (Gerschson M. O. Historical notes (on Russian society). M., 1910. P. 139). The broadest definition of Slavophilism was given by G. V. Plekhanov, who considered it as one of the trends in the ideological life of Russia that existed in the 17th century. (Plekhanov G. V. History of Russian social thought // Plekhanov G. V. Sobr. soch. M.; D., 1926. T, 23). Plekhanov's point of view was subsequently supported by some researchers (Kozhinov V.V. On the main thing in the heritage of the Slavophils. VL. 1969 - No. 10). However, most of the domestic historians are inclined to consider Slavophilism as a concrete historical phenomenon. 19th century At the same time, the boundaries of this phenomenon are also defined in different ways. Before the beginning 1980s there was a broad interpretation of the concept of Slavophilism, for example, S. S. Dmitriev characterized pochvennichestvo as one of its varieties (SIE. M, 1966. T. 9-S. 723). In modern historical science, the point of view is distinguished by solid argumentation, according to which Slavophilism is defined as an ideological trend founded by A. S. Khomyakov, I. V. Kireevsky and their closest associates. According to this position, Slavophilism as an integral trend in societies and thought existed from 1839 to 1875. Four stages of its development are distinguished: 1st - 1839-48 - the period of formation of S.; 2nd - 1848-55 - the period of the establishment of Slavophilism as one of the leading trends in Russian social thought; 3rd - 1855-61 - the period of "effective Slavophilism", active reformatory activity of the Slavophiles; 4th - 1861-75 - the period of the collapse of the Slavophile circle and the decomposition of Slavophilism itself (Tsimbaev N. I. Slavophilism: From the history of Russian socio-political thought of the XIX century. M., 1986).

In addition to Khomyakov and Ivan Kireevsky, the Moscow circle of Slavophiles included: P. B. Kireevsky, K. S. Aksakov, I. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin, Koshelev, D. A. Valuev, V. A. Panov, F V. Chizhov, A. N. Popov, I. D. Belyaev, etc.

Most researchers date the appearance of the Slavophiles in the winter of 1839. The reason for its emergence was the publication by Khomyakov of his handwritten article "On the Old and the New", which became a kind of manifesto of Slavophilism. Ivan Kireevsky responded to this speech with the article "In response to A. S. Khomyakov." The ideas expressed by Khomyakov and Ivan Kireevsky received a certain response, and soon a circle of like-minded people formed in Moscow. To the beginning 1850s Slavophilism developed into an integral and harmonious structure, which included elements of epistemology, historiosophy, theology, social philosophy, at the same time the Slavophiles put forward a program for the future transformations of Russia, which included the abolition of serfdom, the expansion of civil liberties, and the strengthening of Orthodox principles in the life of the country as key points.

Slavophiles believed that Ancient Russia had a much higher potential for social and spiritual development than any other state in Western Europe. According to them, the state in Russia arose not by conquering some peoples by others, but by voluntarily calling power. Therefore, from the point of view of the Slavophiles, in Russia there were no preconditions for the social and class struggle that destroyed the social life of Western Europe. The state structure of Russia was based not on legal norms, but on the requirements of Christian morality. The population preferred communal forms of life based on tolerance and mutual support. Further development of the principles on which ancient Russian society was built could, according to the Slavophiles, lead to the creation of a fundamentally new type of state structure - a Christian, Orthodox society based on the principles of justice and social harmony. In practice, this was prevented by the reforms of Peter I, which introduced into Russian life European elements alien to it. As a result of the reforms, 18th century Russian nobility was cut off from national roots. It began to look at Russia through the eyes of Europeans, having largely lost the ability to understand the history of its country and the social and spiritual changes taking place in it.

The normal development of Russia, from the point of view of the Slavophiles, was possible only if it returned to its original, original beginnings. At the same time, it was not a question of restoring the pre-Petrine order, which was repeatedly reproached by the Slavophiles by their Western opponents. “Do me a favor,” Khomyakov wrote to Koshelev in his letter “O sat. Community," - put aside any thought that a return to antiquity has become our dream. It’s one thing: to advise not to cut off the roots of a tree and to heal carelessly made cuts, and another thing: to advise to leave only the roots and, so to speak, drive the tree into the ground again ”(Khomyakov A.S. About the old and the new. M. , 1988, p. 162). The social ideal of Slavophilism was a "churched society", i.e. the embodiment in public life of the principles professed by the Russian Orthodox Church. They considered the peasant community to be a small and imperfect model of such a society. Almost all representatives of the "Moscow direction" actively defended its right to exist. From the point of view of Khomyakov and his like-minded people, active propaganda of Orthodox values ​​among the educated strata of society, coupled with an all-round strengthening of the role of the community in the social life of Russia, should eventually lead to its return to the path of original historical and spiritual development.

Slavophilism is characterized by the desire to overcome the "lifeless cosmopolitanism" and "mental apathy" of Russian society. Khomyakov considered it necessary to influence him with enlightenment and education; K. S. Aksakov tried to attract to the “Russian idea” by personal example - he wore a murmolka, boots, Russian clothes. Samarin, while holding various positions in the state apparatus, tried to put into practice the Slavophile "love of truth", in accordance with the possibilities and needs of the moment. The Slavophil circle had a significant and beneficial influence on Russian society in the 1840s-60s. On the initiative and with the participation of the Slavophiles, the Siberian Collection (T. 1. M, 1845), the Moscow Collection (T. 1, M., 1852), the magazines Moskvityanin and Russkaya Beseda (1856-60) were published , the newspapers "Molva" (1857), "Parus" (1859), "Moscow" (1867-68), "The Day", etc. Members of the circle repeatedly initiated public discussions on topical scientific and socio-political issues, took an active part in the preparation and implementation of the Peasant Reform of 1861.

The government circles of the Russian Empire were suspicious of the Slavophiles and accused them of unreliability. “Slavophiles confuse their commitment to Russian antiquity with principles that cannot exist in a monarchical state and are clearly hostile to the current order of things,” noted in one of the reports of the 3rd branch of the Own. E. I. V. office (GARF. F. 109. Op. 24. D. 471). Emperor Nicholas I himself, in a conversation with the arrested Samarin, stated: “You launched a dangerous idea into the people, interpreting that the Russian tsars since the time of Peter the Great acted only under the suggestion and under the influence of the Germans. If this thought goes to the people, it will produce terrible actions ”(N and k and tenko about A.V. Dnevnik. L., 1955. T. 1. S. 329). The opposition of the authorities significantly hampered the activities of the Slavophil circle. The publications of the Slavophiles were constantly subjected to persecution by censorship.

No less criticism was caused by Slavophilism in the liberal and Western circles of the 1840s and 50s. The review of T. N. Granovsky in a letter to K. D. Kavelin dated 10/2/1855 is characteristic: “These people are disgusting to me like coffins. Not a single bright thought, not a single noble look. Their opposition is fruitless, because it is based on a single denial of everything that has been done in our country in a century and a half of modern history. (T. N. Granovsky and his correspondence. M., 1897. T. 2. S. 456). No less characteristic is the entry made by A. I. Herzen in his diary dated December 6, 1842: “together with hatred and disdain for the West, hatred and disdain for freedom of thought, for law, for all guarantees, for all civilization. Thus, the Slavophils by themselves become on the part of the government ... ”(Herzen A.I. Sobr. soch.: V 30 t. M., 1954. V. 2. C 240). The distrust of the government, on the one hand, and liberal circles, on the other hand, placed the Slavophiles in a special position in the public life of Russia, Ser. 19th century

Estimates of Slavophilism in the literature are extremely contradictory. Representatives of conservative thought con. 19 - beg. 20th century considered it the cornerstone of Russian national identity, and the majority of Russian liberals negatively assessed Slavophilism because of its monarchism and adherence to Orthodoxy. Characteristic is the point of view of A. N. Pypin, who characterized Slavophilism as the desire to “exalt the Moscow way of life before Peter the Great and raise it to the level of a new principle of civilization” (Pypin A. N. Characteristics of literary opinions from the 20s to the 50s, M., 1906. S. 254-55). Some researchers of Slavophilism from the liberal camp gave more restrained assessments of this current of social thought: Kavelin resolutely denied accusations of Slavophilism in retrograde and argued that "the ideals of both Slavophiles and Westernizers, for all their differences, were equally pure, sublime and impeccable" (Kavelin. K. D. Collected works of St. Petersburg, 1899. T, 3. C, 11b1). The socialists gave a contradictory assessment to the Slavophils. Herzen and N. G. Chernyshevsky criticized this trend, but recognized the truth of many of its provisions. At the same time, M.A. Antonovich (Antonovich M.A. Moscow Slovenian. Sovremennik. 1862. No. 1) and D. I. Pisarev spoke extremely negatively about the teachings of Khomyakov and his associates.

Owls. historiography of the 1920-30s evaluated Slavophilism extremely negatively. S.S. Dmitriev was the first to try to look objectively at this movement, who reasonably showed the progressive nature of many provisions of the doctrine of the Slavophils. (Dmitry in S. S. Slavophiles and Slavophilism // Marxist Historian, 1941. No. I).

In the last decade, the analysis of the teachings of Khomyakov and his like-minded people has become more multifaceted, covering not only its socio-political, but also the religious and philosophical component. In general, a positive assessment of the Slavophiles dominates in modern historiography; researchers emphasize the positive role that it played in the development of Russian social thought in the 19th century.

Public thought of Russia in the 18th - early 20th centuries. Encyclopedia. Rep. ed. d. i. n., prof. V. V. Zhuravlev.