SLAVICHILISM- a direction in Russian philosophy and social thought, focused on identifying the originality of Russia, its typical differences from the West. Predominant attention in Slavophilism was paid to the philosophy of history. It arose in the late 30s. 19th century as an opponent and ideological antipode Westernism . The manifesto that announced its formation was a handwritten work A.S. Khomyakova “About the Old and the New”, soon supplemented by an essay by I.V. Kireevsky, also handwritten - “In response to A.S. Khomyakov”. Both speeches date back to 1839. They already formulated the initial principles that guided Slavophilism subsequently. A circle was formed that collectively developed the Slavophil doctrine. Khomyakov not only stood at the origins of Slavophilism, he became its recognized leader. In his "Notes on World History" The philosophical and historical views of Slavophilism are presented most fully and thoroughly. The ideologists of Slavophilism also include I.V.Kireevsky , K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, Yu.F. Samarin . A.I. Koshelev, being a wealthy man, financed publications, and the “Notes” left by him allow us to consider him as a historiographer of Slavophilism. Among the Slavophiles there were philologists, historians, and representatives of other professions. P.V.Kireevsky collected thousands of folk songs and epics. The work of studying Russian folk art was continued by A.F. Hilferding. V.I. Dal created a dictionary of the Russian language. I.D. Belyaev’s work “Peasants in Rus'” became the first generalizing study on the history of the Russian peasantry. Slavophile ideas were widely disseminated through the philosophical lyrics of Khomyakov, N.M. Yazykov, F.I. Tyutchev.

Arose back in the beginning. 18th century rejection of imitation of the West and the search for originality formed the general background against which the activities of the Slavophiles were carried out. Slavophiles were also influenced by Romanticism, Schelling and Hegel.

For more than 20 years, Slavophiles waged polemics with Westerners, during which the concept of Slavophilism was developed, arguments were improved, and logical techniques were used. At first, oral polemics prevailed between the two ideological currents. In the first half of the 1840s. general meetings were practiced in Moscow salons (A.P. Elagina, P.Ya. Chaadaev, D.N. Sverbeev, etc.). After mid. 1840s relations worsened, the dispute was entirely focused on the pages of the press.

The term “Slavophilism” itself was introduced into use by Westerners, who borrowed it from the Karamzinists, who so called the platform of A.S. Shishkov and his supporters. Slavophiles preferred other self-names: “Muscovites”, “Moscow direction”, “Moscow party” - in contrast to their opponents, who preferred St. Petersburg. They also considered themselves to be part of the Russian trend, opposing it to the Western. They used the concept “Easterns” in the same sense. However, the term “Slavophilism” turned out to be tenacious, was accepted by contemporaries who witnessed the ongoing confrontation, gradually lost its ironic connotation and eventually began to be used by the Slavophiles themselves.

In the 1840s–50s. Slavophiles published in the magazines “Moskvityanin”, “Russian Conversation”, “Rural Improvement”, newspapers “Molva”, “Parus”; published collections: “Sinbirsky collection” (1844), “Collection of historical and statistical information about Russia and the peoples of the same faith and tribes” (1845), three “Moscow collections” (1846, 1847, 1852). Some works of Slavophiles were not allowed for publication by the censor, and some, due to their content, were not intended for publication, forming handwritten Slavophil literature that circulated along with printed literature.

Slavophiles made attempts to oppose themselves to borrowings from the West in the practice of everyday life. They dressed in a dress that, according to their concepts, corresponded to Russian national traditions; they grew beards, because... they were previously worn by representatives of all classes of Rus', not only lower, but also higher. In this form they appeared on the streets of Moscow, traveled abroad, visited aristocratic houses, violating the prevailing etiquette. Particularly famous was the mansion on Sobachaya Ploshchadka, acquired by Khomyakov and transformed by him in accordance with Slavophile tastes.

If Westerners focused on what united or should unite Russia with Western Europe, then Slavophiles focused on the differences. According to the Slavophiles, the path of development that has been tested by the West is not suitable for Russia. Its history is peculiar, has little in common with the European one, and although over the past hundred and fifty years the existence of the country has undergone partial deformations due to external influences, it must move forward based on its own traditions and differently from the West.

The ideological basis of Russian identity, according to the Slavophiles, is Orthodoxy, which is closely connected with social life and ensures its development. The Western branches of Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism, which contain the principles of rationalism and individualism, turned out to be unable to direct the peoples of Europe to the path that the Russian people, guided by Orthodoxy, had long followed. However, Orthodoxy, the Slavophiles believed, had not yet managed to reveal all its merits. In Byzantium, this was prevented by the influence of ancient Roman civilization. In Rus', ritual came to the fore, pushing into the background the spiritual content of faith and conscious confession. The Slavophiles were particularly dissatisfied with the official church of their time - its complete subordination to secular power and the non-use of existing religious wealth.

Among the phenomena that influenced Russian history, Slavophiles especially singled out the Russian community. They were convinced that this was the basic element that determined the entire life of Russian society. There is no such social institution in the West. The community is the guarantor of Russia's identity not only in the past and present, but also in the future. Through the efforts of Slavophiles - Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov and others - the Russian community became the property of social science, not only Russian, but also European.

The Slavophiles considered the autocracy to be a political difference between Russia and the West, which, having been around for many centuries, should, in their opinion, be preserved, like everything else that makes up the specificity of Russia. But the autocracy, whose supporters the Slavophiles declared themselves to be, was significantly different from what actually took place. This is not real, but ideal autocracy. Autocracy, according to the Slavophiles, is not an apparatus of coercion, but a moral force capable of uniting society and resisting the centrifugal movements existing in it. They hoped that in the future autocracy could be combined with broad publicity and popular representation.

The Slavophile circle and Slavophilism as a special trend in social thought ceased to exist at the very beginning of the 1860s. with the death in 1856 of I.V. Kireevsky, in 1860 - of Khomyakov and K.S. Aksakov. The most creative forces that gave it a unique identity and made the circle a significant phenomenon in public life left Slavophilism. The objective situation itself has changed. The reform of 1861 outlined the contours of further history. Instead of the previous problems, new ones arose that required different approaches. But the polemics between Slavophiles and Westerners, the focus on originality or Europeanism, continued to be the focus of various directions of Russian philosophical and social consciousness in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Literature:

1. Yankovsky Yu.Z. Patriarchal-noble utopia. M., 1981;

2. Koshelev V.A. Aesthetic and literary views of Russian Slavophiles. 1840–1850s M., 1984;

3. Tsimbaev N.I. Slavophilism. M., 1986;

4. Sukhov A.D. Centenary discussion: Westernism and originality in Russian philosophy. M., 1998.

Slavophiles

Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slavophiles were religious thinkers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main source of Russian culture is Orthodoxy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Ibid. pp. 72-73.

5 Ibid. P. 72.

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

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

8 Ibid. P. 364.

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

10 Ibid. P. 453.

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

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

Slavophiles - briefly

History of the Slavophiles

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

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

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

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

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

Views of the Slavophiles

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

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

Criticism of the Slavophiles by Herzen

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

Representatives of the Slavophiles

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

The printed organ of the Slavophiles - “Moskvityatnin”

Magazine "Moskvityanin"

Ideas of the Slavophiles today

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

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

Sources of Slavophilism

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

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

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

Main points

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

Stages of development

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

The period of formation of Slavophilism (1839-1848)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instilled in Russian society a belief in motionless ideals of antiquity; it was a purely conservative faith. The first Slavophiles preached free development ideals of antiquity; they were patriotic progressives. The main means of achieving the goal of the “official people” was “guardianship” of society and the fight against protest, while the Slavophiles stood for freedom of thought and speech. But in terms of the essence of ideals, both theories were in contact on many points.

The emergence of Slavophilism

Slavophilism arose as a result of:

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

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

The main representatives of Slavophilism

The school of Slavophiles emerged around the second half of the 1830s: the Kireyevsky brothers (Ivan and Peter), Khomyakov, Dm. Valuev, Aksakovs (Konstantin and Ivan), Yuri Samarin 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 separated from them: Chaadaev’s philosophical letters severed the last ties.

Views of 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 Slavs under the Russian state). The Slavophiles, in some respects, came close to the liberal part of Russian society (democracy), but in others to the conservative part (idealization of antiquity).

The first Slavophiles were well-educated people, inspired by an ardent faith in their teaching, independent and therefore courageous. They believed in the great future of Russia, worshiped “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 “decaying West” itself. From their point of view, Peter I committed a sin by delaying the independent development of the Russian people. Slavophiles expounded the theory of the existence of “two worlds”: eastern, Greco-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 Greco-Slavic world, the main representative of which is the Russian people. Eastern Christianity is Orthodoxy, the distinctive feature of which is the unchanging preservation of universal tradition. Orthodoxy is therefore the only true Christianity. Our education is of Byzantine origin; if it was inferior to the Western in the external development of the mind, it exceeded it in its 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 a conquest, but there was a voluntary calling of rulers. This basic fact is reflected in the entire further development of social relations: we did not have violence combined with conquest, and therefore there was no feudalism in its European form, there was no internal struggle that constantly divided Western society; there were no classes. 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 only recently reached the idea of ​​​​creating a “community” (Saint-Simonism), the institution of which has already existed for centuries in the Russian village.

Thus, before Peter the Great, according to the Slavophiles, our development proceeded naturally. Religious consciousness was the main moral force and guidance in life; The people's life was distinguished by the unity of concept and unity of morals. The state was a vast community; power belonged to the king, who represented the general will; the close connection of the members of this great community was expressed by zemstvo councils, national representation that replaced the ancient evening. With such a liberal idealization of antiquity (veche, cathedrals) was associated the most enthusiastic admiration for the simple Russian “God-bearing” people; in his life, Slavophiles saw the embodiment of all Christian virtues (love for neighbors, humility, lack of selfishness, piety, ideal family relationships). Therefore, the slogan of Slavophilism became a modified formula of the official ideology of the era of Nicholas I: autocracy ( limited among the Slavophiles by zemsky councils), Orthodoxy ( with spiritual assemblies and parish powers) and nationality ( with community, cathedrals and freedom of development). Taking this point of view, Slavophiles were often strict critics of Russian modernity, and therefore, if not all, then many of them should be classified as opposition figures of that time.