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; , 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.

During the same period, after 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, 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
• The Russian people are god-bearers
• Orthodoxy is the only true religion in Christianity
• Europe is 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 sacrificing 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 is conservative - 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

The print organ of the Slavophiles - "Moskvitatnin"

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. 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, and ethnographic data.
- In 1852, the journal contained prose and poetry, foreign literature, science (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, Russian history, 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 the victorious march of Russia towards capitalism, and the February and October Revolution 1917 and 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: Westerners included Chaadaev, Herzen, Granovsky, Chernyshevsky, Botkin and others. The main idea of ​​Westerners is to recognize European culture as the last word of world civilization, the need for complete cultural reunification with the West, using the experience of its development for the prosperity of Russia. A special place in Russian philosophy The 19th century in general, in Westernism in particular, is occupied by Chaadaev, a thinker who took the first step in independent philosophical work in Russia in the 19th century, laying the foundation for the ideas of Westerners. He expounds his philosophical worldview in the Philosophical Letters and in the work Apology of a Madman. Chaadaev's philosophical perception of the world is of an objectively idealistic, religious nature. The main place in Chaadaev's philosophical work is occupied by the problem of the philosophy of history and man. He is interested not in the external manifestation of the historical process, but in its highest meaning. Chaadaev emphasizes that history is carried out by divine will, which determines the direction of development of the human race and history. The course of history is directed towards the kingdom of God as an expression of the perfect order on Earth. According to Chaadaev, the basis of the philosophy of history is providentialism - faith in the power of divine providence in the development of historical process. But providentialism does not reach absoluteness and extremes with him - and emphasizes, affirms the role and significance of man in the historical process, freedom and responsibility in the activities of people. humanity and justice. Unification with the West was seen not as a mechanical borrowing of Western European experience, but as a unification on a common Christian basis, requiring reformation, renewal of Orthodoxy. This idea of ​​Chaadaev was later deeply developed by the most prominent representative of Slavophilism A. Khomyakov. In the future, Chaadaev’s ideas were developed by such prominent representatives of Westernism as Stankevich, Herzen, Botkin, Chernyshevsky, Granovsky and others. Slavophiles: The second direction in Russian philosophy of the first half of the 19th century is Slavophilism The Slavophiles opposed the East to the West, remaining in their philosophical, religious, historical and philosophical views on Russian soil. BUT the denial of the West was not manifested in a blanket denial of its achievements, not in mossy nationalism. On the contrary, they recognized and highly valued the merits of Western European culture, philosophy, and spiritual life in general. They creatively accepted the philosophy of Schelling and Hegel and tried to use their ideas. They NEUTED the negative aspects of Western civilization: social antagonisms, extreme individualism and commercialism, excessive rationality, etc. The true opposition of the Slavophiles to the West consisted in a different approach to understanding the foundations, “beginnings” of Russian and Western European life. to possess original spiritual values, and not to perceive the indiscriminate and passive spiritual products of the West. This opinion remains relevant to this day. Representatives: Kireevsky, Khomyakov, Aksakovs, Samarin. Their views are united by a common position: recognition of the fundamental importance of Orthodoxy, consideration of faith as a source of true knowledge. At the heart of the philosophical worldview of Slavophilism is church consciousness, elucidation of the essence of the church. This foundation was most fully revealed by Khomyakov. (The church is a living spiritual organism that embodies truth and love as the spiritual unity of people) The main principle of the Church is the organic, natural, and not forced unity of people on a common spiritual basis: selfless love for Christ . - Khomyakov expressed this principle in the concept of “catholicity”, which has become one of the main categories of Russian philosophy. “Catholicity” is interpreted by him as “unity in plurality”. Moreover, this catholicity preserves the autonomy of its members, they do not merge with each other. Khomyakov's thoughts about catholicity received recognition and further development in Russian philosophical thought. Westerners - "I". Slavophiles - "We". We are not a union of several I, not a mechanical synthesis of I and You, but their primary indecomposable unity. Each I is contained in the We and vice versa, each I internally contains the We. At the same time, the I retains its originality, its freedom precisely thanks to its organic connection with the whole. Khomyakov has a negative attitude towards the theory of social. Environment French thinkers of the 18th century, who argued that the environment has a decisive influence on a person. He considered the environment as a set of accidents that prevent the full manifestation of his qualities. So, Westernism and Slavophilism are two opposite, but at the same time interconnected trends in the development of Russian philosophical thought, clearly showing the originality and great creative potential of Russian philosophy of the 19th century.

Or this option

Dialogue between Slavophiles and Westernizers.

Westerners- representatives of one of the directions of Russian social thought of the 40s. 19th century They advocated the elimination of feudal-serf relations and the development of Russia along the “western”, i.e. bourgeois way. In the middle of the 40s. The Moscow circle of Z. included Herzen, Ogarev, Granovsky, and others. Belinsky had a close relationship with the circle. I. Turgenev, P. Anenkov, I. Panaev, and others also belonged to Z. Recognition of a certain unity in the views of Z. (condemnation of the autocratic-feudal system, the struggle against the ideology of the “official nationality”, the development of the ideas of Enlightenment, the desire for Europeanization of Russia and etc.) and their objective bourgeois content does not negate the fact of disagreements between them. Initially, the controversy among Z. (on aesthetic, philosophical, and then socio-political issues) did not go beyond the circles. However, by the end of the 40s. two main tendencies are becoming more and more clear: Belinsky, Herzen and Ogarev appear as materialists, revolutionary democrats and socialists; Kavelin, Botkin, Korsh, and others defend idealism; in political matters they personify the line of bourgeois-landowner liberalism. Along with this, individual Z (for example, Granovsky) continue to remain in positions of supra-class enlightenment.

Slavophiles- representatives of the conservative political and idealistic philosophical trend of Russian social thought of the 19th century, who sought to justify the obstruction of a special (compared to Western European) path of development of Russia. In its objective sense, this was a utopian program for the transition of Russian nobles to the path of bourgeois development while maintaining the maximum of their privileges. S.'s program was formulated at a time when the need to move away from the old norms of exploitation and adapt the ruling class to new historical conditions became clear even to the most reactionary figures, up to Alexander 2. The first literary expression of the ideas of Slavophilism was received in 1839, developed in 40-50 years . and were accepted by pan-Slavism, post-October Russian. emigration. S., considered the features of Russian. history, Orthodoxy, extensive life (which they idealized), obedience to Russian. people, the absence in its history of class stratification, social contradictions and class struggle, which was a perversion of the history of Russia. This concept was substantiated by S. sociologically, arguing that the religion of the people, which determines the nature of its thinking, is the basis of social life. Since Orthodoxy is the true religion for S., only the peoples who profess it, and above all the Russian, can, from their point of view, count on progress, and other peoples - only to the extent that they perceive Orthodox civilization.

If not satisfied, found this

Westernizers and Slavophiles

In the 40s. 19th century two major ideological currents were born: Westernism and Slavophilism. Representatives of the Slavophiles were I.V. Kirievsky, A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Sarmatin, K.A. Aksakov, A.S. Khomyakov and others. The representatives of the Westerners were P.Ya. Chadaev, A.I. Herzen, V.G. Belinsky, N.V. Stankevich and others. A.I. Herzen and V.G. Belinsky joined them on a number of issues. Both those and others firmly believed in the great future of their Motherland, and sharply criticized Nikolaev's Russia. They were especially sharply opposed to serfdom, but sharply diverged in search of ways to develop the country. The Slavophils, while rejecting contemporary Russia, looked with even greater disgust at contemporary Europe. In their opinion, the Western world has become obsolete and has no future.

The Slavophiles defended the historical identity of Russia and singled it out as a separate world, opposing the West due to the peculiarities of Russian history, Russian religiosity, and the Russian stereotype of behavior. The Slavophiles considered the Orthodox religion, which was opposed to rationalistic Catholicism, to be the greatest value. A.S. Khomyakov wrote that Russia is called upon to become the center of world civilization, it strives not to be the richest or most powerful country, but to become “the most Christian of all human societies.” The Slavophiles paid special attention to the countryside, believing that the peasantry carries within itself the foundations of high morality, that it has not yet been corrupted by civilization. The Slavophils saw great moral value in the village community with its unanimous decision-making gatherings, with its traditional justice in accordance with customs and conscience.

The Slavophils believed that the Russian people lived, as it were, in a “contract” with the civil system: we are community members, we have our own life, you are the power, you have your own life. K. Aksakov wrote that the country has an advisory voice, the power of public opinion, but the right to make final decisions belongs to the monarch. An example of this kind of relationship can be the relationship between the Zemsky Sobor and the tsar during the period of the Muscovite state, which allowed Russia to live in a world without upheavals and revolutionary upheavals. Slavophiles associated “distortions” in Russian history with the activities of Peter the Great, who “cut a window to Europe” and thereby violated the treaty, the balance in the life of the country, knocked it off the path outlined by God.

Slavophiles are often referred to as a political reaction due to the fact that their teaching contains three principles of "official nationality": Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality. But the Slavophils of the older generation interpreted these principles in a very peculiar way: they understood Orthodoxy as a free community of believing Christians, and they considered the autocratic state as an external form that enables the people to devote themselves to the search for "inner truth." At the same time, the Slavophils defended the autocracy and did not attach of great importance cause of political freedom. At the same time, they were convinced democrats, supporters of the spiritual freedom of the individual. The ideas of presenting civil liberties to the people and the abolition of serfdom occupied an important place in the works of the Slavophiles. It is not surprising, therefore, that censorship often subjected them to persecution and prevented them from freely expressing their thoughts.

The Westerners, in contrast to the Slavophiles, assessed Russian originality as backwardness. From the point of view of Westerners, Russia, like most other Slavic peoples, for a long time was, as it were, out of history. They saw the main merit of Peter I in the fact that he accelerated the process of transition from backwardness to civilization. For Westerners, Peter's reforms are the beginning of Russia's entry into world history.

At the same time, Peter's reforms come with many costs. Herzen saw the origins of most of the most disgusting features of contemporary despotism in the bloody violence that accompanied Peter's reforms. The Westerners emphasized that Russia and Western Europe follow the same historical path. Therefore, Russia should borrow the experience of Europe. They saw the most important task in achieving the liberation of the individual and creating a state and society that would ensure this freedom. The strength, the ability to become the engine of progress, was considered by the Westerners to be the “educated minority”.

With all the differences in assessing the prospects for the development of Russia, Westernizers and Slavophiles had similar positions. Both of them opposed serfdom, for the liberation of the peasants with land, for the introduction of political freedoms in the country, and the restriction of autocratic power. They were also united by a negative attitude towards the revolution; they advocated a reformist way of solving Russia's major social issues. In the process of preparing the peasant reform of 1861, the Slavophiles and the Westernizers entered into a single camp of liberalism. Their disputes were of great importance for the development of the socio-bourgeois ideology that arose among the nobility under the influence of the crisis of the feudal-serf system of the economy.

The liberal ideas of the Westerners and Slavophiles took deep roots in Russian society and had a serious influence on the next generations of people who were looking for a future for Russia. Their ideas continue to live today in disputes about what Russia is - a country that is destined for the messianic role of the center of Christianity, the third Rome, or a country that is part of all mankind, part of Europe, which is going worldwide. historical development.

Approximately in the 40-50s of the 19th century, two trends emerged in Russian society - Slavophilism and Westernism. The Slavophils promoted the idea of ​​a "special path for Russia", while their opponents, the Westernizers, were inclined to the need to follow in the footsteps of Western civilization, especially in the areas of social organization, culture and civic life.

Where did these terms come from?

"Slavophiles" is a term coined by the famous poet Konstantin Batyushkov. In turn, the word "Westernism" first appeared in Russian culture in the 40s of the nineteenth century. In particular, you can meet him in the "Memoirs" of Ivan Panaev. Especially often this term began to be used after 1840, when Aksakov broke with Belinsky.

The history of the emergence of Slavophilism

The views of the Slavophiles, of course, did not appear spontaneously, "out of nowhere." This was preceded by a whole era of research, the writing of numerous scientific papers and works, a painstaking study of the history and culture of Russia.

It is believed that Archimandrite Gabriel, also known as Vasily Voskresensky, stood at the very origins of this. In 1840, he published in Kazan "Russian Philosophy", which became a kind of barometer of the emerging Slavophilism.

Nevertheless, the philosophy of the Slavophils began to take shape somewhat later, in the course of ideological disputes that arose on the basis of the discussion of Chaadaev's Philosophical Letter. Adherents of this trend came out with the rationale for the individual, original path of the historical development of Russia and the Russian people, which was radically different from the Western European path. According to the Slavophiles, the originality of Russia primarily lies in the absence of class struggle in its history, in the landed Russian community and artels, as well as in Orthodoxy as the only true Christianity.

The development of the Slavophile current. Key Ideas

In the 1840s the views of the Slavophils were particularly widespread in Moscow. The best minds of the state gathered in the Elagins, Pavlovs, Sverbeevs - it was here that they communicated with each other and had lively discussions with Westerners.

It should be noted that the works and works of Slavophiles were subjected to harassment by censorship, some activists were in the field of police attention, and some were even arrested. It is because of this that for quite a long time they did not have a permanent printed publication and posted their notes and articles mainly on the pages of the Moskvityanin magazine. After a partial easing of censorship in the 1950s, the Slavophiles began to publish their own magazines (Selskoye khosmostrovostvo, Russkaya Beseda) and newspapers (Sail, Molva).

Russia should not assimilate and adopt the forms of Western European political life - all the Slavophiles, without exception, were firmly convinced of this. This, however, did not prevent them from considering it necessary to actively develop industry and trade, banking and joint-stock business, the introduction of modern machines in Agriculture and construction railways. In addition, the Slavophils welcomed the idea of ​​abolishing serfdom "from above" with the obligatory provision of land allotments to peasant communities.

Much attention was paid to religion, with which the ideas of the Slavophiles were quite closely connected. In their opinion, the true faith that came to Russia from the Eastern Church determines the special, unique historical mission of the Russian people. It was Orthodoxy and the traditions of the social order that allowed the formation of the deepest foundations of the Russian soul.

In general, the Slavophiles perceived the people within the framework of conservative romanticism. Characteristic for them was the idealization of the principles of traditionalism and patriarchy. At the same time, the Slavophiles sought to bring the intelligentsia closer to the common people, to study their daily life and way of life, language and culture.

Representatives of Slavophilism

In the 19th century, many writers, scientists and Slavophile poets worked in Russia. Representatives of this direction, deserving special attention - Khomyakov, Aksakov, Samarin. Prominent Slavophiles were Chizhov, Koshelev, Belyaev, Valuev, Lamansky, Hilferding and Cherkassky.

The writers Ostrovsky, Tyutchev, Dal, Yazykov and Grigoriev were close enough to this direction in terms of worldview.

Respected linguists and historians - Bodyansky, Grigorovich, Buslaev - treated the ideas of Slavophilism with respect and interest.

History of Westernization

Slavophilism and Westernism arose approximately in the same period, and therefore, these philosophical trends should be considered as a whole. Westernism as the antipode of Slavophilism is a direction of Russian anti-feudal social thought, which also arose in the 40s of the 19th century.

The original organizational base for representatives of this trend were Moscow literary salons. The ideological disputes that took place in them are vividly and realistically depicted in Herzen's Past and Thoughts.

The development of the western trend. Key Ideas

The philosophy of the Slavophiles and the Westernizers differed radically. In particular, the categorical rejection of the feudal-serf system in politics, economics and culture can be attributed to the general features of the ideology of the Westerners. They advocated the implementation of socio-economic reforms according to the Western model.

Representatives of Westernism believed that there was always an opportunity to establish a bourgeois-democratic system by peaceful means, using the methods of propaganda and education. They extremely highly valued the reforms carried out by Peter I, and considered it their duty to transform and shape public opinion in such a way that the monarchy was forced to carry out bourgeois reforms.

The Westerners believed that Russia should overcome economic and social backwardness not through the development of an original culture, but through the experience of Europe, which had long gone ahead. At the same time, they did not focus on the differences between the West and Russia, but on the common features that were present in their cultural and historical destiny.

In the early stages, the philosophical research of Westerners was particularly influenced by the works of Schiller, Schilling and Hegel.

The split of the Westerners in the mid-1940s. 19th century

In the mid-forties of the XIX century, a fundamental split occurred among Westerners. This happened after a dispute between Granovsky and Herzen. As a result, two directions of the Westernizing trend arose: liberal and revolutionary-democratic.

The reason for the disagreement lay in relation to religion. If the liberals defended the dogma of the immortality of the soul, then the democrats, in turn, relied on the positions of materialism and atheism.

Their ideas about the methods of carrying out reforms in Russia and the post-reform development of the state also differed. Thus, the democrats propagated the ideas of revolutionary struggle with the aim of further building socialism.

The works of Comte, Feuerbach and Saint-Simon had the greatest influence on the views of Westerners during this period.

In the post-reform period, under the conditions of general capitalist development, Westernism ceased to exist as a special trend in social thought.

Representatives of Westernism

The original Moscow circle of Westernizers included Granovsky, Herzen, Korsh, Ketcher, Botkin, Ogarev, Kavelin, etc. Belinsky, who lived in St. Petersburg, closely communicated with the circle. The talented writer Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev also considered himself a Westerner.

After what happened in the mid-40s. After the split, Annenkov, Korsh, Kavelin, Granovsky and some other figures remained on the side of the liberals, while Herzen, Belinsky and Ogarev went over to the side of the democrats.

Communication between Slavophiles and Westernizers

It is worth remembering that these philosophical trends were born at the same time, their founders were representatives of the same generation. Moreover, both the Westernizers and the Slavophils came out of the milieu and moved in the same circles.

Fans of both theories constantly communicated with each other. Moreover, it was by no means always limited to criticism: finding themselves at the same meeting, in the same circle, they quite often found something close to their own point of view in the course of their ideological opponents' reflections.

In general, most of the disputes were distinguished by the highest cultural level - the opponents treated each other with respect, carefully listened to the opposite side and tried to give convincing arguments in favor of their position.

Similarities Between Slavophiles and Westernizers

Apart from the Westernizers-democrats who emerged later, both the former and the latter recognized the need for reforms in Russia and the solution existing problems peacefully, without revolutions and bloodshed. The Slavophils interpreted this in their own way, adhering to more conservative views, but they also recognized the need for change.

It is believed that the attitude towards religion was one of the most controversial points in the ideological disputes between supporters of different theories. However, to be fair, it should be noted that human factor played an important role in this. Thus, the views of the Slavophiles were largely based on the idea of ​​the spirituality of the Russian people, their closeness to Orthodoxy and their tendency to strictly observe all religious customs. At the same time, the Slavophils themselves, for the most part coming from secular families, did not always follow church rites. Westerners, on the other hand, did not at all encourage excessive piety in a person, although some representatives of the movement (a vivid example is P. Ya. Chaadaev) sincerely believed that spirituality and, in particular, Orthodoxy is an integral part of Russia. Among the representatives of both directions there were both believers and atheists.

There were also those who did not belong to any of these currents, occupying the third side. For example, V. S. Solovyov noted in his writings that a satisfactory solution to the main universal human issues has not yet been found either in the East or in the West. And this means that all, without exception, the active forces of mankind should work on them together, listening to each other and by common efforts approaching prosperity and greatness. Solovyov believed that both “pure” Westerners and “pure” Slavophiles were limited people and incapable of objective judgments.

Summing up

Westerners and Slavophiles, whose main ideas we have examined in this article, were, in fact, utopians. Westerners idealized the foreign way of development, European technologies, often forgetting about the peculiarities and age-old differences in the psychology of Western and Russian people. The Slavophils, in turn, extolled the image of the Russian people, they were inclined to idealize the state, the image of the monarch and Orthodoxy. Both those and others did not notice the threat of the revolution and until the last hoped for a solution to the problems by the method of reforms, in a peaceful way. It is impossible to single out a winner in this endless ideological war, because disputes about the correctness of the chosen path of Russia's development do not stop to this day.

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. This justification 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 launched, while in Russia feudalism is increasingly decomposing. The question arose about the fate of Russia: whether to follow the path of the bourgeoisie. democracy, as the Decembrist revolutionaries and some enlighteners (Granovsky and others) essentially proposed, 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 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. the concept of Russian history, its exclusivity, which, according to S., 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. the state of 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. Society has 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. reality, its characteristic imitation of 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. culture has long since become 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 the nature of 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 who have 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 Slavic peoples, mainly in Russian, the true principles of societies are laid down. life; other peoples develop on the basis of false principles and can find salvation only by accepting Orthodox civilization. S. was criticized "right" European. historiography, while noting its validity. shortcomings (the mysticism of the Hegelian philosophy of history, the empiricism of post-Hegelian historiography, etc.), as well as the vices of Europe itself. civilization (the flourishing of "factory relations", the emergence of a "feeling of deceived hopes", etc.). However, S. were unable to understand the fruitful trends app. reality, especially socialism, to Krom they were sharply negative. ? and l about 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. irrationalism (especially late Schelling). S. criticized Hegel for the abstractness of his first principle - the absolute idea, the subordinate moment of which is the will (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 with the beginning of the concrete and recognizing the general vice of the Western European. idealism and materialism "lack of will", Khomyakov developed voluntaristic. a 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, the willing mind ..." (ibid., p. 347). Rejecting rationalism and sensationalism as one-sidedness and believing that the act of cognition should include the entire "fullness" of a person's abilities, S. saw the basis of cognition not in sensibility and reason, but in some kind of "living knowledge", "internal knowledge" as the lowest level of cognition, to-heaven "... 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"), which S. do not think of themselves as separated from " the highest degree "cognition is faith; faith must permeate all forms of cognitive activity. According to Kireevsky, "... the direction of philosophy depends ... on the concept that we have about the Holy Trinity" (Poln. sobr. soch., v. 1 , M., 1911, p. 74. In this sense, the epistemology of S. is an irrationalist reaction to Western European rationalism. And yet, absolute 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 not given to complete it" (ibid., p. 251). Thus, agnosticism in the theory of knowledge corresponds to religious voluntarism in the ontology of S. Chaadaev, the publication of Philosophical Letter (1836) served as one of the strongest impetus for the consolidation of S., in the correspondence of the early 30s, in the Apology of a Madman (1837, published 1862 ) and other works criticized S. for "leavened patriotism", for the desire to divide the peoples. Granovsky argued with S.'s understanding of the role of Peter in the history of Russia Russia, their interpretation of the history of Russia and its relationship to the West, their idea of ​​Russian exclusivity. 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., it 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 scientific or in literary relations ..." (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 10, 1956, p. 22; vol. 9, 1955, p. 200). In the future, the ideas of S. fed on the flow of reactions. ideologies - new, or later, Slavophilism, pan-Slavism (Danilevsky, Leontiev, Katkov, etc.), religion. Solovyov's philosophy (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, Outline of 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 a tendency to exaggerate 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; 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 place 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 respect the assessment of the place and significance 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 ideology of Westerners opposed to it took shape by the 1940s. 19th century as a result of controversy in the environment of the emerging Russian. intelligentsia. Both S. and Westerners 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 organism" and considered the world historical. process as a cumulative, succession. 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 the "wise-minded"), conceptually ends with S .: "European enlightenment ... has reached ... full development ...", but gave birth to a feeling "deceived hope" and "dreamless emptiness", because "... with all the conveniences of external improvements in life, life itself was deprived of its essential meaning ...". "...Cold analysis 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 reason ...", 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 Protestantism (his individualism, leading to a devastating self-closure of the individual). Contrasting types of European and Russian. of 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. Grigoriev's pochvenism): individual 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 "inner focus of the spirit" (I. Kireevsky), about the "core, as it were, a focus from which the self-originating key" of the personality beats (Samarin). This christ. personalism, dating back 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 expression, according to S., in last word 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 knowledge of truth turns out to be dependent on " right condition soul", and "thinking, separated from the striving of the heart", is considered as "entertainment for the soul", i.e. frivolity (see ibid., p. 280). Thus, in this paragraph, S. are among the initiators of a new European philosophy of existence. From S.'s desire to embody the ideal of a holistic life, a utopia of Orthodox culture is born, in which Russian religions began to master European enlightenment (cf. the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe "great synthesis" in Solovyov). on the idyllic path of life-building in Russia, not connected with formal legal norms (S. propose a "division of labor" between the state, in which the people - the source of power, shifts thankless administrative functions, and the community, building life according to the norms of consent, 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. argued this, despite their own life experience - their publications were subjected to repeated censorship bans , and they themselves administrative persecution.) The social utopia of S. was painfully outlived by the Rus. sociological thought and was refuted by the entire course of Russian history. In S.'s thinking, a peculiar face of Russian is revealed. philosophy with its ontologism, the primacy of the moral sphere and the affirmation of the communal roots of the individual; the personalistic and existential warehouse of Slavophile thought, organicism, belief in the "super-scientific secret" of life entered the core of the Russian. religious philosophy. Utopian. the costs of S.'s doctrine and its vulgarization led some later thinkers to nationalism and imperialism. Pan-Slavism (Danilevsky, Leontiev). R. Galtseva, I. Rodnyanskaya. Moscow. Lit.: Herzen A.I., Past and thoughts, part 4, ch. 30, Coll. soch., v. 9, M. 1956; Chicherin B., About nationality in science, "Rus. Bulletin", 1856, vol. 3, vol. 5, ?anov I., Slavophilism as a philosopher. doctrine, "Journal. M-va people's education", 1800, [book. eleven]; Grigoriev? Kolyupanov N., Essay on Philosophy. systems S., "Rus. Review", 1894, ; Kireev?., Summary Slavophile doctrine, St. Petersburg, 1896; The theory of state among the Slavophils. Sat. Art., St. Petersburg, 1898; ?ypin A.N., Characteristics of literary opinions from the 20s to the 50s, 3rd ed., St. Petersburg, 1906, ch. 6 and 7; Chadov M. D., S. and Nar. representation. Political the doctrine of Slavophilism in the past and present, St. Petersburg, 1906 (bibl. available); Taybe?. ?., Cognition of conciliar Eastern education according to the wisdom of Slavophilism, P., 1912; Andreev F., Moscow. Theological Academy and St., "Theological Bulletin", 1915, Oct.-Dec.; Rubinstein N., Historical. The theory of Slavophilism and its class roots, in: Rus. historical literature in class coverage, vol. 1, M., 1927; Andreev P., Early Slavophilism, in: Vopr. history and economics, [Smolensk], 1932; Barer I., Westerners and S. in Russia in the 40s. 19th century, "Historical Journal", 1939. No 2; Zenkovsky V., Rus. thinkers and Europe, 2nd ed., Paris, 1955; History of Philosophy, vol. 2, M., 1957; Yanov?., K. N. Leontiev and Slavophilism, "VF", 1969, No 8; Smoli? I., Westler und Slavophile..., "Z. f?r slavische Philologie", 1933-34, Bd 10-11; Riasanovsky N. V, Russland und der Westen. Die Lehre der Slawophilen, Mönch., 1954; Christoff P. K., An introduction to nineteenth-century Russian Slavophilism. A study in ideas, v. 1-A. S. Chomjakov, ´s-Gravenhage, 1961; Walicki?., W kr?gu konserwatywnej utopii. Struktura i przemia?y rosyjsckiego s?owianofilstwa, Warsz., 1964; Müller?., Russischer Intellekt in europ?ischer Krise. Ivan V. Kireevski J., K?ln-Graz, 1966.

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 "Moscow party", but the term Slavophiles was fixed in historical science.

In Russian historical science, the concept of Slavophiles in different time was used to identify 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. There are 4 stages of its development: 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 Slavophil 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 coherent 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 prerequisites 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 the 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 (V. 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.

Government circles Russian Empire treated the Slavophiles with suspicion, 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 current, who reasonably showed the progressiveness of many provisions of the doctrine of the Slavophiles. (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.