The main idea of the Slavophiles. The main representatives of Slavophilism

25.09.2019

When the caravan turns back, a lame camel is ahead
Eastern wisdom

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

The roots of the emergence of Slavophiles and Westerners

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

Origins of Slavophilism

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

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

Religious values

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

Moscow is the third Rome

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

Peter's reform activities

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

Origins of Westernism

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

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

The essence of ideology and its significance

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

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

Common and distinctive views of Westerners and Slavophiles

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

Civilizational choice. For Westerners, Europe is the standard of development. For Slavophiles, Europe is an example of moral decline, a source of harmful ideas. Therefore, the latter insisted on a special path of development of the Russian state, which should have a “Slavic and Orthodox character.”
The role of the individual and the state. Westerners are characterized by the ideas of liberalism, that is, individual freedom, its primacy over the state. For Slavophiles, the main thing is the state, and the individual must serve the general idea.
The personality of the monarch and his status. Among Westerners there were two views on the monarch in the empire: either it should be removed (republican form of government) or limited (constitutional and parliamentary monarchy). Slavophiles believed that absolutism is a truly Slavic form of government, the constitution and parliament are political instruments alien to the Slavs. A striking example of this view of the monarch is the 1897 census, where the last emperor Russian Empire in the column “occupation” he indicated “owner of the Russian land.”
Peasantry. Both trends agreed that serfdom– this is a relic, a sign of Russia’s backwardness. But the Slavophiles called for its elimination “from above,” that is, with the participation of the authorities and the nobles, and Westerners called for listening to the opinion of the peasants themselves. In addition, the Slavophiles said that the peasant community is best form land management and farming. For Westerners, the community needs to be dissolved and a private farmer created (which is what P. Stolypin tried to do in 1906-1911).
Freedom of information. According to Slavophiles, censorship is a normal thing if it is in the interests of the state. Westerners advocated freedom of the press, the free right to choose a language, etc.
Religion. This is one of the main points of the Slavophiles, since Orthodoxy is the basis of the Russian state, “Holy Rus'”. It is Orthodox values that Russia must protect, and therefore it should not adopt the experience of Europe, because it will violate Orthodox canons. A reflection of these views was Count Uvarov’s concept of “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality,” which became the basis for the construction of Russia in the 19th century. For Westerners, religion was not something special; many even talked about freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

Transformation of ideas in the 20th century

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

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

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

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

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

By the end of the 30s, a unique liberal movement had developed within the Russian landowner camp, which put forward a special understanding of the paths for the future development of Russia and the characteristics of its social structure and its historical past. Representatives of this ideology received the nickname “Slavophiles” in the heat of polemics with their opponents, which stuck with them in literature. Characteristic feature Slavophil ideology was a search for such a special, “original” path of Russian historical development that would not be revolutionary - the Slavophiles were ardent opponents of the revolutionary struggle, trying to “theoretically” justify the uselessness and impossibility of revolution in Russia.

Even earlier than the Slavophile ideology took shape, one of its future founders, Ivan Kireyevsky, published an article “The Nineteenth Century” in his magazine “European”, which clearly showed his negative attitude towards the revolution and the desire to find a “conciliatory agreement between the warring principles.”

The idea of basic laws of historical development common to all peoples was a long-standing achievement of revolutionary ideology; the conviction that revolution is inevitable, and serfdom and tsarism are doomed to destruction by history, was also characteristic of the ideology of the Decembrists. In subsequent years, this conviction became stronger, finding additional evidence in the revolutionary struggle that shook Europe in the early 1930s, and in a certain rise in the same years of the mass movement within Russia. The wave of repression seriously affected Herzen and Ogarev, threw Belinsky out of the university, and slandered Chaadaev. In contrast to the opinion of the revolutionary camp about the inevitability of revolution in Russia, the Slavophiles developed their own theory that a revolution in Russia cannot happen: it is supposedly deeply alien to the very spirit of the Orthodox Russian people; Yes, it has no need for it, because, unlike the vicious revolutionary West, it supposedly has remarkable original features inherent in it alone, namely a peasant community, alien to social hostility, - the guarantee of future social peace and prosperity. It was in this spirit that the Slavophiles understood the Russian nation, considering its “primordial” principles to be communalism, worldly harmony, indifference to politics, deep religiosity and hatred of revolution. The community, the “peace”, will supposedly save Russia from the formation of a new one in it social class, the restless bearer of all sorts of unrest and revolutions, from the “ulcer of the proletariat.” On this basis, the landowner can live in complete peace with the peasant, and the peasant can live in peace with the tsarist power that is reasonable and understands the needs of the people, given to the people by God. The authorities must, of course, implement a number of reforms - the Slavophiles were opponents of the personal slavery of peasants and stood for the abolition of serfdom. This feature separates them from the serf owners and from the official ideology of autocracy. However, it does not follow from this that the Slavophiles were consistent opponents of the feudal-serf social formation and called for its destruction: they defended the need to preserve the complex and difficult system of feudal-serfdom remnants, landownership and the supposedly “patriarchal power of the landowner over the peasant; they sanctified the principle of the peasant working for the master and extolled the benefits of the peasant community, which itself was actually an instrument of peasant enslavement and delayed the development of capitalist relations. Slavophiles had a sharply negative attitude towards the reforms of Peter I, believing that he “spoiled” the history of Russia, turning it away from its original path. The opinions of the Slavophiles had a reactionary philosophical basis: they were ardent opponents of materialism and revolutionary dialectics; They contrasted the materialistic worldview with beliefs of a religious nature.

Slavophiles defended the pan-Slavist ideology, dreaming of the unification of all Slavic peoples under the auspices of Tsarist Russia. As noted above, the idea of an all-Slavic unification under the auspices of tsarist power was a reactionary idea: it did not promise the Slavic peoples any social transformations and promised only the conservation of backward, feudal institutions under the leadership of obsolete tsarism, which itself was a brake on the development of the largest Slavic country - Russia, and was itself enemy of the Russian people.

Professor Granovsky, an opponent of the Slavophiles, wrote with excitement about them in a letter to his friend Stankevich: “You cannot imagine what kind of philosophy these people have. Their main provisions: the West has rotted, and nothing can come from it; Russian history has been ruined by Peter. We are cut off from our native Russian foundation and live at random; the only benefit of our modern life is the opportunity to impartially observe someone else's history, this is even our destiny in the future; all human wisdom is exhausted, exhausted in the works of St. the fathers of the Greek Church, who wrote after separation from the Western Church, they just need to be studied: there is nothing to add, everything has been said... Kireevsky says these things in prose, Khomyakov in verse.”

The main representatives of Slavophilism were A. S. Khomyakov, brothers Ivan and Pyotr Kireyevsky, brothers Konstantin and Ivan Aksakov, A. Koshelev, Yu. Samarin. Most of them belonged to the noble nobility and owned vast estates. The Slavophiles’ passion for their theory reached the point that Aksakov, wanting to demonstrate unity with the Russian people, replaced his master’s “European” dress with a Russian caftan and an ancient murmolka, due to which the people at the bazaar, as Chaadaev aptly noted, “took him for a Persian.”

The teaching of the Slavophiles was false. It called Russia back to the order of pre-Petrine Rus'. There are no special laws of development for any country - the basic laws of historical development are common to all humanity. Religiosity, "disgust" from political activity, a peaceful mood and love of kings, of course, are in no way the “original” qualities of the Russian people and generally cannot be the “natural” qualities of any people: peoples from time immemorial have been fighting for their liberation from all oppression. The Russian community was assessed extremely incorrectly by the Slavophiles: it was not at all the guarantee of some ideal social order. As for the reforms of Peter I, here too the Slavophiles made a mistake: they deeply underestimated the reforms, did not understand their historical necessity and their positive results. The religious idealistic philosophy of the Slavophiles at a time when advanced Russian philosophical thought was winning brilliant victories in the field of materialism, sometimes led young people astray from the right path and hampered the development of Russian culture. True, the Slavophiles were opponents of serfdom and supporters of peasant liberation; they criticized the government of Nicholas I, for which they themselves were later subjected to repression. But peaceful sympathy for the personal liberation of the peasants and the desire to leave the main land holdings to the landowner were by no means the leading, leading ideology of that era: these modest and timid liberal wishes had long been opposed by the fighting ideology of the Russian revolutionaries, who paid with hard labor, exile and the gallows for their demand in a revolutionary way truly be completely freed from serfdom and autocracy. The collection of Russian folklore by Slavophiles, the recording of folk tales, rituals, and songs, of course, was useful activity, but recognition of this cannot in any way replace a general assessment of the foundations of their backward worldview.

The Slavophil theory gave rise to heated and heated debates, which were a noticeable feature public life at the very end of the 30s and in the first half of the 40s. On certain days, the opponents met at friends' houses and practiced endless disputes: “on Monday at Chaadaev’s, on Friday at Sverbeev’s, on Sunday at Elagina’s,” and they argued “until four o’clock in the morning, starting at nine” (Herzen). At these evenings, in addition to the participants in the debates, spectators came and sat all night long to “see which of the matadors would beat whom and how they would finish him” (Herzen). Here Konstantin Aksakov fiercely defended Moscow, “which no one attacked” (Herzen), here Herzen shone with his eloquence and polemical talent, fiercely fighting with Khomyakov.

The advanced Russian democratic ideology in the person of Belinsky and Herzen came out to fight the Slavophil theory. This was the first clash of revolutionary democrats with liberal ideology.

Belinsky led a consistent and irreconcilable struggle against the Slavophiles from the position of revolutionary democracy. In 1840, having moved to St. Petersburg, he began to speak out against the Slavophiles on the pages of the St. Petersburg “Notes of the Fatherland”; since the “war against Belinsky” the Slavophiles, according to humorous expression Herzen, began to exist “officially”. In Moscow, Herzen, who had just returned from exile, began to play the main role in disputes with the Slavophiles. The “crazy trend of Slavophilism” became, in Herzen’s opinion, a “bone in the throat” of Russian education; Herzen found that the Slavophiles “have no roots among the people” and are a “literary disease.” The revolutionary democrat Belinsky attacked the Slavophiles as “knights of the past” and “admirers of the present.” In 1845, the disagreements, which, of course, existed from the very beginning of the clashes, reached such a sharpness that it was decided not to meet for disputes in a friendly atmosphere and not to maintain personal relations.

Professor Granovsky, a friend of Belinsky and Herzen, and the famous Russian actor M. S. Shchepkin were also staunch opponents of the Slavophiles. Bourgeois liberals K. Kavelin, E. Korsh, V. Botkin, P. Annenkov, who were alien to the revolutionary worldview, also took part in the disputes with the Slavophiles, who even then stood in the position of peaceful liberal reforms that would preserve the essential foundations of noble rule and the autocratic system. This entire circle of diverse worldviews public figures Slavophiles dubbed them “Westerners” and indiscriminately accused them of defending the “rotten West” and betraying Russian “national principles.” In Western culture, as in any other culture of antagonistic societies, there were two cultures: an advanced, revolutionary, democratic culture, saturated with ideas that defended the interests of the working people, defended the development of new historical process, and a culture of oppressors that upholds the old. The so-called “Westerners” treated these two cultures differently. Representatives of the revolutionary camp, pushing forward the development of national culture, at the same time highly valued the importance of advanced Western culture. Representatives of bourgeois liberals slavishly admired the other, bourgeois culture of the West and kowtowed to it. They defended cosmopolitan theories, they were characterized by a lack of understanding of the main vital tasks in history home country. Confusing these antagonistic ideologies is deeply misguided. Likewise, one should not use the term “Westerner” as an accurate determinant of the ideology of this or that figure: this term is essentially inaccurate and obscures the heterogeneity and inconsistency of phenomena. Lenin wrote about Herzen and Belinsky without ever using the term “Westerner.” P. Struve’s attempt to consider the dispute between the populists and the Marxists as “a natural continuation of the disagreements between Slavophilism and Westernism” caused a decisive rebuff from Lenin: “The essence of populism lies deeper: not in the doctrine of originality and not in Slavophilism, but in the representation of the interests and ideas of the Russian small producer... There is no way to understand such categories as Slavophilism and Westernism in matters of Russian populism.” Thus, the terms “Westernism” and “Slavophilism” are confined to a specific era and do not have a general meaning.

Slavophiles- representatives of one of the directions of Russian social and philosophical thought of the 40-50s. XIX century, who came up with a justification for the original path of historical development of Russia, fundamentally different from the path of Western Europe. The uniqueness of Russia, in their opinion, lies in the absence of internal antagonisms in its history, in the Russian land community and artels, in Orthodoxy as the only possible path of Christianity.

The views of the Slavophiles took shape in ideological disputes that intensified after the publication of P.Ya. Chaadaev's "Philosophical Letters", especially the first (anonymous) letter in issue No. 15 of the Telescope magazine in September 1836. The main role in developing the views of the Slavophiles was played by writers, poets and scientists - A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin. Prominent Slavophiles were P.V. Kireevsky, A.I. Koshelev, I.S. Aksakov, D.A. Valuev, F.V. Chizhov, I.D. Belyaev, A.F. Hilferding. Writers V.I. were close in position. Dahl, ST. Aksakov, A.N. Ostrovsky, F.I. Tyutchev, N.M. Languages.

The center of the Slavophiles in the 40s. XIX century there was Moscow, literary salons of A.P. Elagina (mother of the Kireevsky brothers), D.P. and E.A. Sverbeev, P.F. and K.K. Pavlov. Here Slavophiles communicated and conducted their ideological disputes with Westerners about the path of transformation in Russia.

The ideological and philosophical views of the Slavophiles were largely determined by the negative attitude of Moscow intellectuals to the political realities of the reign of Russian Emperor Nicholas I: the police nature of the state, the permissiveness of secret investigation agencies, censorship. They tried to find social harmony.

Slavophiles ideologically justified:

- the need to return to the roots of the patriarchal way of Russian life, which was interrupted by the reforms of Emperor Peter I;
- the position according to which Russia is not just unlike the West, it is an antipode to the West, it has a special way of being and a different type of civilization;
- the expediency of spiritual support on Orthodoxy, as true path development, conciliarity, voluntary recognition of power by society and harmony with it;
- a special worldview based on national identity, humanism, not violence, as in the West.

Although the Slavophiles carefully developed their idea of a special, Russian type of civilization, much of their position was emotional, not theoretical nature(“You can’t understand Russia with your mind!”).

Aesthetic views of the Slavophiles . Artistic creativity reflected characteristic aspects Russian reality, corresponding to the theoretical guidelines of the Slavophiles: peasant communalism, patriarchal orderliness of life, proud humility and Orthodoxy of the Russian people.

During the years of the revolutionary situation (1859-1861), there was a significant convergence of the views of Slavophiles and Westerners on the basis of the liberal idea.

Khomyakov Alexey Stepanovich(1804-1860), philosopher, writer, poet, publicist. Born in Moscow into an old noble family. IN 1822 passed the exam at Moscow University for the degree of candidate of mathematical sciences, then entered military service. He was familiar with the participants in the Decembrist movement, but did not share their views. In 1829 G. resigned and took up literary and social activities. A. Khomyakov made a decisive contribution to the development of Slavophil teaching, its theological and philosophical foundations. Among the ideological sources of Slavophilism, he primarily singled out Orthodoxy, within the framework of which the doctrine of the religious-messianic role of the Russian people was formulated. He also experienced significant influence German philosophy of F. Schelling and G. Hegel. Formally not affiliated with any of the philosophical schools. Khomyakov did not recognize materialism, characterizing it as a “decline of the philosophical spirit,” but he did not fully accept certain forms of idealism. The starting point in his philosophical analysis was the proposition that “the world appears to the mind as matter in space and as force in time.” However, substance or matter “before thought loses its independence.” The basis of existence is not matter, but force, which is understood by the mind as “the beginning of the variability of world phenomena.” He especially emphasized that its beginning “cannot be sought in the subject.” The individual or “particular principle” cannot “result into the infinite” and the universal; on the contrary, it must receive its source from the universal. Hence the conclusion that “the force or reason for the existence of every phenomenon lies in everything.” “Everything,” from the point of view of A. Khomyakov, contains a number of characteristics that fundamentally distinguish it from the world of phenomena. First, freedom is inherent in “everything”; secondly, rationality (free thought); thirdly, will (“screaming reason”). Only God can collectively possess such traits. In his "Notes on world history"He divides all religions into two main groups: Kushite and Iranian. The first is built on the principles of necessity, dooming people to thoughtless submission, turning them into simple executors of someone else's will, while the second is a religion of freedom, turning to the inner world of a person, demanding from him conscious choice between good and evil. Christianity most fully expressed its essence. True Christianity makes the believer free, since he “does not know any external authority over himself.” But, having accepted “grace,” the believer cannot follow arbitrariness, he justifies his freedom. finds in “unanimity with the Church.” Rejecting coercion as a path to unity, Khomyakov believes that the only means capable of uniting the Church can be love, understood not only as an ethical category, but also as an essential force that ensures “for people the knowledge of the unconditional Truth. ". The most adequate way to express unity based on freedom and love can, in his opinion, only through conciliarity, which plays, as it were, the role of a mediator between the divine and earthly worlds. Khomyakov's socio-political views were of an oppositional nature towards the Nicholas regime; he was a supporter of the abolition of serfdom, the death penalty, opposed the omnipotence of spiritual censorship, for religious tolerance, and for the introduction of freedom of speech. Poetic tragedies "Ermak", "Dmitry Impostor".

A.C. Khomyakov died 23.09 (5.10) 1В60 in the village of Ivanovskoye, now Dankovsky district of the Lipetsk region.

Kireevsky Ivan Vasilievich(1806-1856), philosopher and literary critic, one of the leading theorists of Slavophilism. Born in Moscow into a highly educated noble family. His mother Avdotya Petrovna, V.A.’s niece, had a great influence on him. Zhukovsky, published after the death of his father in 1817 marry A.A. Elagin, one of the first experts in the philosophy of I. Kant and F. Schelling in Russia. In the literary salon of A.P. Almost the entire intellectual elite of Moscow gathered at Elagina. Ivan Kireevsky was in Germany in 1830, where he listened to G. Hegel’s lectures on philosophy, philosophy of law and personally met the thinker who recommended that he study philosophical sciences. In Berlin, I. Kireevsky listened to lectures by Schleiermacher, in Munich - by Schelling. Returning to Russia, he attempted to publish the magazine "European", but the publication was banned. Later he became close to the elders from Optina Pustyn, with whom he was connected by literary activities. He is trying to get the chair of philosophy at Moscow University, but was unsuccessful, as he was considered politically unreliable. In 1852, Slavophiles published their own magazine, “Moscow Collection,” in which I. Kireyevsky published. His article "On the Necessity And opportunities for new started for Philosophy", published in 1856 in the journal Russian Conversation, turned out to be posthumous. Recent years throughout his life he worked on a course in philosophy and hoped that this work would show the world “his face in philosophy.”

I.V. Kireyevsky died 1 June 1(23) 1856 from cholera in St. Petersburg. He was buried in Optina Pustyn.

Aksakov Konstantin Sergeevich(1817-1860), philosopher, publicist, poet, historian, ideologist of Slavophilism. Born in Novo-Aksakovo, Buguruslan district, Orenburg province, in the family of a writer, corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences of St. Aksakova. His brother I.S. Aksakov (1823-1886) - philosopher and publicist. In 1832-1835 studied at Moscow University in the literature department. During his student years he was a member of N.V.’s circle. Stankevich, where he was influenced by German philosophy, primarily G. Hegel. This influence was noticeable in his master's thesis "Lomonosov in the history of Russian literature and the Russian language" (1846). At the end of the 1830s. Aksakov is getting closer to A.S. Khomyakov and I.V. Kireevsky and soon himself became a theoretician of Slavophilism. Aksakov's main contribution to the Slavophile movement is socio-political theory, including a unique interpretation of Russian history and a system of aesthetic views. He formulated his views on history at the end of 1840 - beginning 1850s: "Voice from Moscow", "Ancestral or social phenomenon was an outcast?", "Oh ancient life among the Slavs in general and among the Russians in particular." The life of the Slavic tribes, in his opinion, was determined by the traditions of the peasant community and folk life. The territories where they farmed were subject to constant raids, which forced them to create a state. For this, the Varangians were invited, who brought the ideas of statehood to Russian soil. This allowed the indigenous population not to confuse the concepts of state and land for themselves, but to agree only to the creation of their voluntary union. Aksakov’s concept of land was identical to the concept of the people; to it he attributed the lower class, whose consciousness was imbued with the ideas of faith and community life. The state carried within itself the beginning of power, which sought only to implement “external truth,” which was realized in the political and legal organization of Western-type societies. Aksakov considered the state, by its principle, regardless of the form of government, to be a manifestation of violence. It is Aksakov who characterizes the Russian people as non-state. The concept of "land" formulated by him and states" and fal a significant role in the Slavophil criticism of the West and Western influence, served as a justification for a special historical path Russian people, who prefer the “inner truth” (the Christian-moral order of life, embodied historically in peasant community) “external truth” (political and legal organization of Western-style society). Aksakov considered the community not only in the form of an existing rural community, but put a broader interpretation into this concept. He saw a manifestation of the communal principle in Novgorod, where people decided the most pressing issues for themselves at a meeting or when residents of one street gathered at a gathering to discuss the problems of their lives. Aksakov was an active supporter of the abolition of serfdom and sought to derive the need for reform from the general principles of his social theory. In 1855 he turned to Russian Emperor Alexander II with a note “On the internal state of Russia”, where he outlined a certain social ideal, the achievement of which made it possible, from his point of view, to avoid the revolutions that were shaking Europe at that time. Aksakov’s aesthetic views were formed primarily in line with the ideas of philosophical romanticism, primarily Schelling’s philosophy of art. Subsequently, he made a lot of efforts for a philosophical understanding of the development Russian literature and art. Rejecting equally the concept of " pure art"(art for art's sake), and "naturalism" in literature (natural school), Aksakov recognized "nationality" as the main criterion for assessing artistic creativity. He wrote sharply negatively about any manifestation of upper-class aristocracy in society (work: "The public is the people. Experience synonyms").

Konstantin Sergeevich died on December 7 (19), 1860 G. on the island of Zante (Zakynthos) in Greece, where he was buried.

representatives of idealistic Russian currents society thoughts sir. 19th century, which substantiated the need for the development of Russia along a special (in comparison with Western European) path. This rationale was, in its objective sense, utopian. Russian transition program nobility on the path of the bourgeois. development. During this period in developed countries Zap. In Europe, the contradictions of capitalism had already been revealed and its criticism had been launched, while in Russia feudalism was increasingly decomposing. The question arose about the fate of Russia: whether to follow the path of the bourgeoisie. democracy, as the Decembrist revolutionaries and certain enlighteners (Granovsky and others) essentially proposed, along the path of socialism (understood utopianically), as Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky and other revolutionaries wanted. democrats, or along some other path, as suggested by S., speaking with a kind of conservative utopia (see G.V. Plekhanov, Works, vol. 23, pp. 116 and 108) - Russian. a form of feudal socialism. Slavophilism in its own right. sense of the word (it should be distinguished from pochvennichestvo and later Slavophiles, the ideological basis of which was prepared by S.) was formed in 1839 (when Khomyakov and Kireevsky, after lengthy discussions, outlined 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 collapsed by 1861, when the reform led to a crisis in their doctrine. S.’s group also includes K. Aksakov and Yu. Samarin (who, together with Khomyakov and Kireevsky, formed the main core of the school), I. Aksakov, P. Kireevsky, A. Koshelev, I. Belyaev, and others. At the center of the ideas of S. is k about the concept of Russian history, its exclusivity, edge, in S.’s opinion, was determined by the following. features: 1) communal life; 2) the absence of conquests and social struggle at the beginning of Russian. history, the obedience of the people to the authorities; 3) Orthodoxy, which they contrasted with the “living integrity” of Catholicism. This view was untenable in all its components: the universal prevalence of the community among undeveloped peoples was already quite well known; absence of antagonisms in society. life of Ancient Rus' is historical. myth, which was also noted by modern people. im critics S.; the absolutization of the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism led S. to the obfuscation of their common Christ, noted by Herzen. origins. According to S., idyllic. the state of Ancient Rus' was disrupted by the introduction of alien principles, which distorted (but did not destroy, especially among the people) the original principles of Russian. life, resulting in Russian society is split into antagonistic ones. groups - the guardians 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. society thoughts: attracting new historical. material, increased attention to the history of the peasantry, community, Russian. folklore, to the history of the Slavs. In his socio-political concept and S. critically assessed modern im rus. reality, its inherent imitation of Western Europeans. state orders, lawsuit, church, court. and military organization, everyday life, morality, etc., which more than once brought persecution on S. from officials. circles In these protests, especially in the 30s and early. 40s, reflected indignation against the blind borrowing of certain Western European countries carried out by the government. forms, against cosmopolitanism. However, at the same time, S. did not notice that the advanced Russian. culture has long become popular. Protesting against serfdom and putting forward projects for its abolition in the 50s and 60s, S. defended the interests of landowners. S. believed that peasants united in communities should be interested only in their internal affairs. life, and only the state should be involved in politics (the concept of “land” and “state”), which S. thought of as a monarchy. Political S.'s program adhered to the ideology of Pan-Slavism, which was sharply criticized by Chernyshevsky. Sociological concept of S., developed by Chap. 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 path of those peoples who have a true religion and, therefore, a true way of thinking, is true; peoples possessing a false religion and therefore false thinking develop in history through an external, formal structure, rational jurisprudence, etc. According to S., only in the Slavic peoples, mainly in the Russians, are the true principles of societies laid down. life; other peoples are developing on the basis of false principles and can find salvation only by accepting Orthodox civilization. S. was criticized by the “right” of Europe. historiography, while noting its validity. shortcomings (the mysticism of Hegel’s philosophy of history, the empiricism of post-Hegelian historiography, etc.), as well as the vices of Europe itself. civilization (the prosperity of “factory relations”, the emergence of a “feeling of disappointed hopes”, etc.). However, S. were unable to understand the fruitful tendencies of the West. reality, especially socialism, to which they had a sharply negative attitude. ? and l o s. S.'s concept, developed by Kireevsky and Khomyakov, was a religious-idealistic concept. a system rooted, firstly, in Orthodox theology and, secondly, in Western Europe. irrationalism (especially the late Schelling). S. criticized Hegel for the abstractness of his original principle - the absolute idea, the subordinate moment of which is the will (see A. S. Khomyakov, Complete collection of works. , t. 1, M., 1900, p. 267, 268, 274, 295–99, 302–04); They found traits of “rationality” even in the “philosophy of revelation” of the late Schelling. Contrasting the abstract principle of Hegel with the concrete principle and recognizing the common vice of Western Europeans. idealism and materialism "lack of will", Khomyakov developed voluntaristic. a variant of objective idealism: “... the world of phenomena arises from free willpower,” the basis of existence is “... the free power of thought, the willing mind...” (ibid., p. 347). Rejecting rationalism and sensationalism as one-sided and believing that the act of cognition must include the entire “completeness” of human abilities, S. saw the basis of cognition not in sensuality and reason, but in a kind of “life knowledge,” “inner knowledge” as the lowest stage of cognition, edge "...in German philosophy is sometimes under a very vague expression of direct knowledge..." (ibid., p. 279). “Life knowledge” must be correlated with reason (“reasonable sight”), which S. do not imagine as being separated from “ highest degree "knowledge - 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., vol. 1 , M., 1911, p. 74). In this sense, S.’s epistemology is an irrationalistic reaction to Western rationalism. And yet, according to S., absolute penetration is impossible “with earthly imperfection.” , and “... it is given to man only to strive along this path and not to complete it” (ibid., p. 251). Thus, religious voluntarism in S.’s ontology corresponds to agnosticism in the theory of knowledge. S. sharp criticism. Even Chaadaev, the publication of “Philosophical Letter” (1836) served as one of the strongest impetuses for the consolidation of S., in the correspondence of the early 30s, in “Apology of a Madman” (1837, published 1862). ) and other op. criticized S. for “leavened patriotism”, for the desire to separate peoples, Granovsky polemicized with S.’s understanding of the role of Peter in the history of Russia, their interpretation of the history of Russia and its relationship to the West, their idea of Russian exclusivity. communities. Granovsky was supported to a certain extent by S. M. Solovyov and Kavelin, and especially Belinsky and Chernyshevsky; Granovsky also criticized Herzen for his sympathy for S., which he subsequently overcame. Trying to establish a unified national antifeud. and anti-government. front, revolutionary Democrats sought to use those critical of Russian. reality moments in S.'s teaching, noting them will put. sides - 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, holding views on these issues that are opposite to the Slavophiles, the revolutionary. Democrats subjected S. to sharp criticism, which intensified as the impossibility of tact became clear. unity with them. Revolutionary democrats condemned S.'s ideas about the “rotting of the West” as retrograde, noted their lack of understanding of the relationship between the national and the universal, Russia and Europe, and their distorted understanding of Russian. history, especially the role of Peter in it, and the character of the Russian. people as submissive and politically passive, their demand for Russia to return to the pre-Petrine order, their false interpretation of the historical. role and prospects for the development of Russian. communities. Revolutionary democrats emphasized that, demanding nationality and the development of national. 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. Despite all the versatility of the revolutionary relationship. democrats to S. it is summarized in the words of Belinsky that his beliefs are “diametrically opposed” to the Slavophile ones, that the “Slavophile trend in science” does not deserve “... any attention either in scientific or literary terms...” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 10, 1956, p. 22; vol. 9, 1955, p. 200). Subsequently, reactionary movements fed on S.'s ideas. ideologies - new, or later, Slavophilism, pan-Slavism (Danilevsky, Leontyev, Katkov, etc.), religions. the philosophy of Solovyov (who criticized S. on a number of issues); subsequently - reaction. currents late 19th - early. 20 centuries, up to the Russian ideology. White emigration - Berdyaev, Zenkovsky and others. Burzh. authors of the 20th century saw in Slavophilism the first original Russian philosophical and sociological system (see, for example, E. Radlov, Essay on the history of Russian philosophy, P., 1920, p. 30). Marxists, starting with Plekhanov (see Soch., vol. 23, 1926, pp. 46–47, 103, etc.), criticized this interpretation of Slavophilism. In the literature of the 40s. 20th century There has been a tendency to exaggerate progress. the meaning of certain aspects of the teachings of S., which arose on the basis of ignoring social essence S.'s ideology, its relationship to the course of development of philosophy in Russia (see N. Derzhavin, Herzen and S., "Marxist Historian", 1939, No. 1; S. Dmitriev, S. and Slavophilism, ibid., 1941, No. 1; V. M. Stein, Essays on the development of Russian socio-economic thought of the 19th–20th centuries, L., 1948, ch. Overcome in the 50s - 60s. (see S. Dmitriev, Slavophiles, TSB, 2nd ed., vol. 39; A. G. Dementyev, Essays on the history of Russian journalism. 1840–1850, M.–L., 1951; Essays on the history of philosophy . and social and political thoughts of the peoples of the USSR, vol. 1, M., 1955, pp. 379–83; A. A. Galaktionov, P. F. Nikandrov, History of Russian philosophy, M., 1961, p. 217–37; ?. 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. –10, etc.), this tendency again made itself felt, as exemplified by the refusal of A. Galaktionov and P. Nikandrov from their viewpoint. 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 tendency emerged in the discussion “On the literary criticism of early S.” ("Vopr. Literary", 1969, No. 5, 7, 10; see in No. 10 about the results of the discussion in the article by S. Mashinsky "Slavophilism and its interpreters"): its representatives (V. Yanov, V. Kozhinov), Focusing attention on the positive aspects of S.'s teachings and activities, they sought to revise in this regard the assessment of the place and significance of S. in the history of Russians. thoughts, while representatives of the opposite tendency (S. Pokrovsky, A. Dementyev), bringing S.’s doctrine closer to the ideology of the official. nationalities, sometimes ignored the complexity and heterogeneity of their concepts. In general, Slavophilism still awaits a comprehensive concrete historical. analysis, especially its philosophical, historical. and aesthetic ideas. Z. Kamensky. Moscow. About S.’s place in Russian history. CULTURE AND PHILOSOPHY. S. represent creativity. Russian direction thoughts born in a cultural-historical transition. era - revealing the first fruits of the bourgeoisie. civilization in Europe and the formation of national self-awareness in Russia, “the turning point in Russian thought begins with them” (Herzen A.I., Sobr. soch., vol. 15, 1958, p. 9). Subsequently, the range of problems put forward (following Chaadaev) by S. became the subject of intense polemics in Russian. cultural-historical thoughts. The ideology of S. and the ideology of the Westerners opposing it took shape by the 40s. 19th century as a result of controversy in the emerging Russian environment. intelligentsia. Both S. and Westerners proceeded from the same ideas about the originality of the Russians. historical past. However, Westerners who drew single path for all peoples of the civilized world, they considered this identity as an anomaly that requires correction according to European models. progress and in the spirit of rationalism. enlightenment. S. saw in her a guarantee of all humanity. vocations of Russia. The discrepancy was rooted in the difference in the historiosophical views of both groups. S. found a “natural organism” in a people or nationality and considered the world historical. process as a cumulative, succession. the activities of these unique people. integrity. In looking at the history of mankind, S. was avoided as a nationalist. isolationism and mechanical leveling, characteristic, in their opinion, of the position of Westerners inclined to the arts. "transplant" Western-European society forms in Russian soil. S. were convinced that in the family of peoples, Russia had its historical breakthrough. hour., because zap. culture has completed its circle and needs healing from the outside. The theme of the crisis culture, sounded in Russian. society 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 “lyubomudry”), conceptually ends with S.: “European enlightenment... has reached... full development...”, but gave birth to a feeling “deceived hope” and “dreary emptiness”, for “...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), all that remained was "... a self-propelled knife of reason, recognizing nothing but itself and personal experience, - this self-ruling reason...", this logical activity, detached "... from all other cognitive powers of man..." (Kireevsky I.V., Complete collection of works, vol. 1, M., 1911, p. 176). Thus, S. bitterly notices “in the far West, in the land of holy miracles,” the triumph of rationality, selfishness, and the loss of spiritual integrity and guiding spiritual morals in life. This early criticism of flourishing bourgeoisism sounded simultaneously with similar Kierkegaardian criticism, which later took a canonical place not only in Christian existential philosophy, but almost in all subsequent philosophy of culture. But if this criticism leads Kierkegaard to the path of individualism and irrationalism. then S. found a foothold in the idea of conciliarity (free fraternal community) as a guarantee of a holistic person and true knowledge. The guardian of the conciliar spirit - the “intact” truth of religion - was seen in the Russian soul and in Russia, seeing the norms of “choral” harmony. reasons Orthodox Church and in life there is a cross. communities. Responsible for the spiritual ill-being of Western Europe. S.'s life was considered Catholicism (its jurisprudence, the suppression of man as a formal-organizational principle) and Protestantism (its individualism, leading to the devastating self-closure of the individual). Contrasting European and Russian types. man, therefore, has not a racial-naturalistic, but a moral-spiritual character in S. (compare with the later analysis of Russian psychology in the novels of Dostoevsky and with the pochvenism of A. Grigoriev): “Western man fragments his life to individual aspirations" (ibid., p. 210), the "Slav" thinks based on the center of his "I", and considers it his moral duty to keep all his spiritual forces collected in this center. The doctrine of the integral 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, like a focus from which the natural key flows” of the personality (Samarin). This Christ. personalism dating back to the East. patristics, was adopted by Yurkevich and formed the basis of ideological and artistic. the concept of “man in man” in Dostoevsky. The fragmentation of Europe. type, the substitution of reason for the integral spirit found expression, according to S., in last word Western-European thoughts - in idealism and epistemology. Having gone through the school of Hegel and Schellingian criticism of Hegel, S. turned to ontology; It is not the philosopher who is recognized as the key to S.’s knowledge. speculation, giving rise to a hopeless circle of concepts, but a breakthrough to being and abiding in existential truth (they saw in patristics the embryo of the “highest philosophical principle”). Subsequently, this line of thought was systematically developed. completion in the “philosophy of existence” in Vl. Solovyova. Knowledge of the truth turns out to depend on the “correct state of the soul,” and “thinking separated from the heart’s aspiration” is considered as “entertainment for the soul,” i.e. frivolity (see ibid., p. 280). Thus, and at this point S. are among the founders of the new European. philosophy of existence. From S.’s desire to embody the ideal of an integral life, a utopia is born Orthodox culture, in a cut Russian. religious began to take over Europe. enlightenment (cf. the idea of the “great synthesis” in Solovyov). S.'s social hopes for the idyllic are also utopian. the path of life-building in Russia, not associated with formal legal norms (S. propose a “division of labor” between the state, to which the people, the source of power, delegate thankless administrative functions, and the community, building life according to the norms of consent, conciliar fashion) . Thus, according to the conviction of the patriarchally minded S., the community and the individual in it do not seem to need a legal entity. guarantees of your freedom. (S. argued this despite their own life experience - their publications were subject to repeated censorship bans, and they themselves were subject to administrative persecution.) S.'s social utopia was painfully extinguished by the Russians. sociologist thought and was refuted by the entire course of Russian history. In S.'s thinking, a unique Russian face 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 structure of Slavophil thought, organicism, and belief in the “super-scientific secret” of life entered the core of Russian. religious philosophy. Utopian the costs of S.'s doctrine and its vulgarization led some later thinkers to nationalism and imperialism. Pan-Slavism (Danilevsky, Leontyev). R. Galtseva, I. Rodnyanskaya. Moscow. Lit.: Herzen A.I., Past and Thoughts, part 4, ch. 30, Collection soch., t. 9, M. 1956; Chicherin B., On nationality in science, "Russian Bulletin", 1856, vol. 3, vol. 5, ?anov I., Slavophilism as a philosopher. teaching, "Journal of the Ministry of Public Education", 1800, [book. 11]; Grigoriev?., Development of the idea of nationality in our literature, part 4 - Opposition to stagnation, Works, vol. 1, St. Petersburg, 1876; Kolyupanov N., Essay on philosophy. systems S., "Russian Review", 1894, ; Kireev?., Summary Slavophil teaching, St. Petersburg, 1896; The theory of state among the Slavophiles. 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 people. representation. Political the teaching of Slavophilism in the past and present, St. Petersburg, 1906 (bibl. available); Taybe?. ?., Knowledge of conciliar Eastern enlightenment on the wisdom of Slavophilism, P., 1912; Andreev F., Moscow. Theological Academy and S., "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, M?nch., 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; M?ller?., Russian Intellect in europ?ischer Krise. Ivan V. Kireevski J., K?ln-Graz, 1966.

18. Historical views of the Slavophiles.

Slavophiles, representatives of one of the directions of Russian social and philosophical thought of the 40-50s. 19th century - Slavophilism, which came out with a justification for the original path of historical development of Russia, in their opinion, fundamentally different from the Western European path. Identity of Russia Slavophiles saw in the absence, as it seemed to them, in its history of class struggle, in the Russian land community and artels, in Orthodoxy, which Slavophiles imagined as the only true Christianity. The same features of original development Slavophiles were also seen among foreign Slavs, especially the southern ones, whose sympathy was one of the reasons for the name of the movement itself ( Slavophiles, i.e. Slav-lovers), given to them by Westerners. For worldview Slavophiles Characteristic: a negative attitude towards the revolution, monarchism and religious and philosophical concepts. Majority Slavophiles by origin and social status they were average landowners from old service families, partly from the merchant and common classes.

Ideology Slavophiles reflected the contradictions of Russian reality, the processes of decomposition and crisis of serfdom and the development of capitalist relations in Russia. Views Slavophiles took shape in heated ideological disputes caused by the “Philosophical Letter” of P. Ya. Chaadaev. Main role in developing views Slavophiles played by writers, poets and scientists A. Slavophiles Khomyakov, I. V. Kireevsky, K. Slavophiles Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin. Prominent Slavophiles were P.V. Kireevsky, A.I. Koshelev, I. Slavophiles Aksakov, D. A. Valuev, F. V. Chizhov, I. D. Belyaev, A. F. Gilferding, later - V. I. Lamansky, V. A. Cherkassky. Close to Slavophiles according to social and ideological positions in the 40-50s. there were writers V.I. Dal, Slavophiles T. Aksakov, A. N. Ostrovsky, A. A. Grigoriev, F. I. Tyutchev, N. M. Yazykov. Great tribute to the views Slavophiles given by historians, Slavists and linguists F. I. Buslaev, O. M. Bodyansky, V. I. Grigorovich, I. I. Sreznevsky, M. A. Maksimovich.

Historical views Slavophiles was inherent in the spirit of romantic historiography idealization of old, pre-Petrine Rus', which Slavophiles imagined a harmonious society, devoid of contradictions, not knowing internal upheavals, demonstrating the unity of the people and the tsar, the “zemshchina” and the “authorities”. According to Slavophiles Since the time of Peter I, who arbitrarily disrupted the organic development of Russia, the state has risen above the people, the nobility and intelligentsia, having unilaterally and externally adopted Western European culture, have become detached from people's life. Idealizing patriarchy and the principles of traditionalism, Slavophiles They attributed an essentially ahistorical character to the Russian “folk spirit.”

Focus Slavophiles in the 40s there was Moscow, literary salons of A. A. and A. P. Elagin, D. N. and E. A. Sverbeev, N. F. and K. K. Pavlov. Here Slavophiles communicated and debated with Westerners. Many works Slavophiles were subject to censorship harassment, some of Slavophiles were under police surveillance and were arrested. Permanent press organ Slavophiles for a long time they did not, mainly due to censorship obstacles. They were published mainly in Moskvityanin; published several collections of articles “Sinbirsky collection” (1844), “Collection of historical and statistical information about Russia and peoples of the same faith and tribes” (1845), “Moscow collections” (1846, 1847 and 1852). After some easing of censorship Slavophiles at the end of the 50s. published the magazines “Russian Conversation” (1856-60), “Rural Improvement” (1858-59) and the newspapers “Molva” (1857) and “Parus” (1859).

During the years of the revolutionary situation 1859-1861 there was a significant convergence of views Slavophiles and Westerners on the basis of liberalism. In the post-reform period, under the conditions of capitalist development, Slavophilism as a special direction of social thought ceased to exist. I continued their activities. Slavophiles Aksakov, who published the magazines “Day” (1861-65, with the supplement of the newspaper “Shareholder”), “Moscow” (1867-68), “Moskvich” (1867-68), “Rus” (1880-85), Samarin, Koshelev , Cherkassky, who evolved to the right and increasingly diverged in their views among themselves. Under the influence Slavophiles pochvennichestvo emerged. Conservative features of the doctrine Slavophiles developed in an exaggerated form in the spirit of nationalism and pan-Slavism, the so-called. late Slavophiles- N. Ya. Danilevsky and K. N. Leontiev. With criticism of ideology Slavophiles Revolutionary democrats Belinsky, Herzen, N.P. Ogarev, N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.L. Dobrolyubov spoke.

The main idea of ​​the Slavophiles. The main representatives of Slavophilism