In Russia, since the reign of Peter the Great, the ruling circles recognized the need to create their own class of educated people. However, the situation was very contradictory. The fact is that in Russia “educated people” most often became “underminers” of the foundations - opponents of absolutism. In this regard, he subsequently had a rather ambivalent attitude towards education. After all, the issue of the development of education in Russia was closely interconnected with another issue, more important - with the preservation of the existing system.

The ideologist of the “protective”, conservative internal political direction was Uvarov (Minister of Education). He considered the primary task to identify the principles that make up distinctive features Russia belong only to her. It was he who in 1832 formulated the well-known triad of “nationality, autocracy, Orthodoxy.” became the basis. The theory of the official nationality of Uvarov was based on it.

Taking into account the fundamental differences in the historical development of Russia and Europe, the Minister of Education set out to combine the formation of culture and education and the idea of ​​the need for autocracy as a form political system, since ancient times inherent in the Russian state. It should be noted that Western European enlightenment gave rise to revolutionary conflicts. In Russia, however, “order” survived because it was based on principles that were incomprehensible and unknown to Europe. The theory of official nationality combined educational ideas and thoughts about unity, a voluntary union of the people and the sovereign. At the same time, the absence of opposing classes was provided for. At the same time, the author of the theory of official nationality recognized autocracy as the only possible one. Orthodoxy meant an exceptionally deep religiosity inherent only in Russian people. In accordance with centuries of experience, the theory of official nationality argued that autocracy was the only form that contributed to maintaining the existence of Eastern Christianity, which, in turn, reflected the internal moral and religious position of state power.

Submitting to the task of preserving the existing system in the country, Uvarov put forward his concept. It consisted in the creation of educational institutions and disciplines that would not only not harm the state system, but would also become one of the most reliable supports for the autocracy. It remains to resolve only the question of the content of the proposed education. However, the Minister of Education could not deny that the development of new disciplines in Russia without attracting ideas modern science Europe was not possible. It should be noted that until this time, the foundations on which the theory of official nationality was based appeared somewhat spontaneously. With the development of the concept, the minister set himself the task of subordinating the entire system of “originally Russian” education. Thus, education, being formed and developed within the framework established by the concept, would not be able to undermine the existing order.

The theory of official nationality recognized serfdom as a benefit for the state and people. This system provided for the personal dependence of one person on another, subordination to a superior, based on the law-abiding peasant masses. Order and discipline, love for the king, civil obedience, submission to the authority of the government were considered the best human qualities. Thus, the theory of the official nationality perfectly reflected the spirit of the era of Nicholas the First.

"Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality." With the help of these three words, the Minister of Public Education Sergei Uvarov managed to derive an ideal formula for the relationship between government and society in Imperial Russia. True, not for long...

Portrait of Sergei Semenovich Uvarov. Hood. V.A. Golike. 1833

In the history of Russia there were many bright and influential ideological concepts - starting with the thoughts of the elder Filofeya about Moscow as the Third Rome (1523). However, the first attempt to systematize and widely disseminate ideas about the purpose and goals of the state was the imperial triad, which, according to plan Nicholas I and the Minister of Public Education Sergei Uvarov, was supposed to consolidate the power for a long time and give its strengthening meaning.

Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich was an enemy of dreamy idle talk, which was generated in abundance by the imagination of the previous sovereign - Alexandra I. The new king needed businesslike employees, whose words serve only as a foundation for practice, and from the very beginning it was precisely such people that he wanted to see at the head of the army, foreign policy and industry. The emperor considered the task of creating an ideological doctrine that was strategically effective and simple in form to be no less important.

Nikolai understood that the moment had come to think about updating the state ideology. In earlier times it was largely shaped by the dictates of the Church. However, after the church schism of the 17th century, after the “secularization” that took place in the country throughout the 18th century, an urgent need arose for ideological guidelines related to the Orthodox faith, but not emanating from the Church.

Russian European

To develop a new doctrine, a person was required to be exquisitely educated, distinguished, well known in the circles of the picky enlightened public, and at the same time businesslike and executive. The Emperor looked closely at the energetic President of the Academy of Sciences, Sergei Semenovich Uvarov, for a long time. A seemingly sophisticated Russian European, he proved loyalty to the throne and respect for the indigenous traditions of Russia. And the empire in the early 1830s needed to regain its authority in the eyes of its own nobility...

Panorama of St. Petersburg. Early XIX century

Freethinking is always inherent in young minds, but Nikolai, understanding this, nevertheless reasonably considered some ideas popular in the capital's salons to be dangerous for the country. By that time, Uvarov had gone through all the stages of “initiation” of the then enlightened elite. He was the founding father literary society“Arzamas”, with which the biographies of V.A. Zhukovsky, A.S. Pushkin, K.N. Batyushkova, P.A. Vyazemsky. Writers who opposed conservative principles in literature most often gathered in the rich house of Uvarov.

In a society where everyone was given a humorous nickname taken from ballads Vasily Zhukovsky, Sergei Semenovich was dubbed the Old Woman, with ironic respect emphasizing that while still a very young man, he already belongs to the veterans of the struggle for the reform of the Russian literary language. After all, Uvarov was the author of the first positive review of the two-volume “Experiments in Poetry and Prose” Konstantina Batyushkova, which for some time became the manifesto of the “new literature”.

It must be said that by that time Uvarov had other, no less significant services to Russian literature. Thus, in a two-year discussion with the elderly poet Vasily Kapnist, he formulated Golden Rule about the unity of form and thought in creativity, which became an axiom for writers of the Pushkin century. In addition, back in 1810, Vasily Zhukovsky translated into Russian the “Project of the Asian Academy,” written by Uvarov, as usual, in French.

This remarkable work shows the foresight of the future Minister of Public Education, who understood the need for Russia to conduct a responsible policy in the East. However, two years after the founding of Arzamas, Sergei Uvarov lost interest in the protracted literary game and left the society.

In 1818 he was appointed president of the Academy of Sciences. His family and friendly connections played a role here, and, undoubtedly, the reputation of a thoughtful researcher, earned by the French-language works “An Essay on the Eleusinian Mysteries” and “The All-Russian Emperor and Bonaparte.” Uvarov remained in this position until his death and, by the way, learned to cooperate with conservatives, whom the Arzamas people ridiculed.

At the same time, until 1822, he remained a trustee of the St. Petersburg educational district, and then headed the department of manufactures and domestic trade. It is noteworthy that in December 1832, Uvarov cast his vote for the election of Alexander Pushkin as a full member of the Russian Academy. The relationship between the two famous Arzamas residents was complicated by mutual barbs, but their communication was not interrupted for many years.

Basis of state ideology

In 1832, Uvarov became a comrade (deputy) of the Minister of Public Education. The ministry at that time was headed by an elderly prince Karl Andreevich Lieven, infantry general, comrade-in-arms Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov. Emperor Nicholas I had been ruling for many years; the wounds of December 1825 had healed, but the danger of strengthening revolutionary tendencies had not disappeared.

Uvarov was tasked with creating a flexible system, a permanent mechanism for patriotic education. The most difficult thing is to explain to society the meaning of the “contract” with the state and the sovereign. A year later, as expected, the deputy, who had earned the royal trust, took the post of minister, where he remained for 16 years - until 1849.

Portrait of Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky. Hood. I.I. Reimers. 1837

The credo of Uvarov’s policy was reflected in the very first document he drew up in his new position. True, Uvarov outlined these fundamentals somewhat earlier, while he was still a comrade of the minister. It was then that three words were heard for the first time: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality”! This trinity became the foundation of the state ideology Russian Empire– an ideology that worked effectively for two decades and only faltered in the smoke Crimean War.

In the same 1830s, Uvarov amazed his contemporaries with popular political science:

“Deepening into the consideration of the subject and seeking those principles that constitute the property of Russia (and every land, every nation has such a Palladium), it becomes clear that there are such principles, without which Russia cannot prosper, strengthen, live - we have three main ones:

1. Orthodox Faith.
2. Autocracy.
3. Nationality."

The national idea, first of all, needed a folk hero who would personify all the values ​​of the triad. The peasant became such a hero Ivan Susanin, who, according to the legend established by that time, was the savior of the young boyar Mikhail Romanov- the future sovereign.

And an opera dedicated to this feat Mikhail Glinka"Life for the Tsar", which premiered in November 1836 in St. Petersburg Bolshoi Theater, and the opening of a monument to a peasant hero in Kostroma - all this was a direct consequence of the establishment of Uvarov’s ideology.

Let us define the main stages in the emergence of the “triune” ideological concept. The earliest mention of the triad “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality” dates back to March 1832: in the surviving draft of a French-language letter to the emperor, the then comrade minister of public education proposed a formula that met the expectations of the monarch.

From the time of Peter the Great few doubted that Russia’s path was to learn from Europe. However, Nicholas I and Uvarov (and besides them, at about the same time, A.S. Shishkov, N.V. Gogol, A.A. Kraevsky and some other thinkers) drew attention to the important advantages of the Russian way of life.

“Russia still keeps in its chest religious convictions, political convictions, moral convictions - the only guarantee of its bliss, the remains of its people, the precious and last guarantees of its political future,” Uvarov wrote to the sovereign, and both he and the emperor considered these qualities to be the basis of Russian victories

In his first letter to Nicholas I, Uvarov cockily defined the leadership role of the Ministry of Public Education in the administrative body of the empire. And in March 1833, upon joining new position, he ordered the distribution of a circular to educational districts, in which he formulated his credo and the credo of the ministry as follows:

“Our common duty is to ensure that public education, in accordance with the highest intentions of the august monarch, is carried out in the united spirit of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and nationality.”

Ivan Susanin. Hood. K.E. Makovsky. 1914. The peasant Ivan Susanin became a national hero, personifying all the values ​​of the triad “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” Time of Troubles who saved the boyar Mikhail Romanov - the future tsar

Small word

It is significant that the word “nationality” - the only one in the triad - was still written with a small letter. Nationality seemed to be the most controversial side of the triad. In Uvarov’s understanding, nationality is the Russian analogue of the European “national principle”. There it was associated with the struggle against monarchical and church foundations. From the Russian national consciousness, predominantly peasant, Uvarov expected unity with the tsar and faith. But for this, the ruling class had to take a step towards the “rabble”.

“Whatever the conflicts they had to endure, both of them live common life and they can still enter into an alliance and win together.” It was about the union of the conservative principle (religion and autocratic power) and the people.

More than once, researchers have noted that Uvarov’s formula stemmed from the Russian military motto “For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland!”, which appeared at the end of the 18th century. But it is worth emphasizing that his ministry, in its public efforts, not only adopted, but also popularized this slogan.

The first issue of the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education,” published since 1834, stated that “guided by the commands of the monarch, who is vigilantly concerned about the benefit of the country given to him by God, the ministry has a direct and sacred duty to give useful direction to the readers of its magazine, so that the true ones may be satisfied.” sons of the Fatherland have a just desire to know how they can better contribute to the high intentions of the Father of Russia.”

In 1843, Uvarov compiled a major note, which summed up the results of his ten years of work at the head of the ministry. This work was published in St. Petersburg in 1864 under the title “Decade of the Ministry of Public Education. 1833–1843."

And 11 years after the birth of the legendary formula, its author remained faithful to it. And Russia has become accustomed to the triad. This means that the policy that the minister, the ministry, and the press entrusted to him had been pursuing for a whole decade did not suffer bankruptcy.

On the contrary, Uvarov’s ideas were introduced into the masses; in the early 1840s, adherence to them became a sign of good form for the Russian political elite. But Uvarov achieved more. He dreamed of uniting the country around his triad, uniting it for the good of Russia, its power, its enlightenment.

He had enough ambition and management to implement his ideological program throughout the empire. Nikolai could not have dreamed of a better minister. The Ministry of Public Education was responsible for ideology, propaganda, relations with the Church, and, on the initiative of Uvarov, for Russia’s reputation in the world. Let us remember that after Congress of Vienna(1814–1815) Russia's participation in the events of European life became everyday, almost routine.

It was no longer only trade, espionage and war that constituted the agenda in the international politics of the empire. The All-Russian Emperor tried to follow political trends and ideological trends throughout the Old World. Monitor and influence the situation in the spirit of maintaining monarchical legality.

Unfair verdict of a historian

Not everyone liked the character of the minister, whom the tsar awarded the title of count in 1846 for his faithful service. In addition, Uvarov inherited his father-in-law's million-dollar fortune, in other words, he was considered an unbearably lucky gentleman.

However, Sergei Semenovich, burdened with state affairs, did not avoid nervous breakdowns. Heightened pride sometimes blinded the minister. Expert in Russian antiquity P.I. Bartenev wrote:

“There are still people alive who remember how S.S. Uvarov appeared pale and not himself at the Konyushennaya Church for Pushkin’s funeral service and how they shunned him.”

Indeed, at the same time, Uvarov took energetic measures to neutralize the student body, which he did not want to allow before saying goodbye to Pushkin. It was announced that on the day of the funeral the minister himself would visit the university to track down truants. Trustee of the Moscow educational district, Count S.G. Uvarov instructed Stroganov:

“On the occasion of the death of A.S. Pushkin, without any doubt, articles about him will be published in Moscow periodicals. It is desirable that in this case, on both sides, proper moderation and a tone of decency be observed. I ask your Excellency to pay attention to this and order the censors not to allow the publication of any of the above articles without your prior approval.”

It seems like reasonable words, a state position. Moderation is truly necessary when it comes to the ruler of thoughts who died in a criminal duel. But when comparing this message from Uvarov with his future words about Pushkin’s genius, the hypocrisy of the Minister of Public Education becomes more obvious. Tragic days always tear off “all and every mask”...

Historian Sergei Mikhailovich Soloviev(by the way, a regular author of the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education”) spoke poisonously about Uvarov:

“He was undoubtedly a man with brilliant talents, and due to these talents, his education and liberal way of thinking, he was capable of taking the place of Minister of Public Education and President of the Academy of Sciences; but in this man his heart abilities did not at all correspond to his mental ones. Posing as a noble gentleman, Uvarov did not have anything truly aristocratic about himself; on the contrary, he was a servant who received decent manners in the house of a decent master (Alexander I), but remained a servant at heart; he spared no expense, no flattery, to please the master (Emperor Nicholas); he instilled in him the idea that he, Nicholas, was the creator of some new formation based on new principles, and came up with these principles, that is, the words: Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality; Orthodoxy - being an atheist, not believing in Christ even in a Protestant way; autocracy - being a liberal; nationality - having not read a single Russian book in my life, constantly writing in French or German. Decent people close to him admitted with grief that there was no baseness that he was not capable of doing, that he was stained all around with unclean deeds. When talking with this man, a conversation very often brilliantly intelligent, one was struck, however, by his extreme pride and vanity; only, it happened, and you wait - he will say that during the creation of the world God consulted with him about the plan.

Portrait of Emperor Nicholas I. Hood. V.D. Sverchkov. 1856. Nicholas I considered very important task creation of a state ideological doctrine

IN UVAROV’S UNDERSTANDING, NATIONALITY IS A RUSSIAN ANALOGUE OF THE EUROPEAN “NATIONAL BEGINNING”. There it was associated with the struggle against monarchical and church foundations. From the Russian national consciousness, Uvarov expected unity with the tsar and faith

Well, a harsh verdict from the great historian, who showed himself here to be both a passionate satirist and a supporter of liberalization. But I think the verdict is not fair in all respects. It is not surprising: the author and the object of his criticism belonged to different ideological camps.

Moreover, it was indeed not easy to get along with Uvarov, and his notorious “aristocratism,” which already caused controversy in the 1820s, could not be forgiven by the writers of Pushkin’s circle. True, they were offended primarily by, let’s say, the lightness of Uvarov’s aristocracy.

They loved to remember that the father of the illustrious count was the “upstart” Senka the bandura player, who owed everything to Grigory Potemkin. It was rumored that Uvarov was the illegitimate son of General S.S. Apraksina. And for Sergei Solovyov, the count was also “a servant with the habits of a master.” This historian’s remark contains traces of Pushkin’s snobbery. And the important role of propaganda, consciously used by Uvarov in creating the current triune formula of state ideology, was yet to be seen by Solovyov’s descendants in the twentieth century.

Son of a historian, philosopher Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov, was no longer so categorical in his assessment of Uvarov. On the contrary, he took the minister under protection from Pushkin’s causticism, noting the incorrectness of the poem “For the Recovery of Lucullus,” in which the poet tried to ridicule the author of the triad in the Juvenal style. V.S. Soloviev wrote:

“In his public activities, Uvarov had great merit: of all the Russian ministers of public education, he was, without a doubt, the most enlightened and gifted, and his work was the most fruitful. Uvarov gave no occasion for serious satire inspired by public interest, and, in fact, Pushkin exposes only the private character of the minister, and his denunciation is more of a libel than a satire.”

Count's legacy

In 1996, after a far from uncontroversial presidential campaign, Boris Yeltsin publicly gave the task to invent a national idea. But a unifying, nationwide conscious image cannot be derived in the laboratory: the homunculus as national idea won't take root. Here we need to grasp the nature of the state, folk culture and snatch something organically inherent in the majority.

The “new” building of Moscow University on Mokhovaya Street, built in 1835. Photo from 1912

Yeltsin’s associates did not succeed in what Uvarov succeeded. Russia is a military power. Sergei Semenovich remembered the battle cry “For the Faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland!” He understood: there is no need to invent anything, you just need to catch and generalize.

Uvarov knew the laws of propaganda well, realized the effectiveness of revolutionary slogans and rebellious French journalism. He was not afraid to borrow the form of the revolutionaries. They have “Freedom, equality and brotherhood”, we have “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality”. He understood the propaganda power of the press like no one else in Russia at that time.

The ABC of the triad was also explained by priests in sermons, so that every person in the country would perceive these fundamentals as the essence of the state structure. The minister's keynote speeches were also published in European capitals, so that everyone knew that the triad was the palladium of the Russian Empire. Let us remember that it was Uvarov who quickly translated into French Pushkin poem“Slanderers of Russia” and tried to ensure that during the days of the Polish uprising in 1830–1831, the patriotic formulas of the Russian poet reached the European “tops”.

The triad was built to last, but was in full force only until 1855. After the defeats in Crimea, after the death of Emperor Nicholas, the situation changed dramatically. The Empire doubted its own strength and began revolutionary changes. What an apotheosis of primordial autocracy this is!

Another 10 years passed - and the great reforms changed the attitude towards both the monarch and the people. In Russia, a layer of large owners emerged; they fought for political influence. Against this background, socialist protest sentiments grew.

In science, an unflattering, critical definition remains - “the theory of official nationality.” “Official” means largely false, artificial. This is Academician A.N. Pypin, a talented literary historian and left-wing sociologist, dubbed Nicholas’s ideology this way already in the post-reform years. Supporters of renewal - both liberals and socialists - smashed Uvarov’s concept to smithereens. For reactionism, for the preservation of backwardness.

The development of events from 1855 to 1917 largely confirms the rightness of the critics. After the fall of Sevastopol, Russia could no longer be called a quiet haven compared to rebellious Europe. The triumph of prosperous conservatism did not take place. And educational institutions, even under censorship pressure, did not become a forge of loyalty. The idea of ​​the triad failed.

On the other hand, Emperor Nicholas I and his minister Sergei Uvarov created a thoughtful, balanced protective ideology based on the study of folk culture. And although the triad did not become an eternal panacea for the throne, the experience of that fruitful ideological work itself is priceless. In peacetime, the government tried to rally millions of citizens and took a propaganda initiative.

And not the emperor and his minister of wine, that the next generation of managers of the Russian Empire lacked agility. There were plenty of conservatives in the Ministry of Public Education even after that, but, by and large, they only knew how to “freeze” when they should have been ahead of their opponents in a Uvarov style.

Arseniy Zamostyanov

Nicholas I. The theory of “official nationality”

From the very beginning of his reign, Nicholas I declared the need for reforms and created a “committee on December 6, 1826” to prepare changes. “His Majesty’s Own Office” began to play a major role in the state, which was constantly expanded by creating many branches.

Nicholas I instructed a special commission led by M.M. Speransky to develop a new Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. By 1833, two editions had been printed: “The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire,” starting from the Council Code of 1649 and until the last decree of Alexander I, and “The Code of Current Laws of the Russian Empire.” The codification of laws carried out under Nicholas I streamlined Russian legislation, facilitated the conduct of legal practice, but did not bring changes to the political and social structure Russia.

Emperor Nicholas I was an autocrat in spirit and an ardent opponent of the introduction of a constitution in the country and liberal reforms. In his opinion, society should live and act like a good army, regulated and by laws. The militarization of the state apparatus under the auspices of the monarch - that’s characteristic political regime Nicholas I.

He was extremely suspicious of public opinion, literature, art, and education came under censorship, and measures were taken to limit the periodical press. Official propaganda began to extol unanimity in Russia as a national virtue. The idea “The people and the Tsar are one” was dominant in the education system in Russia under Nicholas I.

The theory of "official nationality"

According to the “theory of official nationality” developed by S.S. Uvarov, Russia has its own path of development, does not need the influence of the West and should be isolated from the world community. The Russian Empire under Nicholas I received the name “gendarme of Europe” for protecting peace in European countries from revolutionary uprisings.

In social policy, Nicholas I focused on strengthening the class system. In order to protect the nobility from “clogging,” the “December 6 Committee” proposed establishing a procedure according to which nobility was acquired only by right of inheritance. And for service people to create new classes - “officials”, “eminent”, “honorary” citizens. In 1845, the emperor issued a “Decree on Majorates” (indivisibility of noble estates during inheritance).

Serfdom under Nicholas I enjoyed the support of the state, and the tsar signed a manifesto in which he stated that there would be no changes in the situation of serfs. But Nicholas I was not a supporter of serfdom and secretly prepared materials on the peasant issue in order to make matters easier for his followers.

The most important aspects of foreign policy during the reign of Nicholas I were the return to the principles of the Holy Alliance (Russia's struggle against revolutionary movements in Europe) and the Eastern Question. Russia under Nicholas I participated in Caucasian War(1817-1864), Russian-Persian war(1826-1828), Russian-Turkish war(1828-1829), as a result of which Russia annexed the eastern part of Armenia, the entire Caucasus, received east coast Black Sea.

During the reign of Nicholas I, the most memorable was the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Russia was forced to fight against Turkey, England, and France. During the siege of Sevastopol, Nicholas I was defeated in the war and lost the right to have a naval base on the Black Sea.

The unsuccessful war showed Russia's backwardness from advanced European countries and how unviable the conservative modernization of the empire turned out to be.

Nicholas I died on February 18, 1855. Summing up the reign of Nicholas I, historians call his era the most unfavorable in the history of Russia, starting with the Time of Troubles.

The theory of official nationality is a government ideology formulated in 1833 by the Minister of Public Education, Count S.S. Uvarov. In line with the ideas of conservatism, she substantiated the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. It was developed in connection with the strengthening of the social movement in Russia with the aim of strengthening the existing system in new socio-political conditions. This theory had a special resonance for Russia due to the fact that in Western Europe in many countries in the first half of the 19th century. absolutism was over. The theory of official nationality is based on three principles: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. This theory reflected enlightenment ideas about unity, the voluntary union of the sovereign and the people, and the absence of opposing classes in Russian society. The originality lay in the recognition of autocracy as the only possible form of government in Russia. Serfdom was seen as a benefit for the people and the state. Orthodoxy was understood as the deep religiosity and commitment to Christianity inherent in the Russian people. From these arguments, the conclusion was drawn about the impossibility and unnecessaryness of fundamental social changes in Russia, about the need to strengthen the autocracy and serfdom. Since the time of Nicholas I, the theory of official nationality has been widely propagated through the press and introduced into the education system. This theory caused sharp criticism not only from the radical part of society, but also from liberals. The most famous was the speech of P.Ya. Chaadaev with criticism of autocracy.

Old Russian Rurikovich Empire Soviet Federation

OFFICIAL NATIONALITY THEORY is a designation adopted in Russian historical literature for conservative views in the field of politics, education, science and literature, formulated during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I. The theory of official nationality was based on the ideas of the historian N.M. Karamzin, set out in his notes “On Ancient and New Russia” and “Opinion of a Russian Citizen”. Special role Count S.S. played a role in formulating the theory of official nationality. Uvarov, Minister of Public Education in 1833-1849. In 1832, in his note addressed to Emperor S.S. Uvarov wrote about “the truly Russian protective principles of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality, which constitute the last anchor of our salvation and the surest guarantee of the strength and greatness of the Fatherland.” S.S. Uvarov was the first to proclaim the principle of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality”: “Our common duty is to ensure that public education is carried out in the united spirit of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality.” Supporters of this principle asserted the inviolability of the unity of the Orthodox people and the Orthodox Tsar. Emperor Nicholas I himself fully shared these ideas and inspired them. Back in 1826, when visiting Moscow University, the emperor expressed his desire to see “directly Russian” in the university students, thereby emphasizing the national character of his policy. Uvarov’s ideas were shared by professor of Russian history M.P. Pogodin, academician and professor of Russian literature S.P. Shevyrev. Both of them advocated the role of science and education as a guardian and guardian of public peace. Academician and professor of Russian history N.G. played a significant role in strengthening the theory. Ustryalov. Subsequently, the historian A.N. used the formula “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality.” Pypin called the “official theory of nationality” (in the journal “Bulletin of Europe”, 1872-1873). This name is fixed in historical and popular science literature.

In the first half of the 19th century. In Russia, an ideological understanding of the existing social system is being formed. Count S.S. Uvarov and his theory of official nationality reflected and expressed the autocratic (official) point of view. But alongside this, other ideological trends arose. The most noticeable were two movements, whose representatives began to be called Slavophiles and Westerners.

Slavophiles , or literally “Slav-lovers,” appeared in Russia during the reign of Nicholas. The system of views of Slavophiles was formed in the 1830-1840s. The most famous figures of this movement were representatives of ancient noble families - A. S. Khomyakov, brothers I. V. and P. V. Kireevsky, brothers I. S. and K. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin. The heyday of Slavophilism occurred in the 1840-1850s. They saw the uniqueness of Russia's historical path in the absence of class struggle here, in the presence of a strong class system, in the existence of a rural community, in the Orthodox religion. They denied the need to introduce any representative (parliamentary) institutions of the European type and put forward their well-known slogan: the people have an opinion, the king has a decision. The power of the king must remain autocratic, independent of any written laws (constitutions), but at the same time there must be close unity between the monarch and the people. In their opinion, Peter I split the country into two worlds alien to each other. One is the bulk of the population, Russian peasantry, in which the Slavophiles saw the basis of everything public building countries. The other, anti-Russian world was personified for them by government officials (bureaucracy), noble aristocracy and intelligentsia. Slavophiles called on the nobility to draw closer to the common people and to study folk life and culture. They themselves did a lot in this area - they collected ancient monuments culture and language, tried to publish them. They published various collections of historical documents. Russia owes the Slavophiles the first collection of Russian folk songs by P.V.Kireevsky and the unique dictionary of the Great Russian language by V.I.Dal. It was the Slavophiles who laid the foundation for the study of peasant life, crafts, fairs, etc. The Slavophiles were not at all opponents of technological progress. They understood the importance and necessity of some kind of technical improvements, spoke out for the abolition of serfdom, for the development of trade, industry, banking, and for the construction of railways. But at the same time, the Slavophiles believed, the state should firmly guard national interests, support and encourage the commercial activities of domestic merchants and industrialists.

Simultaneously with the Slavophiles, another social movement was formed, whose representatives were called Westerners . The most famous figures here were writers V. Ya. Botkin and I. S. Turgenev, historians, professors of Moscow University T. Ya. Granovsky, B. Ya. Chicherin, K. D. Kavelin. Representatives of this trend opposed both the theory of official nationality and the Slavophiles. They believed that Russia should follow the same path as Western European countries, that changes are inevitable, necessary, and the sooner it becomes like in Europe, the better. If the Slavophiles idealized the distant past of their people, seeing in it a guideline for the future development of the country, then the Westerners, or, as they were also called, Russian Europeans, did not find anything worthy in that past. According to Westerners, the light of progress comes to Russia from Europe, and therefore they were unequivocal and enthusiastic about the actions of Peter I. If the Slavophiles paid main attention to the specific features of Russia, the unique structure of its cultural and political life, then Westerners, on the contrary, completely ignored these features. This revealed the ideological weakness of Westernism.

100 RUR bonus for first order

Select type of work Thesis Course work Abstract Master's thesis Report on practice Article Report Review Test Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Essays Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Master's thesis Laboratory work On-line help

Find out the price

The Decembrist cause had a strong influence on the entire government activity of the new Emperor Nicholas I. For himself, he concluded that the entire nobility was in an unreliable mood. Noticing that a large number of people associated with revolutionary unions were from the nobility; he did not trust the nobility, suspecting them of striving for political dominance. Nicholas did not want to rule with the help of the noble class; he tried to create a bureaucracy around himself and rule the country through obedient officials. Having punished the Decembrists, Nicholas showed his readiness to begin reforms provided that the autocratic system remained unchanged, but he intended to carry them out without the participation of social forces. In turn, the nobility distanced itself from the bureaucracy of the new reign. It was intimidated by the Decembrist cause and itself avoided social activities. There was an alienation between the government and society. The government believed that the fermentation of the 20s. came from superficial education and free-thinking, borrowed from foreign teachings, so attention should have been paid to “education” younger generation, to give strength in education to “truly Russian principles” and remove from it everything that would contradict them. All state and public life was to be based on these same principles. To such primordial beginnings of Russian life, according to the ideologist of the reign of Nicholas, Minister of Public Education and Spiritual Affairs S.S. Uvarov, included “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality,” which were the basis of the so-called theories of "official nationality" , which became an ideological expression protective direction. (See additional reading material.)
But the main provisions of the above theory were formulated in 1811 by the historian N.M. Karamzin in his "Note on ancient and new Russia"These ideas were included in the coronation manifesto of Emperor Nicholas I and subsequent legislation, justifying the need for the Russian state to have an autocratic form of government and serfdom, and the addition of S.S. Uvarov was the concept of “nationality.” He considered the proclaimed triad “a guarantee of strength and greatness.” Russian Empire. The concept of “nationality” was considered by S.S. Uvarov as an original feature of the Russian people, as an original commitment to tsarist autocracy and serfdom.
The essence of Uvarov’s idea of ​​Russian life was that Russia is a completely special state and a special nationality, unlike the states and nationalities of Europe. On this basis, it is distinguished by all the main features of national and state life: it is impossible to apply the demands and aspirations of European life to it. Russia has its own special institutions, with an ancient faith, it has preserved patriarchal virtues, little known to the peoples of the West. First of all, this concerned popular piety, the people’s complete trust in the authorities and obedience, simplicity of morals and needs. Serfdom retained much of what was patriarchal: good landowner better protects the interests of the peasants than they themselves could, and the position of the Russian peasant better position Western worker.
S.S. Uvarov believed that the main political task was to contain the influx of new ideas into Russia. “Stable” serf Russia was contrasted with the restless West: “there” - riots and revolutions, “here” - order and peace. (See additional textbook material.) Writers, historians, and educators should have been guided by these ideas.

Restriction of the activities of the press and educational institutions in the 30-40s. The theory of "official nationality" became the main ideological weapon of conservatives. It was promoted in all educational institutions, on the pages of periodicals, in fiction and in religious instructions.
After the events of the 30s. (“cholera riots” that swept across the country, uprisings in military settlements, etc.) government of Nicholas I Special attention turned to the periodical press, which had a strong influence on the people. On behalf of the emperor, an order was issued banning the publication of articles without the author's signature. Each edition was reviewed by two censors. The persecution of progressive-minded journalists and writers intensified.
Pressure on the press and school intensified in the 40s. under the influence of the peasant movement in the country. To reinforce the existing censorship, special committees were created to review published journals and secretly monitor “the spirit and direction of all works ... printing.” A period of censorship terror began, to which writers, editors and censors were subjected.
Upon accession to the throne, Nicholas I gave orders to the Minister of Public Education A.S. Shishkov on the revision of the charters of all educational institutions. The secondary and lower schools were removed from the jurisdiction of the universities and placed under the direct guidance of appointed trustees of the educational districts, who became obedient agents of the government program. Private educational institutions, which taught teaching more freely and more broadly, were subjected to the strictest government control; the opening of private boarding houses where there were state schools was prohibited. Now home teachers must pass preliminary tests and receive a certificate not only of their knowledge, but also of their " moral qualities". Foreigners who raised Russian children were not allowed to see them without special certificates of good behavior and piety.
Considering schools to be sufficiently protected from the actions of “destructive concepts,” Uvarov considered it important to pay attention to universities, breeding grounds for “willfulness and freethinking.” According to the charter adopted in 1835, universities lost a significant part of their rights and independence: they ceased to be scientific bodies, turning into educational institutions; the university court ceased to operate; the minister received the right, regardless of the opinion of the council, to appoint professors. The inspector, who was supposed to supervise the morality of students, gained great influence at the university.

Ideologists of the theory of "official nationality". The interpreters and conductors of the official theory were Moscow University professors M.P. Pogodin, N.G. Ustryalov, S.P. Shvyrev, writers and publicists F.V. Bulgarin, N.I. Grech, N.V. Kukolnik and others. They argued that the country has the best order, which corresponds to all the canons of religion and “political wisdom.” In their opinion, serfdom retains much of what is patriarchal, although it needs to be partially improved. Landowners (good ones) protect the interests of the peasants better than they could do it themselves. Edition conservative direction became a magazine "Moskvitian" , published under the editorship of M.P. Weather.
M.P. Pogodin proved the absence of conditions for revolutions in Russia. As arguments, he put forward the “beneficence” of serfdom and the absence of class hostility in the country. He believed that the history of Russia did not have a wide variety of events, like the West, but it was “rich in wise sovereigns,” “glorious deeds,” and “high virtues.” The historian proved the originality of autocracy, starting with Rurik. According to him, Russia established “true enlightenment” thanks to the adoption of Christianity from Byzantium. In addition, since the times of Peter the Great, Russia has borrowed a lot from Europe, but M.P. Pogodin regrets borrowing “misconceptions.” Now, he says, “it’s time to return it to the true principles of nationality,” with the establishment of which “Russian life will finally settle on the true path of prosperity, and Russia will assimilate the fruits of civilization without its errors.”
Another conservative S.P. Shevyrev , contrasted the East (i.e. Russia and related Slavic countries) to the “decaying” West with its “poisonous” civilization. At the same time, the “healthy principles” that the West had to “borrow” from the East were, according to S.P. Shevyrev, in the spirit of Christian faith and humility. This concept was the basis of his scientific developments and is expressed in the article “A Russian’s View of the Education of Europe.”
The content of the works of N.I. Grecha, F.V. Bulgarina, N.V. The puppeteer had loyal feelings and sentiments, official patriotism, attacks against progressive writers and ideas. So, F.V. Bulgarin was skeptical about projects for the democratic reorganization of Russian life and relied on the tsar and the tsarist government as the initiators of Russia’s progress. Frightened by the performance of the Decembrists (there were many of his friends among those repressed by the authorities), he began to demonstrate with all his might his devotion to the regime - he gave verbal portrait wanted V.K. Kuchelbecker, prepared several memos for the government on issues of literature and theater. First F.V. Bulgarin presented them to the governor-general and the general staff, and from mid-1826, after the creation of the III department, he began to address them there. He acted "as a volunteer informant, and not as a hired detective agent." The authorities highly valued his intelligence work and literary creativity. At the end of 1826, by decree of Tsar F.V. Bulgarin was enrolled in the staff of the Ministry of Public Education (with the rank of 8th grade) and, as A.Kh. Benckendorf in 1831, “was used at my discretion for the written part for the benefit of the service, and ... he carried out all orders with excellent diligence.” Since 1825 F.V. Bulgarin together with N.I. Grechem published the official "Northern Bee", the first private newspaper that had the right to print political news and until 1860 remained the mouthpiece of monarchism in the country. Nicholas I in 1848 considered this newspaper a publication distinguished by “good intentions and direction, completely consistent with the goals and types of government.”
But in the activities of F.V. Bulgarin also had positive aspects: he helped A.S. Griboyedov - published fragments from “Woe from Wit”, promoted his work in “Northern Bee”, helped him, temporarily imprisoned in a fortress after the Decembrist uprising. In "Northern Bee" M.Yu. highly praised "Hero of Our Time". Lermontov, contributing to the spread of the novel. Despite all his good intentions, Bulgarin came into conflict with the censorship over the ban on the publication of articles, and received reprimands from the tsar or high-ranking dignitaries for materials that had already been published.
In general, F.V. Bulgarin was to a large extent the creator of the worldview of the Nicholas era. Acting as an ideologist of the “petty bourgeois people,” he expressed the interests of the middle strata on which the government sought to rely: officials, the military, the provincial nobility, part of the merchant class and the bourgeoisie. Therefore, he received support from above, but at the same time was popular in the reading circles of Russian society.
Another representative of the conservative trend - N.I. Grech in the mid-20s. moved to the conservative camp, putting an end to liberal ideas. In the early 30s. he becomes co-editor (together with F.V. Bulgarin) of “Northern Bee”. In the minds of writers of subsequent generations, N.I. Grech was identified with F.V. Bulgarin. Indeed, they were united by conservative beliefs and proximity to the III Department. Thus, the approval of A.Kh. Benckendorff was called by N.I.’s brochure. Grech “Analysis of the essay entitled “Russia in 1839,” by the Marquise Custine (1844), in which N.I. Grech tried to refute the criticism of the Russian autocracy by the French writer A. de Custine.
Grecha responded to the 50th anniversary N.I. Dobrolyubov a satirical poem in which the hero of the day was called “a champion of lies and darkness.” Dobrolyubov was also the author of a pamphlet directed to Grech, where he criticized Grech for an article dedicated to the memory of Nicholas I.
The crisis of the theory of official nationality occurred during the Crimean War (1853-1856), when, under the influence of defeats, the insolvency of the Nicholas system became obvious even to its supporters. But repetitions of this theory will be undertaken by the government of the Russian Empire later, during the period of strengthening of autocracy.

Conservative direction in the social movement of the second half of the 19th century. After the peasant reform of 1861, the country intensified social movement. The main goals of the conservatives boiled down to attempts to protect the government from the influence of liberal officials and to prevent restrictions on the interests of the nobility in the ongoing reforms of the 60s and 70s. To begin with, Alexander II removed the main participants in the development of peasant reform from the government, thereby hoping to reconcile the different classes. The position of the conservatives began to gradually strengthen. Attempt by D.V. Karakozov's influence on Emperor Alexander II led to increased influence of conservatives in the government.
Supporters of “protective principles” united around the heir to the throne, Alexander Alexandrovich. They advocated the return of pre-reform orders, understanding the needs of the nobility in the spirit of old serfdom. Their political aspirations were directed against further reforms and restrictions on the existing bourgeois legislation.
The largest representatives of conservatism in post-reform Russia were statesmen, writers, and philosophers, including P.A. Shuvalov, K.P. Pobedonostsev, M.N. Katkov, D.A. Tolstoy, V.P. Meshchersky, N.Ya. Danilevsky and others. They developed the ideas of M.P. Pogodina, S.P. Shevyreva, S.S. Uvarov. Russian conservatism was not institutionalized, because the authorities openly supported him.
A key figure in the government of Emperor Alexander II was major representative conservative direction, opponent of reforms, head of the III department, Count P.A. Shuvalov. He became the tsar's closest adviser and exerted significant influence on domestic politics. Among contemporaries P.A. Shuvalov received the nickname “the second Arakcheev”, and for the concentration of great power in his hands - “Peter IV”.
The inspirer of the conservative movement was a publicist, publisher, critic, formerly a prominent liberal, M.N. Katkov . In 1863 he became the head of the newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti. The once modest university newspaper has become an influential political organ. At the beginning of 1882 M.N. Katkov wrote to Alexander III, who had just ascended the throne, that his newspaper “not only reflected affairs, many things were done in it.” Katkov acquired his main political weight thanks to the uprising in the Kingdom of Poland. The recent abolition of serfdom, the preparation of zemstvo regulations and new judicial statutes, etc., caused a certain confusion in government circles. Taking advantage of the government's hesitation regarding Poland, M.N. Katkov showed himself to be a strong supporter of “energetic measures”: he advocated the complete subordination of Poland to the Russian Empire, which was approved by the Russian government.
All journalistic activities of M.N. Katkova was now devoted to the search for a “conspiracy against Russia,” the center of which, in his opinion, was in Poland. He convinces the reader that socialist teachings, nihilism , student unrest in the capitals, separatist tendencies on the national outskirts were provoked by “enemies of Russia.”
Since 1881, in the publications of M.N. Katkov's policy of Alexander III meets with full support and even shapes it. According to the historian, Moskovskie Vedomosti is turning into a kind of state department, in which various projects are being developed on various issues of domestic and foreign policy. During these years M.N. Katkov opposes jury trials, defends the privileges of the nobility in state life and self-government bodies. The influential conservative accused the liberals of political unreliability, and his attacks bordered on political denunciation. Thus, satirist M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin was convinced that M.N. Katkov played a decisive role. According to many, the figure of M.N. Katkova became a grim symbol of political reaction.
Some representatives of the conservative trend had a great influence on the emperor and his inner circle. Among them, K.P. stood out. Pobedonostsev, chief prosecutor of the Synod, who taught law to the future emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II. Throughout his life, he waged a stubborn struggle against the revolutionary movement, was a determined opponent of the liberal reforms of the 60-70s, and a supporter of autocracy, based on the Orthodox Church. K.P. Pobedonostsev was the initiator of censorship persecution of representatives of progressive literature, police persecution of L.N. Tolstoy, as well as sectarianism. In the slightest concessions to public opinion, he saw the “death of Russia”, because royal power, from his point of view, was supposed to rise unattainably above society and the people. In the first months of the reign of Alexander III, K.P. Pobedonostsev made a lot of efforts to remove M.T. Loris-Melikova. Subsequently, he contributed to the return to government activities of Count D.A. Tolstoy, who was fired two years earlier under public pressure.
YES. Tolstoy (since 1882 - Minister of Internal Affairs), like K.P. Pobedonostsev, under Alexander III, enjoyed great influence: he was the leader of the development of “counter-reforms”, which expressed the goal of Alexander III’s activities, related to the establishment of autocratic power and the shaken state order. The fight against sedition ended in success: revolutionary movement was suppressed and terrorist activities ceased. The revision of legislative acts from the time of Alexander II affected all aspects of state and public life and was aimed at strengthening the supervision and influence of the government in the sphere of court and public self-government, as well as strengthening and raising the authority of government power.