Table on the history of the official Slavophiles. The roots of the emergence of Slavophiles and Westerners

In the 19th century Issues of the country's development have always been in the center of attention of the most active members of society. They became the subject of lively debate and discussion both among those loyal to the supreme power and among supporters of revolutionary radical socialist views. It is believed that in the second third of the 19th century. In Russia, the main ideological trends began to take shape: conservatism, liberalism (Slavophiles and Westerners), revolutionary socialist radicalism.

Slavophilism arose as a kind of reaction to the spread of “blind imitation” of the West among the Russian nobility. Slavophiles (brothers Kireyevsky, Aksakov, Philosophers Samarin and Khomyakov, etc.) defended the idea of ​​the great historical mission of Russia. They idealized patriarchal Rus' and often belittled progressive achievements Western countries , believing that if Russia develops along their path, then it has no future. From this point of view, Slavophiles negatively assessed the activities of Peter I. Fundamental Principles social order In Russia they considered Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality, while condemning autocratic despotism and considering Orthodoxy as a way of thinking of the people. Many reflections of Slavophiles on patriotism, national traditions

, moral criteria still retain their relevance and significance today. Unlike the Slavophiles Westerners (historians Granovsky and Soloviev, writers Annenkov and Turgenev, lawyer Kavelin) highly valued the achievements European countries and they wanted Russia to develop precisely along their path, overcoming its backwardness with the help of reforms. They believed that for this, first of all, serfdom should be eliminated and a constitutional system established government system

. These changes, in their opinion, will allow Russia to form, together with the West, “one universal family.” Despite the disagreements that took place, both Westerners and Slavophiles loved Russia and believed in it; both of them had a negative attitude towards serfdom and considered it necessary to gradually carrying out reforms , which was supposed to be initiated. Representatives of these directions of the liberal movement were persecuted by the government for their views.

18. The bureaucratic-bureaucratic empire of Nicholas I: the “pros” and “cons” of rule.

Nicholas I (1825 – 1855).

Nicholas I came to the throne in conditions of a political and socio-economic crisis. The Decembrist uprising, which was brutally suppressed, and a difficult situation

in the state they demanded that Nicholas I pursue a tough course of domestic policy aimed at strengthening autocratic power. At the same time, he perfectly understood that reforms in Russia were necessary, but he tried to carry them out slowly and conservatively. This was the essence of the policy of the king, who ruled the country for 30 years.

One of the main goals of Nicholas I's policy was to strengthen autocracy and extend the emperor's power to the widest possible sphere of public administration. For this purpose, a reorganization of higher government institutions was carried out. The meaning of His Own changed fundamentally Imperial Majesty office. In accordance with the decrees of 1826, its role in public administration increased, its

legal support

and tightening of political investigation. The office was divided into departments according to areas of activity. The functions of the First Department of the Chancellery included daily informing the Tsar on all issues of the life of the country.

The responsibilities of the II department of the chancellery were legislative activities. His main task began the systematization and codification of laws. A special role in the structure of the office was assigned to the III department, which was to head political police

countries. One of the initiators of its creation was Benckendorff, who in January 1826 presented the tsar with the project “On the structure of the high police.” Nicholas I supported

this project

and appointed the author responsible for its implementation in practice. The third department was in charge of:

- “all orders and news on all cases of the higher police”;

Collection of information about sectarians and schismatics;

Cases of counterfeiters and forgery of documents;

Control over persons under police supervision;

- “expulsion and placement of people, suspected and harmful;

Places of detention where state criminals were kept;

- “all decrees and orders regarding foreigners”; government controlled Military orders began with strict discipline and responsibility, just as in his time for Peter I. Nicholas I sought to extend these principles to all spheres of society.

During the reign of Nicholas I, the opportunity to receive education expanded - the number of gymnasiums and district schools, as well as the number of students in them, constantly increased. But along with this, in 1835 a new university charter was adopted, which seriously changed the status of universities and significantly limited their autonomy.

The reactionary direction of Nicholas I's policy also manifested itself in other spheres of cultural and spiritual life. Thus, in 1826, a new censorship charter was adopted, which was nicknamed “cast iron”. The censors were vigilant to ensure that works of art and other publications, the monarchical system was not condemned, so that there was no religious freethinking, so that there were no unauthorized proposals for possible transformations.

The suppression of the Polish uprising of 1830–1831 allowed Nicholas I to destroy the elements of representation and constitutionalism in Poland.

To strengthen the autocracy, Nicholas I sought to consolidate its most important support - the nobility. The manifesto of 1831 provided for measures aimed at achieving this goal. So, for persons who have the right to participate in the elections of noble representatives for estates and administrative positions, property qualification standards increased. The regulations for conferring noble titles were also tightened. In order to close the path to the ranks of the nobility for people from other classes who have received education, and at the same time to somehow encourage their most active part, in accordance with the law of 1832, a new class was established - hereditary and personal honorary citizens. In 1845, the primordacy was revived, which prohibited the fragmentation of landowners' plots during hereditary transfer. All these measures in class politics

Nicholas I were aimed at strengthening the positions of the richest, conservative, privileged part of the nobility. The result is very tough domestic policy The emperor strengthened and stabilized the Russian state system. At the same time, the autocracy had to rely on a solid legal basis , therefore Nicholas I gave great importance

codification of laws. IN V. The Council Code of 1649 was considered valid. Numerous laws, manifestos and decrees issued after it very often contradicted both the Code and each other. It was necessary to bring a huge number of normative legal acts into the system. This problem was brilliantly solved by the Second Department of the Chancery. On January 19, 1833, the “Code of Current Laws” came into force.

For the first time in Russia, a gigantic systematization of law-making work was done, which raised the role of law in society and laid the foundations for future judicial and legal reform.

It must be admitted that the most successful transformations were carried out in the economic and financial sphere. The conservative reformer Kankrin, who was the Russian Minister of Finance from 1823 to 1844, played an invaluable role in this. In 1832, a new charter on bills of exchange, charters on commercial insolvency, commercial courts, and the St. Petersburg stock exchange were adopted. He managed to replenish the treasury by introducing new taxes and fees. He restored the wine farming system (1827), introduced the payment of a poll tax by foreigners (1827), reduced the salt tax and abolished internal shipping duties. His crowning glory extensive activities became a large-scale financial reform of 1839 - 1844. The monetary reform was aimed at strengthening the position of the Russian ruble and stabilizing the country's financial system. Overall, the reform was successful, and financial system

operated steadily until the Crimean War. The main one, of course, remained the peasant question. It was dealt with by many secret committees created by decrees of the emperor in 1826, 1839, 1840, 1848 with the aim of developing options for gradually easing the lot of peasants with the prospect of abolishing serfdom. But it was not possible to solve the main problem of Russian reality. Very soon in

In 1837 - 1841, under the leadership of Kiselev, a reform of the management of state peasants was carried out. In his opinion, the main reason for their impoverishment was the lack of patronage and supervision, as a result of which the peasants were overloaded with taxes and work. Therefore, it was believed that with the help of a system of organizational, managerial and legal measures it was possible to seriously improve the situation of the peasantry. The reform did not fully live up to the hopes placed on it and had both negative and positive consequences.

Latest legal acts on peasant question during the reign of Nicholas I, they concerned easing the lot of the courtyard peasants. In 1844, landowners were given the right to set them free for a ransom. In the same way, courtyard owners of estates pledged to credit institutions could gain freedom. In 1847, peasants were given the opportunity to buy out entire families of land in cases where estates were sold at auction for debts.

All relief regarding the situation of the peasants ended in 1848, when the powerful revolutionary events swept Europe and Nicholas I, under their influence, stopped all, even inconsistent, attempts at transformation in this direction.

Objectives of the lesson: 1. Understand the historical and cultural context of the formation of Westernism and Slavophilism. 2. To establish the continuity of the central theme of the controversy between the two leading directions of socio-political thought of the 30s and 40s. XIX century 3. Continue improving your skills in working with historical sources and reflection of factual information. 4. Identify the essence of ideological differences and common positions of Westerners and Slavophiles.

“Russia’s past was amazing, its present is more than magnificent, as for its future, it is above everything that the wildest imagination can draw.” Head of the Third Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own Chancellery A.Kh. Benckendorf

P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, A.I. Goncharov, T.N. Granovsky, K. D. Kavelin, M. N. Katkov, V. M. Maikov, P. A. Melgunov, S. M. Solovyov, I. S. Turgenev, P. A. Chaadaev and others. On a number of questions to he was joined by A. I. Herzen and V. G. Belinsky Representatives of Westerners

The main socio-political demands: - abolition of serfdom, liberation of peasants with land without ransom; - reorganization and improvement of the management system; - the introduction of civil liberties, a public court, guarantees of personal integrity, and freedom of enterprise. Slavophiles and Westerners – GENERAL:

“We, like two-faced Janus, looked into different sides, but our hearts beat the same! Yes, we were opponents, but very strange ones. We had the same love, but not the same. They and we have a crush on early years one strong feeling boundless, existence-embracing love for the Russian people, Russian way of life and Russian mentality.” The attitude of Westerners and Slavophiles can be defined in the words of A.I. Herzen:

1) Form of government: the monarch retains full power, subject to the convening of an estate-representative deliberative Zemsky Sobor, expressing the opinion of the people (“The power of power is for the king, the power of opinion is for the people”). Differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners: SLAVICOPHILES:

2) Rationale for the program – historical development Russia and Western Europe: There is nothing general Russia and Western Europe. Russia must preserve its national-historical identity (peasant community, close unity monarch and people, the commitment of the vast majority of the population to Orthodoxy, etc.), borrowing only individual achievements Western civilization. Differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners: SLAVICOPHILES:

2) Rationale for the program - the historical development of Russia and Western Europe: The unity of the path in the development of Russia and Western Europe can be traced. Russia needs Europeanization based on the perception of the experience of the best socio-political achievements of Western civilization. Differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners: WESTERNS:

Slavophiles and Westerners were united by: 1) The desire to see Russia prosperous and powerful among all European powers. 2) To achieve prosperity, both considered it necessary to change its socio-political system. 3) Recognized the need to soften or even cancel serfdom. 4) Give peasants small plots of land. 5) They considered it necessary to introduce freedom of speech and conscience. 6) Fearing revolutionary upheavals, they believed that the government itself should carry out the necessary reforms. CONCLUSION:

By 1830-40 In Russian society, beginning to get tired of the consequences of the reaction that befell the state after the suppression of the Decembrist uprising, 2 movements were formed, whose representatives advocated the transformation of Russia, but saw them in completely different ways. These 2 trends are Westernism and Slavophilism. What did representatives of both directions have in common and how did they differ?

Westerners and Slavophiles: who are they?

So, the “Philosophical Letter” of 1836 was written, and controversy flared up. Let's try to figure out how much the two main directions of social thought in Russia differed mid-19th V.

Comparative characteristics of Westerners and Slavophiles

Results of the “historical” debate

As usual, all the contradictions between representatives of the two movements were resolved by time: we can say that Russia followed the path of development that the Westerners offered it. The community died out (as Westerners expected), the church turned into an institution independent of the state, and autocracy was eliminated. But, discussing the “pros” and “cons” of the Slavophiles and Westerners, one cannot unequivocally say that the former were exclusively reactionary, while the latter “pushed” Russia into Right way. Firstly, both had something in common: they believed that the state needed changes and advocated the abolition of serfdom and economic development. Secondly, the Slavophiles did a lot for the development Russian society, awakening interest in the history and culture of the Russian people: let us at least remember the “Dictionary of the Living Great Russian language» Dalia.

Gradually, there was a rapprochement between Slavophiles and Westerners, with a significant predominance of the views and theories of the latter. Disputes between representatives of both directions that flared up in the 40s and 50s. XIX century, contributed to the development of society and the awakening of interest in acute social problems among the Russian intelligentsia.

Westerners and Slavophiles

(comparison table)

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, two philosophical and ideological movements arose in Russian enlightened society: Slavophiles and Westerners. They had similarities (for example, both of them advocated the abolition of serfdom in Russia), but they differed even more in their views on the past, present and future of our country. For more information about Westerners and Slavophiles, see this comparative table: