Православие – самодержавие – народность

Note on the attitude of the Russian people to the tsarist power 1 In 1852, I published an article in the Moscow Collection on the differences between the education of Russia and Western Europe 2 . This article, of course, could only have been published unless it had been approved by Moscow censorship. But, despite this, a few months later, the then Chief Chief of Police announced to me and other participants in the “Moscow Collection” that, due to our anti-censorship articles, we are prohibited by the highest order from submitting our manuscripts to ordinary censorship, but that we can only print them first by first submitting them directly to the Main Board of Censorship 3 . Such a restriction, as you know, is almost equivalent to a complete ban on printing anything. This situation was all the more difficult for me because it seemed completely incomprehensible to me. For, except for this one article, I have not submitted any manuscripts to any censorship for many years, and in this article neither I nor my censors could find anything against censorship. A person who suffers for some known guilt can at least have the consolation that general justice triumphs through his punishment. But whoever is punished without knowing why cannot have even this consolation. Meanwhile, now, almost three years after this event, you informed me, dear friend, that Mr. Minister of Public Education 4 deigned to pay favorable attention to our situation and even expressed his readiness to be an intercessor for us, but only in this case if he received from us certification that in our way of thinking we do not separate the Tsar from Russia. As a result of this, I, without having the right to speak for my comrades in the ban, consider myself obliged to express to you my confession on this subject, asking you, as an intermediary between us and the minister, to convey to his discretion this statement of my way of thinking, hoping that he will pay favorable attention to it and, as a result, will not refuse to act as he finds most just. But where to start when talking about such an important subject? If I am allowed to express my thoughts in the order in which they fall on my heart, then I will say first of all that this need, so kindly expressed by Mr. Minister, to make sure that I do not separate in my thoughts the concept of the Russian Tsar from the concept of Russia, appears to me as a new, even less deserved insult. What kind of thinking can be assumed in me, allowing such doubt? Does Mr. Minister really think that I can wish for a non-Russian Tsar for Russia? But which one? Ludwig Napoleon 5 or Joseph of Austria 6? Do I really have to make excuses for this? Or, perhaps, Mr. Minister assumes that I want a republic for Russia and that I know neither Russian history, nor the spirit of the Russian people, nor the character of the present time, that I consider such nonsense possible. But I think that neither my actions up to this time, nor the few articles that I happened to publish, could give His Excellency a reason to assume such ignorance or such madness in me. Russian people love their Tsar. This reality is undeniable, because it is obvious and tangible to everyone. But love for the Tsar, like any love, can be true and false, good and bad - not to mention feigned. False love is that which loves only its own benefit in the King; This is love - low, harmful and, in dangerous moments, ready for betrayal. True love for the Tsar is united into one inseparable feeling with love for the Fatherland, for the rule of law and for the Holy Orthodox Church. Therefore this love can be generous. And how in this matter can we separate love for the Tsar from the law, the Fatherland and the Church? The law is the will of the King, declared before all the people; The Fatherland is the best love of his heart; The Holy Orthodox Church is his highest connection with the people, this is the most essential basis of his power, the reason for the people's trust in him, the combined conscience of him and the Fatherland, a living knot of mutual sympathy between the Tsar and the people, the basis of their common prosperity, the source of God's blessing on him and on the Fatherland. But to love the Russian Tsar separately from Russia means to love an external force, a random power, and not the Russian Tsar: this is how the schismatics and Courlanders love him, who were ready to serve Napoleon with the same devotion 7 when they revered him more than Alexander 8 . To love the Tsar and not respect the laws or, under the cover of his power of attorney, under the cover of his power, to violate the laws given by him or approved by him is to be at enmity against him under the guise of zeal, to undermine his power at the root, to kill the love of the Fatherland for him, to separate the people's concept of him from the concept of justice, of order and general welfare - in a word, in the heart of the people to separate the Tsar from the very reasons for which Russia wants to have a Tsar, from those benefits, in the hope of which she respects him so highly. Finally, to love him without any relation to the Holy Church as a strong Tsar, and not as an Orthodox Tsar, to think that his reign is not service to God and His Holy Church, but only government for worldly purposes, that his government benefits are separate from the benefits of Orthodoxy, or even that the Orthodox Church is a means, and not an end, for the existence of the whole people, that the Holy Church can sometimes be a hindrance, and sometimes a useful tool for royal power - this is love servile, not loyal, Austrian, not Russian love; this love for the Tsar is a betrayal to Russia, and for the Tsar himself it is deeply harmful, even if it sometimes seemed convenient. Every piece of advice he receives from such love carries within it a secret poison that corrodes his most vital ties with the Fatherland. For Orthodoxy is the soul of Russia, the root of its entire moral existence, the source of its power and strength, the banner that gathers all the heterogeneous feelings of its people into one stronghold, the guarantee of all its hopes for the future, the treasure of the best memories of the past, its dominant shrine, sincere love. The people of their King honor her as a support; and therefore he is so infinitely devoted to him, because he does not separate the Church from the Fatherland. His entire trust in the Tsar is based on sympathy with her. He sees in him a faithful leader in state affairs only because he knows him as a brother in the Church, who serves her with him as a sincere son of the same mother and therefore can be a reliable shield of her external prosperity and independence. That is why, by the way, almost no one among the people believes that Poland will be firmly annexed to Russia 9 . Everyone looks at her as a necessary but unfortunate victim, as a pitiful sufferer, only sighing temporarily under Russian oppression. The Russian looks at the disgruntled Pole without sympathy, but also without condemnation. In response to his grumbling, he can sometimes find a word of abuse, but he will not find a word of friendly admonition or Christian admonition, which he would find for an Orthodox brother. He feels that a Pole cannot be devoted to the same Fatherland as a Russian, for his convictions grow on a different root, his heart is warmed by a different sun. For the same reason, it can be so disgusting for a Russian to listen when a German 10 spreads about his devotion to the Tsar - to what extent Germans are often great hunters when they meet Russians. It is almost as difficult for a Russian to listen to these German assurances in his heart as it is hard for him to listen to the constant assurances of the most unscrupulous and selfish officials about their disinterested respect for the laws. In such cases, the Russian commoner usually looks at the German with a kind of sad look, as if defeated by his superiority, and never enters into a competition with him about this love for the Tsar, as if he entered into an argument with him about who is braver, or who is stronger, or who will strike harder with his fist, or who will spit further. He will reluctantly praise him for his good feelings, but inwardly he would like to remain alone in his opinion. For he is afraid of this outward devotion of the Germans, vaguely understanding that behind the connection with them lies the Pretender 11, and Biron 12, and all the violent destruction of his ancient morals and native customs, and that from there there is a stifling constraint on his heartfelt convictions, which do not find the same scope in his native land. True, the oppression of Peter 13, his contempt for everything Russian, his subservience to foreigners has long been forgotten by the Russian commoner. Biron's German rule had long ago ousted from his memory everything that was foreign and offensive in Peter's violence. Already he joyfully met Elizabeth 14 on the throne as a Russian, as a deliverer from the German yoke, only because she was not Courland or Brunswick, but the daughter of his former Tsar, not remembering that this Tsar was Peter. But now he places all the blame for his troubles and oppressions on the Germans who despise him and on his masters infected by them, relying on the Orthodox Tsar as a son of the Church who sympathizes with him, and looks forward to the hour when the Germans will stop entangling him with their crafty suggestions, from which an education is being established in his Fatherland that is contrary to his spirit. The concept of the Russian Tsar and the German direction are so unable to connect in the minds of the Russian people that even the memory of Peter Fedorovich 15 lives in their hearts, as a person dear to them and at the same time hostile to the existing order, only because Peter Fedorovich was a Tsar, and he considers the existing order to be German. However, it would be unfair to think that the Russian’s dislike for the Germans stems from his hatred of mental enlightenment, which comes to Russia through foreigners. This is slander against a Russian person, invented by foreigners. The Russian respects science and knowledge almost as much as he dislikes the Germans, and even if something softens his dislike for the Germans, it is precisely their superiority in mental knowledge. The Russian himself readily admits his ignorance and, without false shame, is ready to learn from the German. But he is disgusted by the alien spirit in which this enlightenment is introduced to him, he is insulted by the foreign stigma that cannot be removed from him and displaces any Russian peculiarity. The Russian commoner is glad to learn from a German in order to be smarter, but he would rather be stupid than German. The Russian educated class thinks differently: it would rather be a stupid nonentity than to be like a Russian. However, love for the Tsar and love for Orthodoxy and for Russia should not only be one because the Russian commoner still does not know how to separate them, but because they are essentially inseparable, just as love for the Tsar is inseparable from love for legality, although this last concept has become somewhat obscured in the consciousness of the Russian people due to a long series of historical reasons. Legality, Fatherland, Orthodoxy are the fundamental elements from which the concept of the Russian Tsar is composed. Therefore, love for him, without love for them, would be extremely harmful for himself, if possible. Without respect for the rule of law, there may be fear of force, but there is no that sacred respect for power, which sees in it the source of general prosperity, holy, impartial justice, moral order, solid property, happy confidence in the personal safety of every last citizen and the guarantee of the correct, life-giving, spacious breath of public life. Such respect for authority elevates submission to the level of noble activity, turning it into generous submission to a higher inner conviction. Without love for the Fatherland, one can servile before the Tsar, as before a random power, but one cannot love him with that disinterested, self-forgetting love, which in the correct action of his power sees the hope of the most sublime blessings that warm the heart of a person on earth. The happiness of the Motherland, its bright, undamaged honor, its all-round prosperity, the moral and mental growth of its citizens, the conscientious preservation of their human dignity, the clear definition of their duties, the pure protection of their rights, the inviolable silence of their home life, the sanctity of their family relationships, the reasonable freedom of their social activities, nurturing and consolidating in them the vital development of internal inspirations and external duties of faith and the Fatherland - one in a word, general contentment, living prosperity, the general growth of all the sublime forces of the people, collectively at all levels of their social ladder developing their well-being and glory in the Fatherland - this is what the heart of the Russian son of the Fatherland beats for - these are the lofty goals that the people expect to achieve from the power that governs them. And no matter how far the Fatherland is from them, no matter how difficult it is to achieve them, no matter how long the road to them is, Russia believes him that the heart of her Tsar strives for them, the Tsar leads her and his state growth directs him towards them, and that the trust of the people to the Tsar is the most <nrzb.> guarantee in his<nrzb.>. And by this general trust of the people, the dignity of the Tsar in Russia is especially beautiful. Those who serve him, like foreigners, not for the good of the Fatherland, but for personal reasons, must inevitably measure the degree of their zeal by the price of the expected rewards, and if, moreover, they talk about their selfless love and devotion to the Tsar, then what child, who does not know the human heart at all, will believe their theatrical assurances? That is why, by the way, many bureaucratic people, who, despite all their education, do not know and do not like Russia and do not expect anything good from it, value their slightest services to the Tsar so dearly; that is why the Russian commoner considers it nothing to give his whole life for him, for in him he sees the hope of the Fatherland: his Tsar is not terrible, not powerful, but a hope-Sovereign; therefore, sacrificing himself, he does not sell himself, but actually follows the suggestion of his free love. If he had not expected the good of his Fatherland from the Tsar, then, just like a foreigner, he would not have known selfless devotion to him. But it is impossible to love Russia without sincere devotion to its Orthodox Church: it is imbued with it in all the foundations of its being, it constitutes its essential feature, its soul and the fundamental condition for its correct and prosperous growth. But in saying this, I feel that I must add some explanations, because in our time the concepts are so confused that the same word sometimes means completely dissimilar things. By Orthodoxy, which constitutes the soul of Russia, its life-giving sun and a necessary condition for its future prosperity and greatness, I do not mean one or another church ritual, for although I respect them very much, I know that they have nothing essential in themselves and are important only as a temporary expression of the spirit of Christian teaching, which under other conditions could manifest itself in other external forms. I also do not mean by Orthodoxy this or that dogma compiled in Russian, or Greek, or Syriac by some learned man, for although I greatly respect some, I know that every human deed must necessarily bear traces of human imperfection, and therefore in every learned dogma there must certainly be errors and opportunities for a more perfect understanding of the holy truths of the faith. Neither for walking around the lectern from right to left or left to right, nor for expressing the Holy Trinity with one or another fingers 16, I would not want to accept martyrdom. Even less would I like to die for this or that scientific dogma. But wonderful is death for that truth which constitutes the living Christian faith. By Orthodoxy I do not mean this or that way of thinking of this or that hierarch of the Church. I do not even mean by it those interpretations of faith that, out of their own reason or according to their temporary motives, were set forth collectively by all the church hierarchs gathered together, for I know that even in such cases the Lord sometimes allowed them to fall into error, as, for example, in the semi-Arian council in Rimini 17, he allowed them in order, probably, to show the world all the more clearly what the difference is between the free Kingdom of the Holy Spirit in the Church and observations of the human structure and how Divine suggestion does not depend on all the efforts of people who dream of stealing the gift of Heavenly Revelation by some external conditions. In general, not this or that side of Christian teaching, mainly revealed here or there, but I mean by it Divine Christianity itself, in its whole, pure, undistorted form, as it was preserved in the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition itself, approved by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, inspiredly explained by the holy fathers of our Church and especially clearly expressed in our church worship - in the worship that carries within itself up to there are still ardent, undistorted traces of the constant beliefs of the Holy Church of true Christians of all times, which are invariably preserved in it in the same way from the first centuries to the present day 18. But pure Christianity stands high above the temporary oscillation of the human mind between two opposing errors and equally moves away from those confessions that pass off the suggestions of the human mind and the fruit of the human structure as the dogmas of Heavenly Revelation, forcing one to believe the human on an equal basis with the Divine, and from those confessions that relegate the holiness of Divine dogmas to the judgment of human understanding and believe the voice of personal reason over the Divine Revelation. This holy Orthodox Christianity, acting at different times on different people and on different nations, left beneficial traces of its influence on them, serving them as guiding signs of the salvific path to perfection, but for the Church itself, such temporary and local traces of its action on people and nations have nothing significant and do not constitute a part of itself, just as bright places on earth, illuminated by the sun, do not constitute the sun itself; so that at other times it can act differently on other people and other nations, in the same spirit, but in other manifestations of its spirit, without thereby losing at all its eternal integrity, constant immutability and the everlasting fullness of its luminous essence. The influence of the Orthodox Church on ancient Russia was comprehensive. Her entire newly formed life was imbued with it. But the influence of foreign nationalities and, perhaps, moral weaknesses and human vices within it changed the correctness of this unfinished Christian education long before Peter and stopped it halfway. Then foreign education became necessary. Peter's coup took place. Then everything we know. But the heart of Russia has not changed, and its people still live in the same spirit. Therefore, foreign education can and, in order to save Russia, must be processed in it according to its basic principles. Foreign enlightenment must imbue her with the spirit of Orthodoxy, if only she is destined to live in the future and not perish in moral corruption, but to emerge in new strength and a prosperous order. Then, on other states, the influence of her Christian mental, moral and state education, imbued with the spirit of pure Christianity, will be beneficial and incomparably more powerful than her physical enormity is in front of them. Therefore, whoever does not despair of the fate of his Fatherland cannot separate love for it from sincere devotion to Orthodoxy. And whoever is Orthodox in his convictions cannot help but love Russia, as God’s chosen vessel of His Holy Church on earth. Faith in the Church of God and love for Orthodox Russia in the soul of a truly Russian are not separated and do not differ. Therefore, a person who adheres to a different confession cannot love the Russian Tsar, except with a love harmful to the Tsar and to Russia; love, whose influence must necessarily strive to destroy precisely what constitutes the very first condition of the mutual connection of the Tsar with Russia, the basis of his correct and prosperous reign and the conditions for its correct and prosperous dispensation. Therefore, to wish that the Russian government would cease to have the spirit and bear the character of an Orthodox government, but would be completely indifferent to confessions, accepting the spirit of the so-called general Christianity, which does not belong to any particular Church and was invented in modern times by some unbelieving philosophers and semi-believing Protestants - to wish this would mean for the present time to break all ties of love and trust between the government and the people, and for the future - that is, if the government were to hide its indifference to Orthodoxy until it educates the people to the same coldness towards their Church - this would bring about the complete destruction of the entire fortress of Russia and the destruction of all its world significance. For for those who know Russia and its Orthodox faith, there is no doubt that just as it grew up in it and was strengthened by it, so only through it can it be strong and prosperous. One objection, somewhat plausible, can be raised by non-believers and people of other faiths against the primacy of Orthodoxy in Russia - this is the enlightenment that grew under the influence of other confessions or even under the inspiration of unbelief itself and which they consider incompatible with the dominance of the Orthodox Church. But with this objection they only prove either their crooked concept of enlightenment, or their complete ignorance of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is not only not opposed to true enlightenment, but, on the contrary, requires it for its prosperity among the people and people and itself constitutes its truest basis and, one might say, the only condition for its correct and morally free development. Not only is it not destroyed by science, but it is even more strengthened by it in the minds, itself reviving the correct activity of the mind through its inspiring action. For it does not shyly connect its dogmas of faith with any temporary concepts in the sciences, does not kill the actions of reason with some arbitrary sentences of concepts, and does not subordinate the main dogmas of faith to the random views of presumptuous individuals or temporary conclusions of human science, but, giving complete freedom to reason, constantly holds before it the guiding banner of the eternal truths of faith revealed to man by God Himself, without forcing it to one or another application of science to faith, but by its inner influence constantly and freely attracting the mind to the truth. The very nature of ordinary thinking for a person brought up in the spirit of Orthodoxy helps him in acquiring true enlightenment, teaching him in all confusions of phenomena and thoughts to distinguish the inviolably Divine side from the perfectly human side and, reverently before one, subject the other to the judgment of his mind, which finds in his conscience an inner urge: to strive, if possible, for an agreement between one and the other, between the human and the Divine. Meanwhile, the Latin is often forced to kill his reason, mistaking the human for the Divine, and the Protestant distorts it, not knowing the need to agree with the Divine, but adapting the Divine of his Protestant to momentary and personal hobbies. “We love Russia,” some will say, “we are Orthodox, because we are baptized in the Orthodox Church, we would very much like to see its influence rework in Russia all Western education according to the spirit of Orthodoxy, if only this is possible; but precisely for this reason we are afraid of the development in Russia of that spirit of legality, of which we find examples in some foreign states and which directly leads to the destruction of the autocratic power of the Russian Tsar, to free-thinking demands for the constitution and similar disorders.” But those who speak in this way do not see or do not want to see that the requirements of the constitution and the restless desire to limit the supreme power can much more easily flare up in the heart of a people suffering from general lawlessness and not finding protection against it in the autocracy of the Tsar, than in a people firmly established in their private and public relations, protected in their everyday life from the arbitrary oppression of officials, calm in their personal security and inviolability of their property, not forced to seek whimsical interests. mercy and random patronage for the use of their private rights and can only lose a lot, and not gain anything from a coup d'etat. Those who fear the development of legality because it leads to a constitution are sometimes subject to strange misunderstandings. They somehow forget that the terrible foreign word constitution 19 in Russian translation means nothing more or less than a device. Therefore, for a state to be afraid of the constitution in general means to be afraid of any state structure, which would be the height of senselessness. It is true, however, that recently some special concepts have been combined with this word, mixed with false theories, which have caused great harm in many states, so that love for these false theories can truly be called one of the dangerous diseases of European enlightenment. But we must not forget that such a disease cannot be dangerous for Russia, and in Europe, it seems, it has already changed its character. Moreover, in Europe, the violent and unaccountable demands for constitutions, which began in the middle of the last century, were not a consequence of the development of legality among peoples, but a consequence of the spread of certain political theories that arose from the special character of the European enlightenment and are now outliving their time. It is true that in England the English Constitution 20, which served as a model for political systems, was not formed as a result of theories, but grew spontaneously along with the development of the spirit of legality among the people - this is a fundamental difference between England and other European states. That is why this peculiarity of it, and its constitution, constitutes its exclusive property, and cannot be either firmly or beneficially transferred to other lands that have a different history. But in France, demands for state reform flared up precisely because it suffered from general lawlessness 21 and hoped, together with the English constitution, to acquire English legality. The consequences exposed the emptiness of this hope. In Germany, the requirements of the constitutions 22 also arose not from a desire for legality, but were a consequence of the spread of French opinions, which passed into the political teachings of their professors, who looked at the life of the state from the cabinet. If the demands of supreme reforms had grown in their own way on German soil, then perhaps they would have carried with them forms especially appropriate to it. It is most likely that then they would mature unnoticed, and not in violent upheavals. Spain and Italy 23 also obviously breathe the same French thoughts and grasp at them so passionately only out of despair from internal disorders and general lawlessness and from the severity of foreign violence. In Russia, to be afraid of the development of the spirit of legality because it can lead it to the disorderly demands of a foreign constitution means not to know history, not to know the human heart, and, especially, not to know Russia. Such aspirations could only arise in very young people, blinded by foreign theories, or in people extremely suffering precisely from the lack of general legality. In the people, the very love for the Tsar is actually a remnant of the former respect for the law, so that if the latter completely disappears, then the former will also waver. In states where the supreme power is not limited, social and political revolutions are carried out the easier, the less legality is consolidated at all tiers of the state building and the more political society depends on the personal will of private people. In addition, the predominance of the wills of private individuals over the laws itself constitutes a limitation of the supreme power and, I think, even the worst thing for power. The Sultan's firmans, despite his outward autocracy, are not carried out in Turkey when they contradict the will of the pashas, ​​24 each of whom at times thinks about how to seize supreme power himself; for where there is no legality at the basis of the social structure, there the place of supreme power is most precarious. This is what actually distinguishes autocracy from despotism, that in the first, as, for example, it was in Prussia until the year 46, 25 everyone is bound by laws, except for the supreme ruler, who maintains their strength and holiness for his own benefit, while in despotic rule all the servants of power are autocratic, thus forcibly limiting the autocracy of the supreme lawmaker with their lawlessness. However, it must be said that if the passion for constitutions, combined with violent revolutions, based on book theories and dreams, is really a great evil for the state, then, on the contrary, the development of weighty and firm legality among the people, even if it could, after a certain time, have an indirect consequence of the moral limitation of the supreme power, which has bound itself to its own usually legal way of action and has made it difficult for itself to evade arbitrary actions by the force of its own habit of legality and firmness of the social order, in accordance with itself and with the needs of the people, such a restriction would not be evil either for the people or for the supreme power itself. On the contrary, this is the highest ideal of power, to which it must strive for its own benefit and for the highest good of the Fatherland. But the limitation of power would be as little constraining for her as the limitation resulting from respect for the laws of conscience is constraining for an honest person. A person is freer, the easier it is for him to act according to the laws of conscience, and the more dependent on external compulsions, the more he submits to passion. Likewise, power is stronger the more correct it is and the more consistent it is with the laws and spirit of the state, and the weaker and more fragile it is, the more susceptible it is to the whimsical hobbies of the individual. What is repugnant to the supreme power is not the firmness of the laws, but those false concepts about the means of establishing this firmness that spread in Europe after the French Revolution. This is so true that before the French Revolution, the wisest rulers set the main task of their rule to establish this firmness of laws in their states 26. But when they saw that the people understood the possibility of legal firmness in no other way than in the form of an armed camp hostile to their power, then, naturally, many of them began to organize their own camp hostile to popular legality. Both delusions are equally disastrous. The delusion of the peoples was disastrous in that they saw legitimate firmness only in the violent limitation of kings. The error of the kings was no less disastrous because they confused the very firmness of laws with the social forms in which they theoretically understood it, and, fearing the latter, they were at enmity with the former... However, both misconceptions find their fathers far back in history. The personalities of many kings were such that, indeed, they should have aroused among the people the idea of ​​forcibly limiting them. On the other hand, this idea became so intertwined with the concepts of some peoples about legality that it was difficult to develop one without strengthening the other. To want a paper with restrictions on the supreme power written on it, supported by the dispute of warring parties, to want two chambers with the struggle of opposing interests, to want the necessary opposition, which, due to the duty of its position, strives to hinder all the actions of the government with the goal of seizing its reins itself - this would be completely insane, because it is completely impossible. The whole fashionable mechanism of the Anglo-French constitutions is directly contrary to the very nature of the Slovenian peoples, with the exception of Poland and, perhaps, some part of the Czech Republic. The Slovenian peoples are less than all others capable of being carried away by foreign forms or book theories that are contrary to their customs, therefore there cannot be the slightest probability that Russia will ever become infected with the passion of foreign constitutions, especially if within it universal legality grows out of its fundamental needs and is strengthened by the force of habit and the development of one social spirit at all levels of the civil order. “But this very public spirit,” people suffering from a general fear of spirituality will say, “this developed and imbued with legality spirit of the people will not be a limitation of the tsarist autocracy? Will this custom-established legality be the Russian constitution itself, only under a different name and in other forms? Will it not be for Russia what the English one is for England, with the only difference that it will arise imperceptibly and without revolutions and, therefore, will be even more firmly established? What will happen then to the autocracy? To these far-feared fears of the adherents of eternal autocracy, I can only respond with the certainty that what they fear - this ultimate goal of the development of legality in Russia, where autocracy will naturally and noticeably disappear in the firmness of the general order - is not only not contrary to the will of the Russian Autocrat, but, without the slightest doubt, constitutes the most important thought and constant goal of all his works and concerns for the good and structure of the state. This confidence of mine will be unanimously confirmed to me by those who have any respect for the royal personality, and if twenty adjutant generals begin to tell me the opposite, I will consider it my duty not to believe them. For what constitutes the good of Russia cannot but constitute the main goal of its Tsar. “But it is known,” others will say, “that for the development of legality it is necessary to develop public opinion, and for both, the development of some publicity. All this can be very dangerous and lead to unrest." But why is it known that unrest can arise precisely because a legitimate public opinion is formed? What danger can arise from glasnost, when it is directed not against the government, but against the same disorders and disorders with which the government itself is at war? “Because,” they will say, “that opinion, having become a force, can go against the government, that it will be governed not by officials, but by writers, who by nature are more prone to seductive dreams than to a real understanding of the matter.” This fear is apparently very specious, but in reality it is completely unfounded. Society is the more capable of being carried away by literary phrases, the less developed social meaning is in it. Literature, in fact, never raised peoples to revolt, but only sometimes put a banner in their hands when they rose up for other reasons; and when they were unable to clearly recognize the reasons for their rebellion, she gave the floor to shouting. The motives for the uprising were always vital and social, and not literary. The Sagittarius rebelled against Sophia and Peter 27 without any literature, on the contrary, precisely because they were ignorant. Minikh 28 overthrew Biron and placed Ivan Antonovich on the throne, also without the help of seductive phrases. Lestok overthrew Ivan and the Ruler 29 and imprisoned Elizabeth, also not with literature. Catherine 30 also overthrew Peter not through literary publicity, but through the dark sympathy of the army. Pugachev 31 raised entire provinces without knowing how to read and write. The terrible Novgorod revolt of the settlers 32 also did not occur from writer’s excitement. The riot on Sennaya 33 was also not literary. Only on Admiralty Square on the 14th were several writers active, but they did not act with words, but raised troops by deception 34 . They themselves became infected with foreign literary theories solely because they did not know Russia, and did not know it precisely for the reason that it has neither its own publicity nor its own enlightenment. In England, the whole land, so to speak, has a voice in literature and, despite this, there was not a single rebellion produced by literature, and those that happened in it - those occurred solely from significant motives outside of literature. Meanwhile, there is no doubt that many disturbances were calmed in it by the development of glasnost, and even greater ones were prevented by it. For social meaning is driven not by bookish phrases, but by the instinct of vital interests, which are more correctly understood by society, the more publicity there is in it, which conditions self-awareness. With a developed sense, society unmistakably knows how to distinguish the artless word of a sensible person from book exclamations and armchair dreams, separated from materiality. Literature can, indeed, have some independent force where, as in France since the end of the last century, faith has wavered, moral concepts have become confused, and where, consequently, fictitious philosophical systems have replaced the convictions of faith and morality. There, literary opinions also inherited the active force of previous religious and moral convictions. But even there, if we look deeper, the people rose up for other reasons, and shouted only certain phrases because they were already excited. In addition, although openness was developed in France, legality was never developed among the French people. Until now, almost every Frenchman, at every opportunity, is ready to seize more rights for himself than what belongs to him by law, and this forcible appropriation of rights that do not belong to himself is considered some kind of honor; Meanwhile, the Englishman considers it an honor not to overstep the boundaries of legality under any circumstances. For although publicity is necessary for the development of legality, just as air is necessary for a plant, legality does not come from it alone, just as a plant does not come from air. The seed from which it grows is a living, deep and strong conviction of the people, born from faith and combining all moral and social issues into one grain. In France, as soon as faith faded, all beliefs were shaken. It seemed, it is true, as if there were some ardent opinions in her, similar to convictions, but this ardor was external. Throughout the First Republic, 35 with each revolution of government, which happened so often, all of France, by decree of the new government, became delighted with each new cry of political conviction, and was all ready to die for it, and danced with delight, raising up the current adherents of their yesterday's opinion to guillatine, until a new revolution in the government prescribed for it a new enthusiasm for a different opinion. Now she was in a ecstasy of godlessness, worshiping the goddess of reason with delight; tomorrow, by order of Robespierre, 36 she was delighted that she was ordered to recognize the One God. Then she abandoned all her republican beliefs at once, enthusiastically subservient to Napoleon. Then I was delighted with the constitution; then she broke it and was delighted with the other one; then she again became delighted with the republic 37. Now he again serves the autocratic name of Napoleon. Of course, none of this could have happened if her opinions were the development of a true and strong conviction, embodied in firm legality. Then publicity would not worry her, but would calm any possibility of unrest. For legitimate publicity is as different from empty cries as clear consciousness is from any cry. It not only does not produce dreamy hobbies, but, on the contrary, takes away all their power. Therefore, to be afraid of legality, and legal publicity, and the free, legal development of social beliefs among the people not only does not mean loving the Tsar, but, on the contrary, the appearance of such fear may rather stem from hidden hatred of his power, which, under the guise of zeal, is trying to expose it to all the dangers of unrest and revolutions. I'm not even talking about that hatred of the Fatherland, which decides to doom it to all the disasters of lawlessness and eternal ignorance out of the erroneous calculation that such an opinion can please the authorities. However, justice requires admitting that most of the people who are preventing the establishment of legality among us act not out of calculations or from distant political considerations, but simply out of habit and because they blindly follow the general impulse. Having spent the greater part of their lives in military service, where discipline is almost the only law and the main condition of improvement, they naturally transfer their external concepts of their social sphere into civil order and good-naturedly confuse respect for the law with respect for their superiors, thinking that obeying the order of a superior is even more important than obeying the requirement of the law. That is why some of them, who do not delve into either the situation of their Fatherland or the instructions of their conscience, are in fact confident, while others say they are confident that by breaking the laws they are acting in favor of order and public well-being. It should not be thought that the Orthodox faith or the spirit of the Russian people requires the persecution of foreign faiths or foreign nationalities. From the very beginning of Christianity in Russia until Peter's revolution, pagans, Mohammedans, and various heretics called Christians never ceased to live among its Orthodox inhabitants, unconstrained, unpersecuted, although without any visible influence on its general structure or on the general character of its morals and beliefs and completely lost in its insignificance under the dominance of its Orthodox and Russian education. The people have never demanded from their governments either the forced conversion of people of other faiths or the oppression of foreigners. He only did not want their domination, and when he suspected it, as, for example, in the Pretender, he considered such power to be illegal and alienated it from himself (for in the concepts of the Russian people, even the very word “law” is still much more likely to arouse in them the thought of the Law given by God, the Law of the Church, than of the law written in decrees). Therefore, although there was a time when Russia was forced to submit to the Tatars by force, in their lawless domination it never saw the power that the Apostle said was established by God 38 . Break laws in order to destroy unrest! “But think, for God’s sake,” I would say to them, “if they could listen, think: is not the holiness of the law the basis of order?” You will destroy the disorder for the present moment, and by this very abolition of the law you will open the door to a thousand future disorders and disorders and injustices. On what basis can order and justice and prosperity be established, if not on respect for the law? Do you think that order can be established by the well-intentioned supervision of self-confident dignitaries who, while themselves breaking the laws, will demand compliance with the law from their subordinates? But their subordinates, acting in their spirit, will also of necessity violate the laws for the same purpose and with the same justification and in the same way demanding legality from their subordinates. Their subjects will do the same. For this, it seems, one should not look for examples. In this way, a ladder of powers is built, of which each level considers it its duty and, what is even more important, considers it its honor to stand outside all laws and demand their observance from those below them. To comply with the laws becomes a sign of weakness, lack of patronage or lack of trust in higher authorities. Therefore, being afraid to break laws already becomes shameful. No one observes the laws, and everyone demands compliance with them from his inferiors. But the inferior, seeing that the superior does not respect the rule of law, naturally does not try to assert his rights and his security on it, but on the mercy of the superior. This is how the entire chain of governing officials holds together, demanding order and legality from the governed citizens. What should governed citizens do? Complying with laws is sometimes inconvenient, sometimes useless, sometimes impossible and always unprofitable under such an order of universal autocracy. Therefore, it is natural that governed citizens will, in addition to the law, seek the protection of unauthorized governing authorities, as long as the protecting power is higher than the attacking power. Each, according to his connections, crushes his lower level of society. One last level in the state, the most extensive, the main one, on which all the others stand, and from which everyone unanimously demands unquestioning observance of the laws, and which itself can no longer demand the rule of law from anyone, it alone would remain completely defenseless and crushed if the policeman did not have a clerk, and the clerk did not have a cook, and the cook did not have a godmother ready to put in a good word for her poor friend. This is what breaking the law in favor of minute order leads to. And who are you who have not seen this? And who, seeing this, can have the audacity to speak of his good intentions, violating the laws in favor of the momentary order. No! Whoever you are, well-intentioned lawbreakers, stop deceiving yourself: no one believes your good intentions, just as you yourself do not believe the good intentions of your comrades who act like you, although, perhaps, if you respect them at all, in front of others, their good intentions will help you maintain good relations with them or to cover up your own actions with their example. No! You don’t want order by breaking laws: you want to curry favor with your superiors by momentarily establishing some visible order or destroying some visible disorder. Through the law you would achieve this goal somewhat more slowly and less obviously. That’s why you said to yourself: “Get rid of legality, so that I can distinguish myself.” And after that, without blushing, you talk about love for the Fatherland! You have the audacity to talk about devotion to the King! Good is devotion, violating his laws, corrupting his Fatherland for some extra pendant on your zealous chest. But you say that you do not break laws for the sake of external order alone: ​​you break them for justice itself. “Legal formality,” you say, “does not always agree with internal justice. Often the weak must suffer from the oppression of the strong, the honest from the unscrupulous, while the legal order is unable to protect them.” So what do you think? To protect the weak and honest, you destroy the solidity of the rule of law. But enter into the consciousness of your action: what is the force of the law, if not a fence of the weak against the violence of the strong and honest against the robbery of the unscrupulous? And could there be a stronger and more reliable defense for them than an inviolable law, supported by a common opinion, imbued with respect for the rule of law? In a society where impartial law reigns and where general opinion recognizes its general benefit, the strong do not dare to oppress the weak, nor the unscrupulous to brazenly deceive the honest. In this order of things, society itself will push them out of itself by the force of its laws and the force of its legitimate opinion. If, in such a society, any particular law turned out to be insufficient and did not achieve its goal, then the unanimous voice of general opinion would bring the private deficiency to the consciousness of the government, which, with a new law, could strengthen justice, the existence of which among the people is an essential part of its own dignity, security, and well-being. If it happens that the government does not change a bad law, then custom itself, guided by public opinion, will be able to soften its bad sides, rendering them inactive by the development of other regulations that contradict them, as long as you do not interfere between law and society and your crude unsolicited amendments will not prevent the law from merging with the customs and morals of the people. Perhaps there is no state where the sense of legality is more developed than in England, precisely because there government officials interfere least in legal activities, but there are few states where the laws, especially criminal ones, are worse than English ones; and yet custom, strengthened by social meaning, is so good at circumventing the injustice of the law, preserving all the inviolability of its formality, that society does not even feel the need to change bad laws, seeing their imperfection only on paper, and not in application, where their inconsistency with justice or with the essential requirements of social life is itself destroyed. I will say more: the practical sense of England not only does not want, but is even afraid to correct its laws, so that by changing what is established it does not shake the habit of the established order of habit, which constitutes one of the elements of social legality. Therefore, leave your amendments, stop being smarter than the public sense in the matter of public benefit: with your lawless interference you do not allow either the rule of law to establish itself in society, or public opinion to form legally. By patronizing one weak and honest about the law, you defenselessly betray those weak and honest into the hands of the strong and unscrupulous. Or do you think that the orders of government officials are fairer than impartial laws? Admit that you don’t think this... You think, perhaps, that you act like the knights of the Middle Ages, forcefully protecting justice according to the inspiration of your conscience; but the knights could only protect the innocent with their own arbitrariness, because the state did not then have sufficient laws, or even hope for the establishment of a legitimate social order. But do not confuse these stories: as soon as the idea of ​​legality arose in societies, noble chivalry in the eyes of the people and right-thinking people was already robbery. It was their lawless habits that both kings and people primarily armed themselves against; It was they who, by their disrespect for the legal order, brought the kings to the vileness of tyranny. And you, so, say that you are looking for justice, and assure that you love the Fatherland, which cannot be settled by you, and are devoted to the Tsar, who, thanks to your services, cannot achieve his highest goal: state improvement. But you, educated people, generally speaking, understand all the benefits of legality, you only think that it is not equally possible for all ages of society. “Russia,” you say, “will reach this legality with time, but now, while it is still too uneducated, it must still be educated to respect the laws by the autocracy of well-meaning and impartial officials.” But admit that, with the exception of your speaking person, you do not trust either the good intentions or the impartiality of other officials: why are you telling such an obvious lie? And how can a society be educated towards the rule of law by breaking laws? You know that the power of legality is supported by the power of opinion from below, and not by the power of supervision from above. Someone else's care only weakens one's own care, rather than accustoming it to it. As long as the citizen sees more power in the boss than in the law, how can he begin to respect the law? As long as public consciousness has not connected the concept of its benefits and the concept of its honor with respect for the rule of law, until then the law is not a fence, but a net into which only the weak, who do not have protection, and the honest, who do not want to get out of it by deception, are caught, but through which the strong breaks through, which the cunning one weakens and which the unscrupulous lawyer uses, in which the unscrupulous lawyer catches his prey. And as long as you keep the law powerless and arbitrarily save the innocent from it, it will remain weak for the guilty and burdensome for the people. But accept your helpful hands, leave society to walk without help - you will see: it will find better ways to protect itself from injustices than you. If judges are independent of their superiors and dependent only on the laws and opinions of the society around them, then their own benefit will make them both fair and incorruptible. Then the elections of judges will be different, then there will be no hope for the power of protection beyond the laws; and the actions of judges will be of a different kind when they answer for them before the impartial opinion of society, which cannot be deceived and is difficult to bribe. But you can't help but interfere; you feel ashamed not to act. You seek the glory of patrons, benefactors, intercessors; you are pleased to enjoy this glory, even if it was at the expense of the public good. You know that by acting in this way, you are using the name of a domestic organizer precisely because you are preventing the Fatherland from moving towards improvement. But you are pleased with this undeserved name. And I would know what to call you if you did not understand the full meaning of your actions. But you understand it, despite the fact that you act. But if you have no conscience, no love for the Fatherland, no true devotion to your Tsar, which you love to talk about, thereby confusing the concepts of honest people, then won’t your own benefit bring you to your senses? Or do you think that you will always be the boss, in honor, money and rank? And all the children are yours? And all your relatives? And all your friends? And everyone you love in your Fatherland? Do you really not suppose that one of them will have to suffer from the weakness of laws and public opinion and from the force of the accidental power of another boss? But maybe you don’t love anyone beyond your own life, and in your faith you consider your superiority over others to be a sufficient guarantee of your well-being? In this case, boldly boast of your devotion to the Tsar and the Fatherland, your love for the people, your hatred of injustice. Buy with confidence good reputation and substantial benefits for your good conscience: you pay cheaply. But hurry to buy more: who knows how long you will enjoy these benefits, bought so profitably with your counterfeit coin. You don't think about future calculations. And woe to you when you remember. However, when I say this, I have in mind people who understand things a little further than the current paper. But justice requires saying that of all the officials who act unlawfully, they constitute only the smallest part. The majority of people who act in violation of the laws by the force of some kind of authority or some kind of patronage of the authorities do not deserve my accusations, because they act without understanding, even though they deserved accusations for acting without reasoning. It would not be difficult, it seems, to understand what the connection is between respect for the laws and - not to mention the Tsar or the Fatherland - but their own benefits. In order to follow the lawful road, which is a little further from the goal, they trample on their own field, where it is a little closer - and then they themselves complain about the poverty of the harvest. The famous Frederick the Second 39, who is unfairly called the Great, who, however, had many rare qualities that deserve respect, rejoiced and was proud of the well-known trial that the poor Prussian miller brought against him, for with his vast mind he clearly saw that for the ruler of the people it is the greatest honor to put justice and legality above his own arbitrariness and that the people cannot give him more respect than by considering his personality so inseparable from justice and legality that, acting legally even against his whim, he thinks to act in accordance with his will. And you are sure that you have a high concept of your King when you try to please him by breaking the laws. Listen to the voice of your own pride and understand that such servility is offensive to him. Even if it happened that he would outwardly thank you for such an action, which, however, seems incredible to me, then even in this case, inside his soul there will remain a feeling of offended pride. Your servility, harmful to the state, harmful to the good glory of the Tsar, sooner or later will not be useful to you either. Published from the book: Kireevsky I.V. Reason on the path to truth. M., 2002. The addressee of the letter was probably Vladimir Ivanovich Nazimov (1802–1874) - lieutenant general, trustee of the Moscow educational district in 1849–1855, who undertook to petition the new Minister of Public Education A. S. Norov to remove the preliminary censorship of the texts of the participants in the “Moscow Collection” and to authorize the publication. first Slavophile magazine “Russian Conversation” (see; Letter from V.I. Nazimov to A.S. Norov dated December 5, 1855 // Sukhomlinov M.I. Research and articles on Russian literature and education: In 2 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1889. Vol. 2. pp. 473–478). This refers to the article by I. V. Kireyevsky “On the nature of the enlightenment of Europe and its relation to the education of Russia.” Until 1862, all censorship was under the authority of the Ministry of Public Education. The censorship institutions were headed by the Main Directorate of Censorship. The city censorship committees were subordinate to him, to which manuscripts were submitted. Zd. Let us note that spiritual censorship was under the jurisdiction of the Holy Governing Synod and was concentrated in theological academies. The then... Chief of Police - Ivan Dmitrievich Luzhin (1804–1868), retinue E.I. V. Major General, Chief of Police of Moscow in 1845–1854. Minister of Public Education in 1853–1858. was Abraham Sergeevich Norov (1795–1869) - writer, linguist and bibliophile. Author of “The Travels of A. S. Norov” (1853–1854. Vol. 1–5). Louis Napoleon III Bonaparte (1808–1873) – French. emperor In 1848 he was elected President of France; when his presidency expired, he, having actually carried out a coup d'etat, on December 2, 1852, proclaimed himself Emperor of France under the name of Napoleon III. Franz Joseph I of Habsburg (1830–1916) – Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary (since 1848). During the revolutionary unrest in Europe, when the threat of collapse loomed over the Austrian Empire in 1849, Franz Joseph remained on the throne thanks to the military support of Emperor Nicholas I. In “gratitude” for this, during the Crimean War, Emperor Franz Joseph kept his troops ready to join the anti-Russian coalition at any moment. Napoleon I Bonaparte (1769–1821) – Emperor of France in 1804–1814. and March–June 1815. He began his career in the army and was an active participant in the Great French Revolution. revolution; in 1799, having carried out a coup d'etat, he became the first. consul and concentrated all state power in his hands; in 1804 he was proclaimed emperor. In June 1812, a huge Napoleonic army invaded Russia and was expelled on December 25 of the same year. In 1814, after the victorious entry into Paris of the Russians. army and troops of the anti-French coalition, Napoleon abdicated the throne. Sent to the island of Elba, he, however, soon fled and captured France for the second time. throne. After the final defeat - at the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815 - he was exiled to the island of St. Helena. Emperor Alexander I (1777–1825) ascended to Russia. throne in 1801; The central event of his reign was undoubtedly the Patriotic War of 1812. When the Napoleonic army entered Russia, part of the population of its western outskirts: Poles, Lithuanians, residents of Courland (a historical region in western Latvia, which became part of Russia in 1795), violating the oath of allegiance to Emperor Alexander I, joined the ranks of the enemies. During the retreat of the Russians. Almost the entire population left the ancient capital from Moscow, except for the schismatics (see: P. S. Smirnov, archpriest. History of the Russian schism of the Old Believers. 2nd ed., corrected and supplemented. St. Petersburg, 1895. P. 107). According to the decisions of the Congress of Vienna, Poland was divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria. Most of the Duchy of Warsaw became part of Russia. The Emperor granted wide autonomy and a representative form of government to his new possession, which received the name of the Kingdom of Poland. However, already in 1818, a liberation movement arose in Poland, which led to the uprisings of 1830–31, 1846 and 1848. Obviously, I.V. Kireevsky had in mind not so much the Germans themselves, but generally all the foreigners who served in Russia. Wed. his contrast between Slovenes and Germans in letters to Elder Macarius (Ivanov); in V.I. Dahl’s “Explanatory Dictionary...” we read: “A German, a German woman... who does not speak Russian, every foreigner from the West, a European” (V.I. Dahl. Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language: In 4 volumes. St. Petersburg; M., 1881. T. 2. P. 562). The impostor is False Dmitry I (? – 1606), supposedly a fugitive monk of the Moscow Chudov Alekseevsky Archangel-Mikhailovsky Monastery Grigory Otrepiev, who fled to Poland and converted to Catholicism there. He pretended to be a blgv who died in childhood. Tsarevich Dimitri of Uglich and Moscow. From Polish False Dmitry I entered Russia with his army and, taking advantage of the unrest that arose after the death of Boris Godunov, reigned over Russia. throne. He was killed in Moscow by conspirators. Count Ernst Johann Biron (1690–1772) was a favorite of the Duchess of Courland Anna Ioannovna, the Russian Empress. According to Anna Ioannovna's will, after her death, Russian. the throne passed to one-year-old Ivan Antonovich, the son of Anna Leopoldovna, the Empress’s niece, and Anton Ulrich, Prince of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Biron was appointed regent, and his reign was extended for another year. The era of Biron, cruel and ruinous for Russia, marked by the widespread spread of earphones, was called “Bironovism.” All key positions of the state were occupied by Courland and other Baltic Germans who despised the interests of the country. Emperor Peter I (1672–1725), son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, reigned from 1689. The reforms of Peter I in the field of state and church administration, accompanied by the strengthening of the position of the new ruling class - the nobility - and the virtual destruction of the former aristocracy - the boyars, the final enslavement of the peasantry, the change in culture and life according to European models, caused conflicting assessments among both his contemporaries and descendants. There was no unanimity among the Slavophiles either. A. S. Khomyakov saw in Peter’s reforms the completion of those processes of establishing the state, which were begun by the predecessors of Peter the Great. “Peter appeared, and by some strange instinct of a high soul, embracing with one glance all the illnesses of the Fatherland, comprehending all the beautiful and holy meaning of the word “state,” he struck Russia like a terrible but beneficial thunderstorm. A blow to the class of judge-thieves; a blow to the boyars who think about their childbirth and forget their homeland; a blow to the monks who seek salvation in their cells and extortions in the cities, but forget the Church and humanity and Christian brotherhood. Which one of them will history stand up for? Many mistakes darken the glory of the transformer of Russia, but he has the honor of awakening it to strength and to the consciousness of strength. The means he used were crude and material, but let us not forget that spiritual powers belong to the people and the Church, and not to the government. The government is left only to awaken or kill their activities by some kind of violence, more or less severe; but it’s sad to think that the one who so vividly and strongly understood the meaning of the state, who completely enslaved his personality to it, as well as the personality of all his subjects, did not remember at the same time that there is only power where there is love, and love is only where personal freedom is” (A. S. Khomyakov. About the old and the new. P. 375–376). As we see, I.V. Kireevsky, polemicizing with Khomyakov, had a sharply negative attitude towards the activities of Emperor Peter the Great. Elizabeth – Empress Elizaveta Petrovna (1709–1761) – daughter of Emperor Peter I, reigned from 1741. With her accession, the era of temporary workers ended. The Elizabethan era was marked by the flourishing of domestic enlightenment. Peter Fedorovich - Emperor Peter III (1728–1762) - grandson of Emperor Peter I, Duke of Holstein. In 1742, by order of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, he was brought to Russia and raised as heir to the throne, although he was clearly not capable of governing the country. Emperor Peter III entered the Russian the throne after the death of Empress Elizabeth, but on June 28, 1762, as a result of a palace coup, he was arrested and killed. His wife, Empress Catherine II, ascended the throne. Old Believers and Orthodox Christians differ in the customs of walking around the lectern or around the church “salting” and “anti-salting”, as well as the two- and three-finger formation for the sign of the cross. The Arian heresy, named after its founder, Presbyter Arius, arose in the beginning. IV century. The roots of Arianism go back to paganism, which was ready to see in our Lord Jesus Christ one of many gods, but could not recognize Him as Consubstantial with the One Existing. Adherents of the Arian heresy disputed the dogma of the Essence of the Son of God. The Ecumenical Council of 325, convened in Nicaea, sealed on Tue. member of the Creed that the Son of God is “uncreated, consubstantial with the Father.” However, the controversy continued. Thus, in 358, at the Council of Sirmium, the following formula was proposed: “... like the Father in everything,” and in 359, at the Semi-Arian Council in Rimini, where opponents of the Arians gathered, the words “in everything” were excluded from the Symbol. Finally, at the Ecumenical Council of 381 in Constantinople, the Creed was finally approved, which received the name Nicene-Constantinople (Constantinople). I. V. Kireevsky speaks here about the teaching of the Orthodox Church, which consists in the unchangeable preservation of the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and St. The Apostles in the form as it is set out in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition (the latter usually means the symbols of faith of the ancient Churches, the apostolic canons, the acts of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, ancient liturgies, acts of martyrs, the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church). Constitution (Latin constitutio) – device. The English Constitution is a collection of documents, the most important of which are the Magna Carta (1215), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Constituent Act (1701). The foundations of civil equality and parliamentary government were laid down already in the first century. of them. In 1789, Fr. King Louis XVI convened a class representation - the Estates General. Deputies from the “third” estate declared themselves first the people's representatives, then the Constituent Assembly. On August 26, 1789, the Constituent Assembly adopted the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen,” which formed the basis of the first. fr. constitution (1791). In Germany, demands for constitutions arose during the revolutionary unrest of 1848. The Frankfurt Parliament, whose work took place in 1848–1849, set as its goal the development of a constitution for Germany. Attempts to introduce a constitution in Spain (1812) and Italy (1796) were associated with the Napoleonic wars. The supreme ruler of the Ottoman Empire (whose possessions - in addition to Turkey itself - extended along the western coast of the Black Sea, the Balkan Peninsula and North Africa) was the Sultan. His decrees were called firmans. Higher officials: ministers, provincial chiefs, army generals were called pashas. In the beginning 1847 Prussian King Frederick William IV announced the convening of a united Landtag to resolve the issue of taxation, which meant the beginning of parliamentary rule in Prussia. It is interesting to note that all European parliaments arose while solving precisely this problem, which boiled down to who, which classes should be considered tax-paying and on what needs the taxes would be spent. The revolution in France was preceded by attempts at reform in the spirit of enlightened absolutism. Minister of Finance A.-R.-J. Turgot proposed local self-government on an elective basis, taxation of the nobility and clergy, the abolition of feudal rights, the abolition of various forms of trade restrictions, etc. However, these reforms were rejected by both the court and parliament. This refers to the Streltsy riot on April 27, 1682, when, after Tsarevna Sofia Alekseevna (1657–1704) satisfied the property claims of the Streltsy, they were joined by schismatics who tried to cancel the resolutions of the Local Council of 1666. Count Burchardt Christoph von Minich (1683–1767) – Field Marshal General. In 1721, he was invited to serve in Russia as a general engineer and supervised the construction of the Ladoga and Obvodny canals. During the reign of Empress Anna Ioannovna, he became close to her favorites, Grr. A.I. Osterman and E.-I. Biron, contributed to the appointment of Biron as regent. On November 8, 1740, Minich carried out a coup and himself became the first. minister, removing Biron and making Anna Leopoldovna regent. He soon fell out of favor and resigned (1741). We are talking about the palace coup of 1741, when the forces of the Preobrazhensky guards (with the help of the court doctor Johann Hermann Lestocq (1692–1767) and the French envoy Marc. Chetardy) overthrew the Russian. throne Brunswick family - Emperor Ivan Antonovich (1740–1764) and his mother, Anna Leopoldovna (1718–1746), who served as his regent. Elizabeth, daughter of Peter the Great, ascended the throne. Empress Catherine II (1729–1796) ascended to Rus. throne as a result of the palace coup of 1762. Emelyan Ivanovich Pugachev (1740 / 1742–1775), under the name of Emperor Peter III, led the Peasant War - a revolt of Cossacks and foreigners, in 1773–1775. covering vast lands between the Volga and the Urals. In 1810, the villages of state peasants in St. Petersburg, Novgorod and several southern provinces were converted into military settlements, where peasants combined military service with agricultural labor, which sharply reduced the cost of maintaining the army. There were several riots in military settlements, the most significant - in July 1831 in Staraya Russa, Novgorod province - was stopped by the presence of the Sovereign. Riot on Sennaya - building speaks of “outrage” during the cholera epidemic in St. Petersburg on June 23, 1831. An excited crowd, shouting and accusing doctors of poisoning the people, burst into one of the hospitals and killed the doctor at the moment when he was assisting the dying man. Having learned about this, Emperor Nicholas I came to the place of the riot and stopped the indignation with words of admonition: “We have been sent a great test: infection; it was necessary to take measures to stop its spread: all these measures were taken according to my orders. Therefore, you are complaining about me; Well, here I am, here! And I command you to obey. You, fathers of families, are humble people, I believe in you and am convinced that you will always, before others, persuade ignorant people and bring the rebels to their senses! But woe to those who allow themselves to resist my commands! There will be no pity for you! Now leave! There's an infection in the city! It is harmful to gather in crowds. But first you need to make peace with God! If you offended me with your disobedience, then you offended God even more with your crime: murder was committed! Innocent blood has been shed! Pray to God to forgive you!” (quoted from: Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin. Book 3. P. 325). This refers to the Decembrist uprising on December 14, 1825. I.V. Kireevsky calls Senate Square Admiralteyskaya, apparently based on its location - between the Senate and Admiralty buildings. Among the participants in the uprising were the poets K. F. Ryleev, V. K. Kuchelbecker, A. A. Bestuzhev. Due to the fact that he abdicated the throne. book Konstantin Pavlovich (written by him back in 1822 during the life of Emperor Alexander I) was not made public, the heir to the throne, led. book Nikolai Pavlovich did not consider it possible to use this document and gave the order to swear in the troops of the St. Petersburg district to Konstantin Pavlovich. On December 14, 1825, a manifesto was issued about the accession to the throne of Emperor Nicholas I, and the troops had to take an oath to him. But members of the Northern Society of Decembrists, mainly guards and naval officers, wanting to raise an uprising and demand a constitution, convinced the soldiers that Konstantin Pavlovich had not abdicated the throne, Nicholas was acting illegally and that they should not swear the oath again. So, A. A. Bestuzhev, who pretended to be an adjutant, led. book Konstantin Pavlovich, with this lie, managed to rebel the Moscow Guards Regiment, which was joined by several companies of the Guards naval crew and individual officers of other military units. After the overthrow of King Louis XVI in France on September 22, 1792, the so-called First Republic was established, which lasted until 1804. The National Convention was declared the highest authority. As a result of the uprising of 1793, a dictatorship of the Jacobin parliamentary faction was established in the country; many of their opponents from the Girondin faction were executed. Immediately after the mass executions, by decree of the head of the Jacobin government, M. Robespierre, a grand celebration was organized in honor of the “supreme being.” Instead of the monarchical constitution of 1791, a new, republican one was introduced. A year later, as a result of the Thermidorian coup, the Jacobin government was overthrown. Since 1795, another constitution came into force in the country, according to which executive power was transferred to the Directory of five ministers. The government of the Directory lasted until November 1799, when power nominally passed to three consuls, but in reality to Napoleon I Bonaparte. Under him, two more constitutions were adopted, according to the last (1804) first. to the consul, i.e. Napoleon was given imperial power. Maximilien Robespierre (1758–1794) - one of the leaders of the French Revolution, head of the Jacobin parliamentary faction, headed the revolutionary government in 1793. In 1814, after the fall of Napoleon's regime and the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty (represented by Louis XVIII), a new constitution appeared in France, according to which only the king had the right to introduce bills into parliament. It existed until the July Revolution of 1830, when France again became a republic. But Louis Philippe, a king who swore allegiance to parliament, was proclaimed emperor. The February Revolution of 1848 overthrew Louis Philippe and the so-called Second Republic was proclaimed. The Constituent Assembly promulgated a new constitution, according to which legislative power belonged to parliament, and executive power to the president, who became Louis Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1852, as noted above, he proclaimed himself Emperor Napoleon III. Wed: There is no power not from God; But the existing authorities are established by God (Rom. 13:1). – Note. comp. Frederick II the Great (1712–1786) – King of Prussia since 1740, went down in history as the founder of “enlightened absolutism”. During his reign, Prussian jurisprudence was considered exemplary in the integrity of judges and their independence from the administration. I. V. Kireevsky recalls the well-known anecdote about a miller who did not want to demolish his mill (despite the fact that Frederick II himself demanded it, for whom the mill interfered with his new residence of Sans Souci near Potsdam). The miller was going to file a complaint in court, but the king relented. “II y a des juges a Berlin (“There are judges in Berlin”),” he said in French when he learned of the miller’s courage. You might be interested in: