Реформы: за и против

What changes would I like in Russia at the present time? 199 First of all, I would like that at the present time no significant changes are made in Russia, until the European unrest 200 calms down and some firm and clear order of things is established there, which will show us what we can fear from them and what we can hope for. I would like our government not to take any active part in Western affairs, without interfering either with money or with troops, or for governments, or for peoples, or for the Slavs, 201, or for the Germans, 202, or for the Turks, or against the Turks. Each of our active interventions, always more or less painful for Russia, will be for the Germans only a saving spring of connection for them 203 and will in no case destroy the results of their mental movement, but can it only distance them for a while and thereby contribute to a more lasting establishment. Having been left to their own wisdom and their own heteronobyarism, they will inevitably come to the need of an unimaginative order, to fragmentation into several parts, of which two or three will be Slovenian, and to voluntary submission to our patronage, etc., etc. While time does not allow us, without extreme frivolity, to wish for any significant changes in our Fatherland, such as the liberation of the peasants, changes in senseless forms of legal proceedings, etc., I would like some private improvements that could have useful results without producing any noticeable re-education. I would like all factories, not suddenly, but gradually and imperceptibly, to be withdrawn from capitals and big cities to small towns and villages. This could be done in such a way that all factories in the capitals are subject to some initially small (for example, 1 ruble per factory), but progressively increasing tax and then set a deadline by which (for example, after 10 or 15 years) they would have to be transferred to the country at a distance of, for example, 30 or 40 miles. I consider this change to be very useful: 1) because from the excessive accumulation of unfamily workers the morale of the lower class of people in big cities is noticeably deteriorating every year, and from spoiled leaven the people and the new worker who comes there quickly and easily spoil, and from the cities the damage spreads throughout Russia; 2) the existence of a huge factory class of people in the city makes it possible for unforeseen unrest, incitement, riots, etc.; 3) the existence of factories in villages and villages will give the development of industry a direction that, combining agriculture with fishing, factory work with the closeness of the family, alone can somehow stop the rapid disintegration of morals, which, together with the introduction of Western education, is obviously taking place in our people; 4) factory products produced in the capitals cannot be as cheap and, therefore, sold as those produced in villages, where food supplies and fuel are cheaper. If capital factories now have an advantage over distant ones, it is only because of the proximity of those relations with orders and sales, which, having no influence on the majority of production or on the benefit of consumers, only undermine the best distant factories and enrich the capital manufacturers at their expense and at the expense of consumers. I would like that not only in parish, but also in district schools, in addition to teachers of the Law of God, teachers of the Russian language would also be replaced by clergy, priests, deacons, or, if they are in short supply, by first-class students from seminaries who are awaiting and have not yet received priestly positions, so that they would be ordered, together with Russian, to teach the rudiments of the Slovenian language and Slovenian grammar, to train children in Slovenian reading, with explanation and translation of difficult passages, and in the teaching of the most necessary prayers. In addition to the moral benefit, which with such a change would be obvious: the rapprochement of the emerging people with the Church, it could also be useful in that: 1) it is much easier to find good teachers among the spiritual; that they would be very pleased with the secular salary provided for this; 2) that, having entered the school, they would not deteriorate in morality, as secular people deteriorate because in small towns they do not find friends other than riotous clerks and petty officials; 3) that the surplus from the remaining salary could be used for other useful purposes at the same school; 4) that, having a need for a smaller number of secular teachers, the government could select the best from the upcoming candidates and demand more strictly from those elected to fulfill their duties; 5) that a smaller number of secular teachers and a larger number of spiritual teachers will give the fellowship of teachers a different character, bringing them closer to the society of priests than to the drunken society of officials, etc., etc. I would like the Bible not to be translated into Russian 204 (this would be harmful because it would alienate the people from knowledge of the Slovenian language and, therefore, from understanding church services and, in addition, it would destroy the connection that lies between the various Slovenian tribes), but published in Slovenian with explanations at the bottom of the page of all words and phrases that are incomprehensible to the inexperienced in the Slovenian language. These explanations should be compiled in such a way that they only complement and do not replace the Slovenian translation. To them we can add variants of other editions, and, moreover, those passages that in the Hebrew Bible differ from the Greek Seventy Interpreters 205, without introducing them canonically, but only leaving them to the readers’ consideration. Such a publication of the Bible, providing everyone with the opportunity to compare the versions of the so-called old printed Bibles with new editions, would be one of the best means to destroy at the very root the schismatic rigidity of the Old Believers, while a simple translation into Russian can only strengthen old schisms or even produce new ones. I would like us, first of all, and without wasting a single minute, and without waiting for any favorable circumstances, to change the form of the oath 206 and to abolish its incessant, unnecessary, harmful and corrupting use of the people in all the most insignificant circumstances of life. Excessive spring tension does not increase, but destroys its strength. Can I really be an honest citizen when, at the very first time I take on the duties of citizenship, I must take an oath that I know in advance that I cannot and will not fulfill, for example: to report all the damages to government interests that I learn about, while I learn about them every day and not only cannot report them, but according to our laws I should not, for I will be condemned as an informer? I know that these and similar absurd thoughts in the oath are not interpreted literally, but I also know that these interpretations are made only to appease one’s conscience, and that, once allegorical interpretations have been allowed, one can derive any meaning from each phrase, just as the English Puseyists 207 derive a purely Catholic meaning from 36 articles, although these articles were composed precisely to separate the English Church 208 from Catholicism. With such interpretations, we can be faithful to the Fatherland, not because of the oath, but despite the oath. What is it for? As for its incessant use, those who have noticed its effect among the people will easily be convinced that most of their unscrupulousness comes from other abuses. I myself have heard some people say: “You cannot swear to the truth, but you are ordered to swear an oath - it’s a sin on the one who invented it, this oath!” Who doesn’t know that a bucket of wine can force an entire village to swear to anything. What is the oath for? Meanwhile, if it were used only on rare, special and solemn occasions, it would not only be a force, but also a source of morality. Letter to M. V. Kireevskaya 209 You write, dear sister, that you have long been haunted by the thought of liberating the peasants, that you pray to God that He will allow you to realize this sweet dream, that you think that in this case we will approve of your desire, and you ask for our advice on how to actually bring your intention to fruition. Thank you for telling us your thoughts and wanting to know our opinion. I consider it my duty to tell you this with complete sincerity. But before I tell you my opinion about your case, I also consider it my duty to tell you my convictions about the liberation of the peasants in Russia in general, so that you do not assume in me an opinion that I do not have, and therefore would not give my advice more weight than they deserve. True, we are now constantly talking about emancipation 210: Koshelev, Khomyakov and others. But I don’t share their opinion. Not because I consider it good and useful for Russia to leave serfdom forever, not even because I consider it possible (serfdom should be destroyed over time when other changes are first made in the state: the legality of the courts, the independence of private individuals from the arbitrariness of officials - and many others that do not need to be listed here 211), but at the present time, I think that such a comprehensive change will only produce unrest, general disorder, the rapid development of immorality and will put our Fatherland in a position from which God will save it! And what is freedom without legality? Dependence on a corrupt official, instead of dependence on the landowner. But the benefits of the landowner are more or less connected with the well-being of his peasants; but, generally speaking, the worst landowners have more conscience than officials; besides conscience, they have, more or less, a sense of honor, which prevents them from abusing their power; there is a dependence on the opinions of others, which was the reason that their relations with the peasants improve every year and since then, as I remember, have changed completely. The official is not bound by anything except his own benefit and other officials<sic!>who are corrupt. You know yourself what the state of the state peasants is, 212 and if you don’t know, then ask brother Peter, or the priest Alexander Petrovich, 213 or any neighbor or merchant who knows their situation, and then tell me whether this situation is worth carrying out a revolution in Russia? But I’m talking about the general emancipation of the peasants in Russia; which does not in the least prevent private people from freeing their peasants if they think of giving them a better position. But think honestly (without being carried away by the desire to do an act that people can praise, without being carried away by the arrogant pleasure of saying to yourself: “I freed my peasants, I acted according to my conscience!” - when in fact your act will bear a great name, without changing anything in reality), think: would it really be better for your peasants to pay 100 thousand for themselves and receive the right to be called free, having fallen under the authority of officials, than, not calling themselves free, to be so in practice and without paying 100 thousand rubles (which they do not have and which the acquisition of will certainly confuse them), pay you annually the smallest quitrent 214, which does not constrain them in the least and never gives rise to the slightest complaint in them? Think about this honestly and ask yourself in the depths of your heart: is it not vanity before yourself that makes you want to change their situation? If you think that they want this, then you are mistaken: perhaps a few people who are richer than others may want this, but in general this news frightened them. At least that's what I heard from them. They say that they live under your wing, like Christ in the bosom, they are afraid of any change and it is very difficult to pay money for their ransom. Most of all, they are most afraid that you will not sell them, because, as they say, the amount for their ransom you have set is so small that other landowners will willingly give you much more, and then they may fall into the wrong hands. Some landowners have already heard about your intention there, and want to buy them from you, and are thinking of giving you more than 100 thousand, believing that you are doing this in need of money. Of these, there is one, especially whom the peasants fear as a bad and evil person. But I’m sure you won’t sell them, and that’s why I’m not talking about it. To this I will also add that I knew some very respectable people, among them I will name K.F. Muravyova 215, who also wanted to conclude a condition with their peasants under which they would have the right to buy themselves as free cultivators 216, but, having examined the matter closely and having consulted with knowledgeable people, although they did many preliminary steps for this and went to a lot of trouble, and the peasants agreed, and the government allowed, but, however, they were convinced that this condition would be to the detriment of both parties, and left the matter as before. In addition to this, I will also tell you that the government is now destroying free farmers and turning them into state peasants. Yesterday I heard that the huge Demidov estate of 217 (I think 6 thousand souls), which were free cultivators, has now been turned into state peasants under the general management of district officials. How will it feel for your peasants, having paid you 100 thousand, to suddenly find themselves under the power of an official who will force them to pay double the rent they pay you? Because the government quitrent, together with the salary for officials or managers, is more than 8 silver rubles per soul, while they pay you about 4 silver rubles per soul. But how many more illegal exactions are being paid to state peasants and how many injustices are being done by drunken and authorized clerks, by volost officials, by district officials and others! How many temptations to lawless action through bribery! What danger is there from tax farmers who can set up taverns and taverns for them, give them temptation against their will, etc. Take also into account that by paying you the ransom amount, they will certainly become dependent on the moneylenders, who usually suck out all the moral blood from the peasants; and meanwhile, you yourself, receiving their ransom not suddenly, but according to deadlines, will certainly spend the money as you receive it and then you will be left with nothing and will not be able to be useful to anyone, having also done harm to the peasants. Here's my opinion. Discuss it without passion or partiality. If, having considered it, you remain with your intention, then please write to me, and I will immediately go to the people who know this and send you the form of the condition, etc. I think it would be useful to tell you one more thing: if you are afraid that after your death the position of your peasants will change, then you can make whatever will you want and put it in the Trustee Council 218 for the sake of fidelity, so that your peasants, in any case and regardless of any heirs, will be either obliged after you on these or other conditions, or completely free, depending on what you consider best. But for this it would be good for your will to be made in secret, so as not to arouse among the peasants thoughts that could be harmful to them ahead of time. And while you are alive, continue to rule them, as you have done until now, take an easy rent from them, give them freedom to rule themselves, do not betray them to the offense of officials, and they will always bless you as they bless you now. Your brother I. Kireevsky. I also wanted to write to you today about this matter, but my brother read me his letter, and since I completely agree with this opinion, as I already told you before, I no longer consider it necessary to repeat the same thing. Most of all, I want you to think about this as much as possible and not rush. I hug you tightly. We are all, thank God, healthy. Having written this letter, I gave it to Koshelev and, moreover, told me what situation your peasants are in. He told me that although he is an ex officio emancipator, he would not advise you to release him, but to leave him as is. Then he wrote the enclosed letter, which confused him quite a bit, I think from the desire to preach on his favorite topic. After that I saw him, and he also says that you should not and there is no reason to emancipate and that you will only do harm, and not benefit, to your peasants. But in his letter this is not so clear. Letter to M. P. Pogodin 220 ... You write to me that it wouldn’t be a bad idea for writers to submit an address to the Emperor 221 about the unnecessary and restrictive actions of censorship 222 . At first I left this thought without much attention, as unrealizable. Then, however, when I thought about your character and that you often take half a step from your first thought to action, then I was afraid both for you and for the case. Think about it: with the current stupid upheavals in the West, is it time to give us addresses about literature? Of course, censorship restrictions are harmful to education and even to the government, because they weaken the minds without any reason; but all these relations mean nothing in comparison with current important issues, which we need to want the right solution from the government. It wouldn't be a big problem if our literature were killed for two or three years. She will live again. Meanwhile, submitting petitions in the present time would mean putting the government in a hostile or at least distrustful attitude towards writers, which is much worse, because it can lead to incorrect and harmful consequences. The government should no longer fear any right-thinking people. It must be sure that at the present moment we are all ready to sacrifice all secondary interests in order just to save Russia from unrest and a useless war. We should only wish that the government would not interfere with us in the war out of some whim or friendship for some Swedish or king; so that it does not go to crush our Slovenians together with the Germans 223; so that it does not outrage the people with false rumors about freedom 224 and does not introduce any new laws until things calm down and are explained in the West, so that, for example, it does not make inventories 225 for landowners’ estates, which worries minds with unrealistic assumptions; so that it does not allow factories to be set up unnecessarily inside cities and especially capitals, when they can stand with the same benefit several miles from the outpost, etc., etc. However, you can’t recount everything in a letter. Letter to V. A. Zhukovsky 226 I am writing to you between New Year’s Day and your birthday. May every turning point in time be for your benefit, since your whole life has been for the good of others and for the glory of the Russian word. I read your second part of the Odyssey 227 with high, elegant pleasure. Whether it’s because, when I started working on it, I had already become accustomed to the tuning fork of the Odyssey, or because it really is so, the translation of the second part seemed to me even more perfect than the first, although it is less rich in content. Now Homer’s “Odyssey” has forever risen for us from the dust of the scientist’s office and is placed among the constellations under the influence of which the Russian mind will develop. Now it would be nice if, having rested from your great work, you fell in love with the idea of ​​resurrecting the Iliad for us just as you resurrected the Odyssey; so that they stand together, helping each other to reveal to us the whole secret of the soul of Homer and his time and the whole volume of his universe. Gnedich's translation 228 of course has great merits: they say it is close and was especially useful for the literary language because it enriched it with a large stock of technical expressions and several successfully used Slovenian words. But he is plump, heavy and unnatural. Therefore, it is read only out of literary duty, and not out of internal need. True, I know two people who admired him with all the fullness of their hearts: the late Yazykov 229 and my son when he was 8 and 9 years old. But Yazykov could admire it because for him every new expression was a treasure, and my son because he read it when the content of the language was not noticed. If you do not dare to undertake this enormous work, then translate for us “Prometheus” of Aeschylus 230 - this spark of truth in the darkness of polytheism, the premonition of false belief about the destruction that is ready for him, the consciousness of the powerlessness of the prince of darkness over a person who has obtained the fire of truth, oppressed, but triumphant in the hope of future deliverance. However, my Mother 231 told me that you did something more important than this: you translated the Gospel into Russian 232 . This is a great feat that can give our language that sanctification that it still lacks, because the translation of the Bible Society 233 is unsatisfactory. It doesn’t matter that you translated from Slovenian: the Slovenian translation is correct to the point of literal closeness. If only the true Orthodox meaning was preserved everywhere, exactly the one in the Slovenian translation, and not the one that many foreign translations give in some words or in some shades of words, trying not to elevate the concept of man to Revelation 234, but to lower Revelation to an ordinary concept, thereby cutting off from the Divine word precisely that wing that raises the thought of man above its ordinary standing. Your translation, however, no matter how good it is, should not replace the Slovenian one; Slovenian must live, and Russia must breathe, as long as the true faith with its Slovenian worship lives in it. But the literary language will receive from a worthy Russian translation that anointing that it does not yet fully have. It's a pity to hear that your translation is poorly written. Not because it is difficult to disassemble (we will disassemble your hand without error), but because it is a pity that this proves that you did not finish it to the last cleaning. However, perhaps it will be more convenient for you to look at it rewritten. Send it to us as soon as possible so that you can view the rewritten version before spring. And in the spring, when, as we hope, you will finally come to Russia, perhaps it will be possible to print it here along with the Slovenian, as the translations of the Bible Society were printed. Come in the spring; For God's sake, come if you have the slightest opportunity. Really, our climate is not as bad as the German doctors, who judge all of Russia by St. Petersburg, think. Otherwise, think about it, for Zhukovsky’s children the Russian language will be foreign, Russian customs will be disgusting. Good Russian is unusual, bad Russian is completely unbearable. Come to Moscow: the climate there is healthy, dry in summer, moderate in winter, the houses are warmer than German ones, sincere friends, there are doctors like you could wish for abroad. I pray to God that this will happen in such a way that it will be for the good of you and your family. January 1850. Dolbino Published from the book: Kireevsky I.V. Reason on the path to truth. M., 2002. In the winter of 1848, revolutionary unrest, starting in France, swept Italy and the states of the German Confederation. On the causes and consequences of revolutions for the peoples of Europe St. Filaret (Drozdov) wrote: “Having ceased to affirm state decrees on the glory and power of Him by whom kings reign, they no longer knew how to honor or preserve kings. The thrones there became unstable; the peoples went crazy. It’s not that there are no more understanding people at all, but daring madness has taken over and tramples on cowardly wisdom that has not strengthened itself with the wisdom of God. An idol was developed from the thought of the people; and they do not even want to understand the obviousness that for such a huge idol there will be no sacrifices. They dream of reaping peace when they sow rebellion. Not wanting to freely obey the lawful and beneficent power of the Tsar, they are forced to servile before the wild power of self-willed crowds. So the solid land there turns into a turbulent sea of ​​peoples, which is already absorbing some of them, and threatening to swallow up some of them, institutions, laws, order, public trust, contentment, security” (Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Words and speeches: In 5 vols. M., 1882. T. 4. P. 553–554). I.V. Kireevsky calls Slavs and peoples Slavs. In the Austrian Empire, revolutionary events were accompanied by national liberation movements, incl. and among the Slavs, the peoples who inhabited it. Unrest began in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Moravia, Galicia, Poland, Carniola, as well as in the lands of the South Slavs, which were under Austrian rule. Bound by the obligations of the Holy Alliance (1815), Russia was forced to help Austria in maintaining territorial integrity. On April 20, 1848, I. V. Kireevsky wrote to M. P. Pogodin about the future of the Slavs and peoples: “Tomorrow, before the light of day, Austria will fall apart. The Slovenian states will begin to crystallize; the whole great task of the world lies in what direction these states will take: German this, Polish this, or truly Slovenian? Not only the fate of Russia depends on this, but also of all Europe” (quoted from: Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin: In 22 books. St. Petersburg, 1895. Book 9. P. 262). As if answering this question, A. S. Khomyakov wrote to A. N. Popov: “The fall of Austria, or, better said, its disintegration has occurred or is occurring. For others this is a purely political matter, for us it is a historical matter. The trace of the Charles Empire is disappearing. The primacy of the German elements, at least in terms of material things, had passed. The Pope, having rocked Italy and unleashed forces beyond his control, sits in a corner of Rome, sad and weak. Gregory's papacy goes to the same place as Charles's empire, to the historical archive. Protestantism and Catholicism are right behind it. The field is clear. Orthodoxy on the world stage. Slovenian tribes on the world stage. A great minute, predicted, but not prepared by us... For most of the Slovenes, the German-Roman corruption (Bohemia and Poland) passed to the bones and marrow. Others, less spoiled (Slovaks, Krajina, etc.), had and still have an inclination towards us, but the first joy, the first intoxication of freedom will probably carry them towards the area from which visible movement comes, i.e. west. The purest peoples, those least exposed to Western influence (the Serbs), are likely to fall under the double temptation of political sentiment and material enlightenment, which has fascinated us since the Petrine era. These are the probable and almost certain dangers that lie ahead of us; this is what we have to fight with... To re-educate society, to tear it completely away from the political question and force it to take care of itself, to understand its emptiness, its selfishness and its weakness - this is the matter of true enlightenment, with which our Russian land can and must become ahead of other peoples. The root and beginning of the matter is religion, and only the obvious, conscious and complete triumph of Orthodoxy will open the possibility of any other development” (quoted from: Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin. Book 9. P. 268–269). German states (the Kingdom of Prussia, the Austrian Empire and 38 other small principalities) in the 1840s. formed the German Confederation led by Austria. A parliament was formed from representatives of all states that were part of the German Confederation, which met in Frankfurt am Main. During the revolution of 1848, the Frankfurt Parliament made an unsuccessful attempt to unify Germany. The controversy about the need to translate the Bible into Russian was conducted in the first century. floor. XIX century. Ed. books of the New Testament in Russian. language and work on translations of the books of the Old Testament were undertaken by the Russian Bible Society (before its closure in 1826). One of the most ardent supporters and direct participant in the translation of the Bible into Russian. the language was St. Filaret (Drozdov). Work according to ed. rus. Bible translation resumed in 1858. Perv. ed. rus. The Bible, blessed by the Holy Synod, was published in 1876. Grech, translation of the books of the Old Testament, made, according to legend, in the 3rd century. BC and received the name of the translation of the Seventy Interpreters (based on the number of translators who participated in the translation of the Hebrew holy books into Greek). The translation of the Seventy Interpreters was accepted for use by the Christian Church from apostolic times, but was rejected by the Jews of the Diaspora. The translation of the Seventy Interpreters contains the following books, which are not included in the canonical corpus of Hebrews. sacred texts: the Second Book of Ezra, the books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, the Epistle of Jeremiah, the Book of the Prophet Baruch, the three books of Maccabees and the Third Book of Ezra and some passages in the canonical books. The Christian Church recognizes them, but does not consider them canonical. The oath is an oath established by the legislation of the Russian Empire, pronounced by the Orthodox before the Holy Cross and the Gospel. For non-believers, the oath had its own form, consistent with their beliefs. The oath of allegiance was taken to the reigning Emperor and his legal heir, also upon entering military or civil service. The same oath was used in criminal and civil proceedings. According to the canons of the Orthodox Church, for taking a false oath, the sinner was excommunicated for ten years from the Communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. Puseyists are followers of the teachings of Prof. Oxford University E.-B. Pusey, who wanted to bring the Anglican Church closer to the Catholic Church and thereby counteract rationalistic Protestantism. The doctrine of the Church of England is set out in the Book of Public Service (1549) and in the 42 Articles (1552). After revision of English Parliament in 1571 approved 39 articles (I.V. Kireevsky inaccurately: 36). Perv. publ.: Kireevsky I.V. Complete. collection cit.: In 2 vols. M., 1911. T. 2. P. 241–245. Publ. by decree ed. Maria Vasilievna Kireyevskaya (1811–1859) – sister of Ivan and Peter Kireyevsky. She participated a lot in the creative life of I.V. Kireevsky, copying out his works and making lists of the manuscripts he needed. After the division of the estate in 1836 between A.P. Elagina and her children, Ivan, Peter and Maria Kireevsky, Maria Vasilievna took possession of the village of Davydovskoye in the Vladimir province and three villages near Tver, where a total of approx. 370 souls. In the beginning XIX century the need for emancipation - the liberation of peasants from serfdom - was obvious to the Russians. society, and Russian government. The question, however, was how the land should be distributed between landowners and farmers. Emperor Nicholas I repeatedly created secret committees involved in preparing peasant reform. A. S. Khomyakov in the 1840s. abolished corvée on his estates and transferred the peasants to quitrent, the volume of which was stipulated by an “amicable agreement” of the two parties, and began to introduce hired cultivation of the land, for which he acquired improved agricultural implements. A.I. Koshelev proposed a reform in which peasants and land were bought from landowners, and a system of twelve-year transactions and buyouts was envisaged. The younger Slavophiles Yu. F. Samarin and Prince. proposed their projects for peasant reform. V. A. Cherkassky. It is interesting to compare the positions of I.V. Kireevsky and Emperor Nicholas I, who back in 1842, when promulgating the law on “compulsory peasants,” said: “There is no doubt that serfdom in our current situation is an evil, tangible and obvious to everyone, but touching it now would be an evil, of course, even more disastrous” (quoted from: Platonov S.F. Textbook of Russian History. M., 1992. P. 335). The state peasants included “black-growing” peasants who inhabited the “sovereign’s” lands, economic peasants who inhabited church landholdings secularized by the state, and single-palaces, former service people who inhabited the southern outskirts of Russia. Since 1837, state peasants came under the jurisdiction of a new ministry - the newly formed Ministry of State Property. A number of measures taken by this ministry contributed to improving the life of peasants, but dependence on government officials aggravated the subjugation of farmers. For the use of the landowner's land, peasants could pay at the discretion of the landowner either with corvee (working on the landowner's land or in his farm; corvee since the time of Emperor Paul I could not exceed three days a week), or quitrent - an annual collection of money and products in favor of the landowner. Probably, this means Katerina (Ekaterina) Fedorovna Muravyova (nee Bar. Kolokoltseva) (1771–1848), godmother of the Kireyevsky children: Vasily, Alexandra and Maria. In 1803, Emperor Alexander I issued a law on free cultivators, which gave landowners the right to free their serfs along with the land under conditions approved by the government. However, this law was not widely used, and by 1825 only approx. 50,000 peasants. The Demidovs, famous owners of mines and metallurgical plants in Siberia and the Urals, also owned significant estates in the southern and central provinces. The Board of Trustees (there were two of them - in St. Petersburg and Moscow), which was part of the IV department of the Own E.I. V. office, was in charge, among other things, of matters related to the acceptance of spiritual wills for storage. Ex officio (lat.) – according to position, according to duty. Perv. publ.: Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin. Book 9. pp. 303–304. Publ. by: Kireevsky I.V. Complete. collection cit.: In 2 vols. M., 1911. T. 2. P. 248–249. Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin (1890–1875) came from serfs, his father managed the Moscow houses of the grr. Saltykov. After graduating from high school, Pogodin entered the Imperial Moscow University. In 1825, having defended his master's thesis “On the Origin of Rus',” in which he proved the Norman origin of the Varangians, he became a follower of the “Norman theory” in Russian. historical science. Teacher, since 1833 prof. Moscow University, ed. magazines “Moskovsky Vestnik” (1827–1830) and “Moskvityanin” (1841–1856 [at the end of 1844 he transferred the editing of the magazine to I.V. Kireevsky, who published No. 1–3 and prepared No. 4 for 1845]). Moscow Slavophiles and people close to their circle gathered in M.P. Pogodin’s own house on Devichye Pole. Emperor Nicholas I (1796–1855) ascended the throne after the death of his brother Emperor Alexander I. His accession was accompanied by a Decembrist uprising; In connection with this event, the reign of Nicholas I had a defensive character; he sought to rely not on the nobility, which caused concern for its sympathies with the Decembrists, but on the bureaucracy. Fearing that the revolutionary and national unrest that had gripped Europe might spread to Russia, Emperor Nicholas I strengthened censorship restrictions. They affected all writers and editors, incl. Slavophiles and employees and authors of the magazine “Moskvityanin”. The position of the Sovereign is clarified by his remark on the interrogation sheet of I. S. Aksakov: “Under the guise of participation in the imaginary oppression of Slovenian tribes in other states, the criminal idea of ​​uniting with these tribes lurks... and this achievement was expected not from God’s Determination, but from outrageous attempts at the death of Russia itself. God alone can determine what will happen in the distant future, but even if a combination of circumstances led to this unity, it would be the death of Russia” (quoted from: Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin. Book 9. P. 279). Emperor Nicholas I considered it his duty to implement the decisions of the Congress of Vienna of 1814–1815. and the realization of the goals of the Holy Alliance, i.e. For Russia, the borders of European states established after the Napoleonic wars were unshakable, and assistance was undeniably obligatory, incl. and military, provided to the allied governments in maintaining legitimate state order and countering revolutionary movements. In con. 1847 Emperor Nicholas I, at a meeting with a deputation of the nobility of the Smolensk province, spoke in favor of the abolition of serfdom. Public discussion of this issue has begun. Inventories - one of the ways to streamline relations between landowners and peasants was the so-called inventories, introduced in the 1840s. in the southwestern provinces. The essence of the inventory was that after the inventory of the landowners' possessions, the size and form of peasant duties were strictly regulated. Thus, on the one hand, the freedom of economic activity of the landowner was limited, on the other hand, the serfdom of the peasants was preserved. Perv. publ.: Russian archive. 1870. Issue. 4–5. Stb. 959–961. Publ. by decree ed. Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky (1783–1852) - poet, translator, founder of Russian. romantic poetry. I. V. Kireevsky was the poet’s great-nephew. In the house of his grandmother V. A. Yushkova, V. A. Zhukovsky spent his adolescence, who maintained warm friendly relations with the Kireevsky-Elagin family throughout his life. In the literary field, V. A. Zhukovsky made translations of German. and English poetry. The poem “The Singer in the Camp of Russian Warriors” brought him literary and public fame. In 1815, V. A. Zhukovsky was invited to the court as a reader for the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, and in 1817 he began teaching Russian. language of the future Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, from 1826 to 1841 he supervised the educational activities of the future Emperor Alexander II. Out of the extraordinary kindness of his soul, V. A. Zhukovsky, using his position at court, constantly helped numerous friends. In 1841, V. A. Zhukovsky married Elizaveta Reitern, the daughter of a German. artist G. V. Reitern, and since then lived in Germany. The main literary work of V. A. Zhukovsky in 1842–1849. was a translation of ancient Greek. epic - Homer's Odyssey. About the tasks that V. A. Zhukovsky set for himself while working on the translation, he wrote with his characteristic complacent irony: “I am very glad that my good Genius... brought me to the old man Homer, who received me, a nameless Hyperborean old man for him, very favorably and with senile childish good nature, handing me the Odyssey, said: “Move it to your north, and let it, which so greedily in my time both old people, and young people, and children listened under the bright sky of Hellas, in the same pure, heart-responsive voice he will speak to the old people, and the young men, and the children of your foggy north. Nikolai Ivanovich Gnedich (1784–1833) – poet and translator, in 1807–1828. worked on the first translation into Russian Ancient Greek language epic - Homer's Iliad. Nikolai Mikhailovich Yazykov (1803–1846/1847), a poet close to the circle of Slavophiles, was related by family ties to the Khomyakovs (A. S. Khomyakov was married to Ekaterina Mikhailovna Yazykova, Yazykov’s sister). I.V. Kireevsky became close to Yazykov in the beginning. 1830s. Their joint work, the comic play “The Babylonian Princess” (1831), and the article by I. V. Kireevsky “On the poems of Mr. Yazykov” (1834) date back to this time. “Chained Prometheus” is a tragedy by the father of ancient drama, Aeschylus (c. 525–456 BC); was completely translated into Russian for the first time. language by I. A. Kossovich (1873). Avdotya (Evdokia) Petrovna Elagina (nee Yushkova, first marriage Kireevskaya) (1789–1877) - mother of I. V. Kireevsky, niece of V. A. Zhukovsky, author of many translations from him. and French, published in magazines published by I.V. Kireevsky (“European” and “Moscowite”), as well as in the series of children’s literature “Library for Education”. From the 1820s until Tue. floor. 1840s the owner of a literary salon, where friends and like-minded people of her children gathered. “Everything that was intelligent, enlightened and talented in Moscow came here on Sundays. Celebrities who came to Moscow, Russian and foreigners, came to the Elagins’ salon. The Slavophile trend prevailed in it, but this did not prevent people of the most diverse views from constantly attending Elagin evenings, until the literary parties were divided into two hostile camps - Slavophiles and Westerners" (Kavelin K.D. Avdotya Petrovna Elagina // Russian Society of the 30s of the 19th century. M., 1989. P. 139). She was always privy to the creative lives of her sons and their friends. After the death of his Tue. husband, A.A. Elagina, Avdotya Petrovna, for the most part, began to live in the village of Utkino-Belevsky district and only came to Moscow for the winter. In 1845–1850 V. A. Zhukovsky translated the New Testament from the Slavs (Church Slavs) into Russian, the translation was published in 1895 in Berlin. Russian Bible Society in 1819–1821. were first published in Russian. translation of all texts of the New Testament. In the theology of the Orthodox Church, Divine Revelation is understood as God’s supernatural communication to man of any religious truths. The possibility of Revelation is considered from three sides: 1) from the side of God, who communicates it: God as an Omniscient Being, to Whom everything is subordinated, created and preserved by Him, Spiritual, i.e. acting directly on the soul, and the Lord of the material world, i.e. acting on the soul and through matter - an Infinite and Eternal Being, i.e. capable of communicating His Revelations in any space and time, the Righteous and the Good, i.e. never refusing help to those in need, Holy and Good, i.e. communicating Revelation for moral purposes; and God, as Truth, communicates Revelation to man to correct his religious errors; 2) on the part of the person who accepts it: a person, as a citizen of two worlds, spiritual and material, is capable of perceiving Revelation in the case when it is given to him by God directly or through any sensory signs. If God wants to communicate any truth to a person for his private moral benefit and for the benefit of many, then He will use such signs by which a person will unmistakably recognize Divine Revelation; 3) from the side of the truths themselves, revealed by God to man: the truths of Revelation can be both comprehensible to the human mind and incomprehensible. It should be noted that the human mind understands the world in two ways: by knowledge, i.e. based on one’s own experience, and by faith, i.e. according to the testimony and authority of other persons. In the latter way, a person can learn the secrets of Revelation on the basis of the testimony of them and the authority of God Himself, Who, as the True God, cannot deceive anyone (see for more details: Macarius (Bulgakov), Archimandrite. Introduction to Orthodox Theology. St. Petersburg, 1847. pp. 61–70). You might be interested in: