The main Slavophiles. The direction of Slavophilism, its emergence and development. Views of Slavophiles - briefly
SLAVICHILISM- a direction in Russian philosophy and social thought, focused on identifying the originality of Russia, its typical differences from the West. Predominant attention in Slavophilism was paid to the philosophy of history. It arose in the late 30s. 19th century as an opponent and ideological antipode Westernism . The manifesto that announced its formation was a handwritten work A.S. Khomyakova “About the Old and the New”, soon supplemented by an essay by I.V. Kireevsky, also handwritten - “In response to A.S. Khomyakov”. Both speeches date back to 1839. They already formulated the initial principles that guided Slavophilism subsequently. A circle was formed that collectively developed the Slavophil doctrine. Khomyakov not only stood at the origins of Slavophilism, he became its recognized leader. In his "Notes on World History" The philosophical and historical views of Slavophilism are presented most fully and thoroughly. The ideologists of Slavophilism also include I.V.Kireevsky , K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, Yu.F. Samarin . A.I. Koshelev, being a wealthy man, financed publications, and the “Notes” left by him allow us to consider him as a historiographer of Slavophilism. Among the Slavophiles there were philologists, historians, and representatives of other professions. P.V.Kireevsky collected thousands of folk songs and epics. The work of studying Russian folk art was continued by A.F. Hilferding. V.I. Dal created a dictionary of the Russian language. I.D. Belyaev’s work “Peasants in Rus'” became the first generalizing study on the history of the Russian peasantry. Slavophile ideas were widely disseminated through the philosophical lyrics of Khomyakov, N.M. Yazykov, F.I. Tyutchev.
Arose back in the beginning. 18th century rejection of imitation of the West and the search for originality formed the general background against which the activities of the Slavophiles were carried out. Slavophiles were also influenced by Romanticism, Schelling and Hegel.
For more than 20 years, Slavophiles waged polemics with Westerners, during which the concept of Slavophilism was developed, arguments were improved, and logical techniques were used. At first, oral polemics prevailed between the two ideological currents. In the first half of the 1840s. general meetings were practiced in Moscow salons (A.P. Elagina, P.Ya. Chaadaev, D.N. Sverbeev, etc.). After mid. 1840s relations worsened, the dispute was entirely focused on the pages of the press.
The term “Slavophilism” itself was introduced into use by Westerners, who borrowed it from the Karamzinists, who so called the platform of A.S. Shishkov and his supporters. Slavophiles preferred other self-names: “Muscovites”, “Moscow direction”, “Moscow party” - in contrast to their opponents, who preferred St. Petersburg. They also considered themselves to be part of the Russian trend, opposing it to the Western. They used the concept “Easterns” in the same sense. However, the term “Slavophilism” turned out to be tenacious, was accepted by contemporaries who witnessed the ongoing confrontation, gradually lost its ironic connotation and eventually began to be used by the Slavophiles themselves.
In the 1840s–50s. Slavophiles published in the magazines “Moskvityanin”, “Russian Conversation”, “Rural Improvement”, newspapers “Molva”, “Parus”; published collections: “Sinbirsky collection” (1844), “Collection of historical and statistical information about Russia and the peoples of the same faith and tribes” (1845), three “Moscow collections” (1846, 1847, 1852). Some works of Slavophiles were not allowed for publication by the censor, and some, due to their content, were not intended for publication, forming handwritten Slavophil literature that circulated along with printed literature.
Slavophiles made attempts to oppose themselves to borrowings from the West in the practice of everyday life. They dressed in a dress that, according to their concepts, corresponded to Russian national traditions; they grew beards, because... They were previously worn by representatives of all classes of Rus', not only lower, but also higher. In this form they appeared on the streets of Moscow, traveled abroad, visited aristocratic houses, violating the prevailing etiquette. Particularly famous was the mansion on Dog Square, acquired by Khomyakov and transformed by him in accordance with Slavophile tastes.
If Westerners focused on what united or should unite Russia with Western Europe, then Slavophiles focused on the differences. According to the Slavophiles, the path of development that has been tested by the West is not suitable for Russia. Its history is peculiar, has little in common with the European one, and although over the past hundred and fifty years the existence of the country has undergone partial deformations due to external influences, it must move forward based on its own traditions and differently from the West.
The ideological basis of Russian identity, according to the Slavophiles, is Orthodoxy, which is closely connected with social life and ensures its development. The Western branches of Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism, which contain the principles of rationalism and individualism, turned out to be unable to direct the peoples of Europe to the path that the Russian people, guided by Orthodoxy, had long followed. However, Orthodoxy, the Slavophiles believed, had not yet managed to reveal all its merits. In Byzantium, this was prevented by the influence of ancient Roman civilization. In Rus', ritual came to the fore, pushing into the background the spiritual content of faith and conscious confession. The Slavophiles were particularly dissatisfied with the official church of their time - its complete subordination to secular power, the non-use of existing religious wealth.
Among the phenomena that influenced Russian history, Slavophiles especially singled out the Russian community. They were convinced that this was the basic element that determined the entire life of Russian society. There is no such social institution in the West. The community is the guarantor of Russia's identity not only in the past and present, but also in the future. Through the efforts of Slavophiles - Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov and others - the Russian community became the property of social science, not only Russian, but also European.
The Slavophiles considered the autocracy to be a political difference between Russia and the West, which, having been around for many centuries, should, in their opinion, be preserved, like everything else that makes up the specificity of Russia. But the autocracy, whose supporters the Slavophiles declared themselves to be, was significantly different from what actually took place. This is not real, but ideal autocracy. Autocracy, according to the Slavophiles, is not an apparatus of coercion, but a moral force capable of uniting society and resisting the centrifugal movements existing in it. They hoped that in the future autocracy could be combined with broad publicity and popular representation.
The Slavophile circle and Slavophilism as a special trend in social thought ceased to exist at the very beginning of the 1860s. with the death in 1856 of I.V. Kireevsky, in 1860 - of Khomyakov and K.S. Aksakov. The most creative forces that gave it a unique identity and made the circle a significant phenomenon in public life left Slavophilism. The objective situation itself has changed. The reform of 1861 outlined the contours of further history. Instead of the previous problems, new ones arose that required different approaches. But the polemics between Slavophiles and Westerners, the focus on originality or Europeanism, continued to be the focus of various directions of Russian philosophical and social consciousness in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Literature:
1. Yankovsky Yu.Z. Patriarchal-noble utopia. M., 1981;
2. Koshelev V.A. Aesthetic and literary views of Russian Slavophiles. 1840–1850s M., 1984;
3. Tsimbaev N.I. Slavophilism. M., 1986;
4. Sukhov A.D. Centenary discussion: Westernism and originality in Russian philosophy. M., 1998.
Around the 40-50s of the 19th century, two trends emerged in Russian society - Slavophilism and Westernism. Slavophiles promoted the idea of a “special path for Russia,” and their opponents, Westerners, were inclined to follow in the footsteps of Western civilization, especially in the spheres of social order, culture and civil life.
Where did these terms come from?
“Slavophiles” is a term introduced by the famous poet Konstantin Batyushkov. In turn, the word “Westernism” first appeared in Russian culture in the 40s of the nineteenth century. In particular, you can meet him in “Memoirs” by Ivan Panaev. This term began to be used especially often after 1840, when Aksakov broke up with Belinsky.
History of the emergence of Slavophilism
The views of the Slavophiles, of course, did not appear spontaneously, “out of nowhere.” This was preceded by a whole era of research, the writing of numerous scientific papers and works, and a painstaking study of the history and culture of Russia.
It is believed that Archimandrite Gabriel, also known as Vasily Voskresensky, stood at the very origins of this. In 1840, he published “Russian Philosophy” in Kazan, which became, in its own way, a barometer of the emerging Slavophilism.
Nevertheless, the philosophy of the Slavophiles began to take shape somewhat later, in the course of ideological disputes that arose from the discussion of Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter”. Adherents of this direction came out with a justification for the individual, original path of historical development of Russia and the Russian people, which was radically different from the Western European path. According to Slavophiles, the originality of Russia lies primarily in the absence of class struggle in its history, in the Russian land community and artels, as well as in Orthodoxy as the only true Christianity.
Development of the Slavophile movement. Key Ideas
In the 1840s The views of Slavophiles especially spread in Moscow. The best minds of the state gathered in the Elagins, Pavlovs, Sverbeevs - it was here that they communicated with each other and had lively discussions with Westerners.
It should be noted that the works and works of Slavophiles were subjected to harassment by censorship, some activists were in the sight of the police, and some were even arrested. It is because of this that for quite a long time they did not have a permanent printed publication and posted their notes and articles mainly on the pages of the Moskvityanin magazine. After the partial easing of censorship in the 50s, Slavophiles began to publish their own magazines (Rural Improvement, Russian Conversation) and newspapers (Parus, Molva).
Russia should not assimilate and adopt the forms of Western European political life - all Slavophiles, without exception, were firmly convinced of this. This, however, did not prevent them from considering it necessary to actively develop industry and trade, banking and joint stock businesses, the introduction of modern machines in agriculture and the construction of railways. In addition, the Slavophiles welcomed the idea of abolishing serfdom “from above” with the mandatory provision of land plots to peasant communities.
Much attention was paid to religion, with which the ideas of the Slavophiles were quite closely connected. In their opinion, the true faith that came to Rus' from the Eastern Church determines the special, unique historical mission of the Russian people. It was Orthodoxy and the traditions of social life that allowed the deepest foundations of the Russian soul to form.
In general, the Slavophiles perceived the people within the framework of conservative romanticism. Characteristic of them was the idealization of the principles of traditionalism and patriarchy. At the same time, the Slavophiles sought to bring the intelligentsia closer to the common people, studying their everyday life and way of life, language and culture.
Representatives of Slavophilism
In the 19th century, many writers, scientists and Slavophile poets worked in Russia. Representatives of this direction who deserve special attention are Khomyakov, Aksakov, Samarin. Prominent Slavophiles were Chizhov, Koshelev, Belyaev, Valuev, Lamansky, Hilferding and Cherkassky.
The writers Ostrovsky, Tyutchev, Dal, Yazykov and Grigoriev were quite close to this direction in worldview.
Respected linguists and historians - Bodyansky, Grigorovich, Buslaev - treated the ideas of Slavophilism with respect and interest.
The history of the emergence of Westernism
Slavophilism and Westernism arose approximately in the same period, and therefore, these philosophical movements need to be considered in a complex manner. Westernism as the antipode of Slavophilism is a direction of Russian anti-feudal social thought, which also arose in the 40s of the 19th century.
The initial organizational base for representatives of this movement was the Moscow literary salons. The ideological debates that took place in them are vividly and realistically depicted in Herzen’s Past and Thoughts.
Development of the Westernization trend. Key Ideas
The philosophy of Slavophiles and Westerners differed radically. In particular, the general features of the ideology of Westerners include a categorical rejection of the feudal-serf system in politics, economics and culture. They advocated carrying out socio-economic reforms along Western lines.
Representatives of Westernism believed that there was always the possibility of establishing a bourgeois-democratic system peacefully, through the methods of propaganda and education. They extremely highly valued the reforms carried out by Peter I, and considered it their duty to transform and shape public opinion in such a way that the monarchy was forced to carry out bourgeois reforms.
Westerners believed that Russia should overcome economic and social backwardness not through the development of an original culture, but through the experience of Europe, which had long gone forward. At the same time, they focused not on the differences between the West and Russia, but on the common features that were present in their cultural and historical destinies.
In the early stages, the philosophical research of Westerners was particularly influenced by the works of Schiller, Schilling and Hegel.
The split of the Westerners in the mid-40s. 19th century
In the mid-forties of the 19th century, a fundamental split occurred among Westerners. This happened after the dispute between Granovsky and Herzen. As a result, two directions of Westernization emerged: liberal and revolutionary-democratic.
The reason for the disagreement lay in the attitude towards religion. If liberals defended the dogma of the immortality of the soul, then democrats, in turn, relied on the positions of materialism and atheism.
Their ideas about the methods of carrying out reforms in Russia and the post-reform development of the state also differed. Thus, the democrats propagated the ideas of revolutionary struggle with the aim of further building socialism.
The works of Comte, Feuerbach and Saint-Simon had the greatest influence on the views of Westerners during this period.
In post-reform times, under the conditions of general capitalist development, Westernism ceased to exist as a special direction of social thought.
Representatives of Westernism
The original Moscow circle of Westerners included Granovsky, Herzen, Korsh, Ketcher, Botkin, Ogarev, Kavelin, etc. Belinsky, who lived in St. Petersburg, communicated closely with the circle. The talented writer Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev also considered himself a Westerner.
After what happened in the mid-40s. After the split, Annenkov, Korsh, Kavelin, Granovsky and some other figures remained on the side of the liberals, while Herzen, Belinsky and Ogarev went over to the side of the democrats.
Communication between Slavophiles and Westerners
It is worth remembering that these philosophical trends arose at the same time, their founders were representatives of the same generation. Moreover, both Westerners and Slavophiles came from among them and moved in the same circles.
Fans of both theories constantly communicated with each other. Moreover, it was not always limited to criticism: finding themselves at the same meeting, in the same circle, they quite often found in the course of the reflections of their ideological opponents something close to their own point of view.
In general, most disputes were distinguished by the highest cultural level - the opponents treated each other with respect, listened carefully to the opposite side and tried to present convincing arguments in favor of their position.
Similarities between Slavophiles and Westerners
Not counting the Westernizing democrats who emerged later, both the former and the latter recognized the need to carry out reforms in Russia and solve existing problems peacefully, without revolutions and bloodshed. Slavophiles interpreted this in their own way, adhering to more conservative views, but also recognized the need for change.
It is believed that the attitude towards religion was one of the most controversial issues in ideological disputes between supporters of different theories. However, in fairness, it is worth noting that the human factor played a significant role in this. Thus, the views of the Slavophiles were largely based on the idea of the spirituality of the Russian people, their closeness to Orthodoxy and their tendency to strictly observe all religious customs. At the same time, the Slavophiles themselves, most of them coming from secular families, did not always follow church rituals. Westerners did not at all encourage excessive piety in a person, although some representatives of the movement (a striking example is P. Ya. Chaadaev) sincerely believed that spirituality and, in particular, Orthodoxy was an integral part of Russia. Among the representatives of both directions there were both believers and atheists.
There were also those who did not belong to any of these movements, occupying the third side. For example, V.S. Solovyov noted in his writings that a satisfactory solution to the main universal human issues has not yet been found either in the East or in the West. And this means that all, without exception, the active forces of humanity must work on them together, listening to each other and with common efforts approaching prosperity and greatness. Solovyov believed that both “pure” Westerners and “pure” Slavophiles are limited people and incapable of objective judgments.
Let's sum it up
Westerners and Slavophiles, whose main ideas we examined in this article, were essentially utopians. Westerners idealized the foreign path of development, European technologies, often forgetting about the peculiarities and eternal differences in the psychology of Western and Russian people. The Slavophiles, in turn, extolled the image of the Russian person and tended to idealize the state, the image of the monarch and Orthodoxy. Both of them did not notice the threat of the revolution and until the very end hoped to solve problems through reforms, in a peaceful way. It is impossible to single out a winner in this endless ideological war, because debates about the correctness of the chosen path for Russia’s development do not stop to this day.
One of the directions of Russian social thought is Slavophilism, which appeared in the 30s of the 19th century. Supporters of this philosophical movement believed that Russia has its own, original path of development. The Slavic world, according to the views of the Slavophiles, must renew the Western world with its moral, economic, religious and other principles. This was the special mission of the Russian people - to lay the foundations for a new enlightenment in Europe, based on Orthodox principles. Slavophiles believed that it was Orthodoxy that had a creative impulse and was devoid of the rationalism and dominance of material values over spiritual values inherent in Western culture.
The founders of Slavophil philosophy are Ivan Kireevsky, Alexey Khomyakov, Yuri Samarin and Konstantin Aksakov. It was in the works of these authors that Slavophilism received its ideological form, according to which Russia has a unique, special path of development. The difference between Russia and other countries is due to its historical development, vastness of territory, population size and the characteristics of the character of the Russian person - the “Russian soul”.
The philosophy of the Slavophiles can be briefly described by three foundations of the historical path - Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. Despite the fact that the official government in the country adhered to the same principles, the philosophy of the Slavophiles was noticeably different from the state ideology. Slavophiles strove for true, pure, undistorted Orthodoxy, while the state used faith only as an external attribute, devoid of true spirituality. The Slavophiles also denied the subordination of the church to the state.
Imperial, Peter's Russia was perceived with hostility by supporters of this trend. In fact, Slavophilism became a kind of reaction to the introduction of Western values into Russian culture. They promoted a return to communal traditions, considering them the original way of life of the Russian peasantry. They denied private property, not considering it something sacred and unshakable. The owner was considered solely in the role of manager.
At the initial stage of the formation of the ideology of Slavophilism, they did not have their own printed publication. Slavophiles published their articles in various collections and newspapers, for example “Moskovityanin”, “Sinbirsky Collection” and others. By the second half of the 19th century, they also had their own press organs, which were subject to strict censorship - the authorities were suspicious of the Slavophil movement because of their rejection of Peter’s Russia. These were the magazines “Russian Conversation” and “Rural Improvement”, as well as the newspapers “Moskva”, “Moskvich”, “Parus”, “Rus”, “Den” and “Molva”.
It is worth paying attention to the fact that despite their conservatism, the Slavophiles had elements of democracy - they recognized and ardently defended the supremacy of the people, freedom of personality, conscience, speech and thought.
The ideological opponents of the Slavophil movement were Westerners who advocated the development of Russia along the Western path, catching up with European countries. But the Slavophiles did not completely deny European values - they recognized the achievements of Europe in the field of science, education and promoted not separation from the West, but Russia’s occupation of its unique place in world civilization.
Slavophiles- representatives of one of the directions of Russian social and philosophical thought of the 40-50s. XIX century, who came up with a justification for the original path of historical development of Russia, fundamentally different from the path of Western Europe. The uniqueness of Russia, in their opinion, lies in the absence of internal antagonisms in its history, in the Russian land community and artels, in Orthodoxy as the only possible path of Christianity.
The views of the Slavophiles took shape in ideological disputes that intensified after the publication of P.Ya. Chaadaev's "Philosophical Letters", especially the first (anonymous) letter in issue No. 15 of the Telescope magazine in September 1836. The main role in developing the views of the Slavophiles was played by writers, poets and scientists - A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin. Prominent Slavophiles were P.V. Kireevsky, A.I. Koshelev, I.S. Aksakov, D.A. Valuev, F.V. Chizhov, I.D. Belyaev, A.F. Hilferding. Writers V.I. were close in position. Dahl, ST. Aksakov, A.N. Ostrovsky, F.I. Tyutchev, N.M. Languages.
The center of the Slavophiles in the 40s. XIX century there was Moscow, literary salons of A.P. Elagina (mother of the Kireevsky brothers), D.P. and E.A. Sverbeev, P.F. and K.K. Pavlov. Here the Slavophiles communicated and conducted their ideological disputes with Westerners about the path of transformation in Russia.
The ideological and philosophical views of the Slavophiles were largely determined by the negative attitude of Moscow intellectuals to the political realities of the reign of Russian Emperor Nicholas I: the police nature of the state, the permissiveness of secret investigation agencies, censorship. They tried to find social harmony.
Slavophiles ideologically justified:
- - the need to return to the roots of the patriarchal way of Russian life, which was interrupted by the reforms of Emperor Peter I;
- - the position according to which Russia is not just unlike the West, it is an antipode to the West, it has a special way of being and a different type of civilization;
- - the expediency of spiritual reliance on Orthodoxy as the true path of development, conciliarity, voluntary recognition of power by society and harmony with it;
- - a special worldview based on national identity, humanism, and not violence, as in the West.
Although the Slavophiles carefully developed their idea of a special, Russian type of civilization, much of their position was of an emotional rather than theoretical nature (“You can’t understand Russia with your mind!”).
Aesthetic views of the Slavophiles . Artistic creativity reflected the characteristic aspects of Russian reality, corresponding to the theoretical guidelines of the Slavophiles: peasant communalism, patriarchal orderliness of life, proud humility and Orthodoxy of the Russian people.
During the years of the revolutionary situation (1859-1861), there was a significant convergence of the views of Slavophiles and Westerners on the basis of the liberal idea.
Khomyakov Alexey Stepanovich(1804-1860), philosopher, writer, poet, publicist. Born in Moscow into an old noble family. IN 1822 passed the exam at Moscow University for the degree of candidate of mathematical sciences, then entered military service. He was familiar with the participants in the Decembrist movement, but did not share their views. In 1829 G. resigned and took up literary and social activities. A. Khomyakov made a decisive contribution to the development of Slavophil teaching, its theological and philosophical foundations. Among the ideological sources of Slavophilism, he primarily singled out Orthodoxy, within the framework of which the doctrine of the religious-messianic role of the Russian people was formulated. He was also significantly influenced by the German philosophy of F. Schelling and G. Hegel. Formally not affiliated with any of the philosophical schools. Khomyakov did not recognize materialism, characterizing it as a “decline of the philosophical spirit,” but he did not fully accept certain forms of idealism. The starting point in his philosophical analysis was the proposition that “the world appears to the mind as matter in space and as force in time.” However, substance or matter “before thought loses its independence.” The basis of existence is not matter, but force, which is understood by the mind as “the beginning of the variability of world phenomena.” He especially emphasized that its beginning “cannot be sought in the subject.” The individual or “particular principle” cannot “result into the infinite” and the universal; on the contrary, it must receive its source from the universal. Hence the conclusion that “the force or reason for the existence of every phenomenon lies in everything.” “Everything,” from the point of view of A. Khomyakov, contains a number of characteristics that fundamentally distinguish it from the world of phenomena. First, freedom is inherent in “everything”; secondly, rationality (free thought); thirdly, will (“screaming reason”). Only God can collectively possess such traits. In his Notes on World History, he divides all religions into two main groups: Kushite and Iranian. The first is built on the principles of necessity, dooming people to thoughtless submission, turning them into simple executors of someone else's will, while the second is a religion of freedom, turning to the inner world of a person, requiring him to consciously choose between good and evil. Christianity expressed its essence most fully. True Christianity makes the believer free, since he “does not know any external authority over himself.” But, having accepted “grace,” the believer cannot follow arbitrariness; he finds justification for his freedom in “unanimity with the Church.” Rejecting coercion as a path to unity. Khomyakov believes that the only means capable of uniting the Church can be love, understood not only as an ethical category, but also as an essential force that ensures “for people the knowledge of the unconditional Truth.” In his opinion, the most adequate expression of unity based on freedom and love can only be conciliarity, which plays, as it were, the role of a mediator between the divine and earthly worlds. Khomyakov's socio-political views were of an oppositional nature towards the Nicholas regime; he was a supporter of the abolition of serfdom, the death penalty, opposed the omnipotence of spiritual censorship, for religious tolerance, and for the introduction of freedom of speech. Poetic tragedies "Ermak", "Dmitry Impostor".
A.C. Khomyakov died 23.09 (5.10) 1В60 in the village of Ivanovskoye, now Dankovsky district of the Lipetsk region.
Kireevsky Ivan Vasilievich(1806-1856), philosopher and literary critic, one of the leading theorists of Slavophilism. Born in Moscow into a highly educated noble family. His mother Avdotya Petrovna, V.A.’s niece, had a great influence on him. Zhukovsky, published after the death of his father in 1817 marry A.A. Elagin, one of the first experts in the philosophy of I. Kant and F. Schelling in Russia. In the literary salon of A.P. Almost the entire intellectual elite of Moscow gathered at Elagina. Ivan Kireevsky was in Germany in 1830, where he listened to G. Hegel’s lectures on philosophy, philosophy of law and personally met the thinker who recommended that he study philosophical sciences. In Berlin, I. Kireevsky listened to lectures by Schleiermacher, in Munich - by Schelling. Returning to Russia, he attempted to publish the magazine "European", but the publication was banned. Later he became close to the elders from Optina Pustyn, with whom he was connected by literary activities. He is trying to get the chair of philosophy at Moscow University, but was unsuccessful, as he was considered politically unreliable. In 1852, Slavophiles published their own magazine, “Moscow Collection,” in which I. Kireyevsky published. His article "On the Necessity And opportunities for new started for philosophy", published in 1856 in the magazine "Russian Conversation", turned out to be posthumous. The last years of his life he worked on a course in philosophy and hoped that this work would show the world "its face in philosophy."
I.V. Kireyevsky died 1 June 1(23) 1856 from cholera in St. Petersburg. He was buried in Optina Pustyn.
Aksakov Konstantin Sergeevich(1817-1860), philosopher, publicist, poet, historian, ideologist of Slavophilism. Born in Novo-Aksakovo, Buguruslan district, Orenburg province, in the family of a writer, corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences of St. Aksakova. His brother I.S. Aksakov (1823-1886) - philosopher and publicist. In 1832-1835. studied at Moscow University in the literature department. During his student years he was a member of N.V.’s circle. Stankevich, where he was influenced by German philosophy, primarily G. Hegel. This influence was noticeable in his master's thesis "Lomonosov in the history of Russian literature and the Russian language" (1846). At the end of the 1830s. Aksakov becomes close to A.S. Khomyakov and I.V. Kireevsky and soon himself became a theoretician of Slavophilism. Aksakov's main contribution to the Slavophile movement is socio-political theory, including a unique interpretation of Russian history and a system of aesthetic views. He formulated his views on history at the end of 1840 - beginning 1850s: "Voice from Moscow", "Was an outcast a tribal or social phenomenon?", "About the ancient life of the Slavs in general and the Russians in particular." The life of the Slavic tribes, in his opinion, was determined by the traditions of the peasant community and folk life. The territories where they farmed were subject to constant raids, which forced them to create a state. For this, the Varangians were invited, who brought the ideas of statehood to Russian soil. This allowed the indigenous population not to confuse the concepts of state and land for themselves, but to agree only to the creation of their voluntary union. Aksakov’s concept of land was identical to the concept of the people; to it he attributed the lower class, whose consciousness was imbued with the ideas of faith and community life. The state carried within itself the beginning of power, which sought only to implement “external truth,” which was realized in the political and legal organization of Western-type societies. Aksakov considered the state, by its principle, regardless of the form of government, to be a manifestation of violence. It is Aksakov who characterizes the Russian people as non-state. The concept of "land" he formulated and states" and fal a significant role in the Slavophile criticism of the West and Western influence, served as a justification for the special historical path of the Russian people, who prefer “internal truth” (the Christian-moral structure of life, embodied historically in the peasant community) to “external truth” (the political and legal organization of Western society type). Aksakov considered the community not only in the form of an existing rural community, but put a broader interpretation into this concept. He saw a manifestation of the communal principle in Novgorod, where people decided the most pressing issues for themselves at a meeting or when residents of one street gathered at a gathering to discuss the problems of their lives. Aksakov was an active supporter of the abolition of serfdom and sought to derive the need for reform from the general principles of his social theory. In 1855, he addressed the Russian Emperor Alexander II with a note “On the internal state of Russia,” where he outlined a certain social ideal, the achievement of which, from his point of view, would make it possible to avoid the revolutions that were shaking Europe at that time. Aksakov’s aesthetic views were formed primarily in line with the ideas of philosophical romanticism, primarily Schelling’s philosophy of art. Subsequently, he made a lot of efforts for a philosophical understanding of the development of Russian literature and art. Rejecting equally the concept of “pure art” (art for art’s sake) and “naturalism” in literature (natural school), Aksakov recognized “nationality” as the main criterion for assessing artistic creativity. He wrote sharply negatively about any manifestation of upper-class aristocracy in society (work: “The public is the people. The experience of synonyms”).
Konstantin Sergeevich died on December 7 (19), 1860 G. on the island of Zante (Zakynthos) in Greece, where he was buried.
Slavophilism– the flow of social thought in Russia in the 1840s -1860s. This name was applied in the 40s. to that circle of figures represented by I. V. Kireevsky (1808-1856), A. S. Khomyakov (1804-1860), K. S. Aksakov (1817-1860), Yu. F. Samarin (1819-1876 ) and others, was considered the founder of the S. school, fought orally and in print with ideological antagonists - the so-called. Westerners.
Sources of Slavophilism
The most important sources of Slavophilism in literature are usually called two: European philosophy (Schelling, Hegel) and Orthodox theology. Moreover, there has never been any unanimity among researchers on the question of which of the two mentioned sources played a decisive role in the formation of Slavophil teaching.
The influence of the philosophy of Schelling, Hegel, and the sentiments of European romanticism on the Slavophiles was studied in the works of A.N. Pypina, V.S. Solovyova, A.N. Veselovsky, S.A. Vengerova, V. Guerrier, M.M. Kovalevsky, P.N. Milyukova. A.L. Blok is a Russian publicist and philosopher of Western orientation, the father of the famous poet A.A. Blok, even expressed the opinion that Slavophilism in essence is only some peculiar reflection of Western European teachings, mainly the philosophy of Schelling and Hegel.
I.S. Aksakov, N.A. Berdyaev, G.V. Florovsky, V.V. Zenkovsky, defended the idea of the original originality of Slavophilism, deducing it from Russian Orthodoxy.
Archimandrite Augustine (Nikitin) in the article “Russians, Slavophiles and German Lutheranism” states: “It is a unique development of the patristic and Russian ascetic tradition.”
According to I.V. Kireevsky, the Slavophiles tried to create a philosophy, the basis of which would contain “the very root of ancient Russian education,” and its development would consist in comprehending all Western education and subordinating its conclusions to the “dominant spirit of Orthodox Christian wisdom.”
The ground for the emergence of the Slavophile movement was prepared by the Patriotic War of 1812, which sharpened patriotic feelings. The Russian people faced the question of national self-determination and national vocation. There was a need to define the spirit of Russia and its national identity, and Slavophilism represented the answer to these requests.
Slavophilism consisted of the following components:
1) nationalist protest against borrowings from the West - a protest that has not stopped since these borrowings began,
2) the philosophical and historical theory of national identity, formulated by the early 40s. with the help of Eastern mystics and the German philosophical systems of Schelling and Hegel, and
3) pan-Slavist sympathies, suggested by the just mentioned theory and fueled during the century by the facts of the national revival of the West. and south Slavs and their struggle for political and national independence. In Slavophilism, the last element plays the least significant role. The very name Slavophilism has nothing to do with sympathy for modern Slavs and was inherited from Shishkov with his propaganda of the “Slavic-Russian style.” The Aksakovs served as intermediaries in this transfer.
What is most characteristic of Slavophilism in the proper sense is the combination of the first and second elements, i.e., nationalist sentiment with Schellingian phil.-historical. theory and Eastern mysticism. The period when such a union took place in a unique religious-philosophical nationalist system can be considered the time of the flourishing of Slavophilism. The previous time, when the development of this system was just being completed, constitutes a preparatory period in the history of Slavophilism, and the subsequent one is the time of its disintegration and more or less unsuccessful efforts to substantiate practical conclusions from the Slavophil theory on a new theoretical foundation.
Basic ideas of the Slavophiles
Slavophiles were united by the idea of the deep difference between Russia and the countries of Western Europe, of the special path of its development. They saw the main features of Russia in the peasant community and the Orthodox faith. Critical of the modern church structure, the Slavophiles believed that Orthodoxy brought to Russia the spirit of fraternal communication and human warmth that distinguished the first Christians. Thanks to Orthodoxy and community, members of the circle argued, there is no internal struggle in Russia, all classes and estates live peacefully with each other. Peter's transformations were assessed critically by them. The Slavophiles believed that they diverted Russia from the natural path of development, although they did not change its internal structure and did not destroy the possibility of returning to the previous path, which corresponds to the spiritual make-up of all Slavic peoples. In the end, they agreed on the formula “power for the king, opinion for the people.” Based on this, members of the circle advocated the convening of a Zemsky Sobor and the abolition of serfdom, but against a constitution on the Western model.
Slavophiles - mainly thinkers and publicists (A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, I.S. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin) - idealized pre-Petrine Rus', insisted on its originality, which they saw in the peasant community, alien to social hostility, and in Orthodoxy. These features, in their opinion, should have ensured a peaceful path of social transformation in the country. Russia was supposed to return to the Zemsky Sobors, but without serfdom.
Slavophiles, in their interpretation of Russian history, proceeded from Orthodoxy as the beginning of all Russian national life, emphasized the original nature of the development of Russia, while Westerners were based on the ideas of the European Enlightenment with its cult of reason and progress and believed that the same historical paths that it had followed were inevitable for Russia. Western Europe. It should be borne in mind that neither Slavophilism nor Westernism represented any single school or single philosophical direction: their supporters adhered to a variety of philosophical orientations.
The merit of the Slavophiles is that they no longer wanted to play the humiliating role that Peter imposed on Russia. They worked a lot and fruitfully to understand the ideological foundations of the state and cultural creativity of the Russian people before Peter. Slavophiles realized that the principles on which European culture is based are far from ideal, that Peter I was mistaken when he imagined that imitation of Europe was a guarantee of healthy state and cultural construction. Slavophiles said: “Russians are not Europeans, they are bearers of a great original Orthodox culture, no less great than the European one, but due to unfavorable conditions of historical development, they have not yet reached the same stage of development as European culture has reached.”
The philosophical and historical concept of the Slavophiles is imbued with faith in the special historical mission of Russia, which is called upon to unite the opposite principles of life, showing the world an example of high spirituality and freedom. In their value system, Europe most likely needed to catch up with Russia.
The meaning of Slavophilism
Slavophilism was a powerful social and intellectual movement that acted as a unique reaction to the introduction of Western values in Russia, which began in the era of Peter I. Slavophiles sought to show that Western values cannot fully take root on Russian soil and, at a minimum, need some adaptation. By calling on people to turn to their historical foundations, traditions and ideals, the Slavophiles contributed to the awakening of national consciousness. They did a lot to collect and preserve monuments of Russian culture and language (Collection of folk songs by P. V. Kireevsky, Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by V. I. Dahl). Slavophil historians (Belyaev, Samarin, etc.) laid the foundation for the scientific study of the Russian peasantry, including its spiritual foundations. Slavophiles made a huge contribution to the development of pan-Slavic ties and Slavic unity. It was they who played the main role in the creation and activities of Slavic committees in Russia in 1858-1878.
At the same time, in the words of the Russian philosopher of the second half of the 19th century, V.S. Solovyov, opponents of “Westernism” “excluded themselves from the obligation of joint cultural work with other peoples” with “an arbitrary statement about the “rotting of the West” and meaningless prophecies about the exceptionally great destinies of Russia.” When these idealized ideas and prophecies of the original Slavophilism evaporated without a trace, they were replaced by “ideological and base nationalism.”
Slavophiles were often reproached and are reproached for idealizing the history of Russia and wanting to restore the old. These reproaches are completely unfair. They understood perfectly well that there is no return to the past, history cannot go back, that, for example, the changes that occurred as a result of Peter’s reforms are irreversible. They preached not a return to the past, but the restoration of the viable principles of Russian society in changed conditions.
The influence of the Slavophiles on Russian thought was unusually strong. In the new historical conditions in post-reform Russia, pochvenism became a direct continuation of Slavophilism. Their ideas also had a great influence on the philosophy of unity.
The teachings of the Slavophiles, like the Slavophiles themselves, have nothing in common with the teachings of their ideological opponents - Westerners - "people of a disturbed spirit." The teaching of the Slavophiles comes from the main spiritual tradition of Orthodoxy - the fight against mental “immensity”. Slavophiles not only verbally fought against the spiritual duality of the Russian educated person since the time of the Petrine Revolution, but by personal example they proved that Orthodoxy is capable of returning the soul of an educated person to its former integrity.