In “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature,” N.G. Chernyshevsky, characterizing the mid-40s of the 19th century, wrote that here “we meet the strictly scientific view of the new historical school, the main representatives of which were Messrs. Soloviev and Kavelin: here for the first time the meaning of events and the development of our state life are explained to us."1

In 1844, I.D. Kavelin defended his dissertation “The basic principles of the Russian judicial system and civil proceedings in the period from the Code to the Establishment in the provinces.” In 1846, S.M. Solovyov formulated the main provisions of his concept of the history of Russia in his doctoral dissertation “The History of Relations between the Princes of Rurik’s House,” and in 1851 the first volume of his “History of Russia from Ancient Times” was published. In 1853, he completed work on his dissertation “Regional Institutions in Russia in the 16th Century” by B.N. Chicherin. It is with these names that a new direction in our historical science is associated, behind which the name “state school” was established (at the same time, many scientists do not directly attribute S.M. Solovyov to this school.

Despite all the peculiarities of each of them’s perception and understanding of the historical process, they were united by a system of views on national history. They showed interest in Hegel's philosophy of history, his dialectical method, and were attracted to varying degrees by the ideas of positivism. In the works of scientists, the need for a theoretical understanding of the past was justified, and they made an attempt to combine historical theory with concrete historical material, formulated a concept of the historical development of Russian statehood, its institutions and legal norms. They considered the state as the subject and engine of historical progress. They were unanimous in affirming the ability of the Russian people to develop and their belonging “to the family of European peoples.”

Kavelin, Chicherin, Soloviev were critical of the Nikolaev regime, recognized the need for reforms and were unanimous in the methods of their implementation.

The individuality of each scientist was manifested both in the perception and transformation of the theoretical ideas of the era, the use of certain research methods, and in the development of specific historical problems, attitude towards individual events and phenomena.

Kavelin tried to present the history of Russia as a “living whole”, imbued with the same spirit, the same principles. Solovyov's merit is in using the richest factual material and creating a complete, organic concept of Russian history. Chicherin devoted his scientific work to the study of legal norms and legal institutions.

Konstantin Dmitrievich Kavelina(1818-1885), graduate of the Faculty of Law of Moscow University. In 1844, after defending his master's thesis, he was retained as an adjunct at the department of history of Russian legislation. In 1848, Kavelin left the university due to a conflict with the professor of Russian law N.I. Krylov. For almost ten years, Kavelin served in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and returned to teaching as a professor of civil law at St. Petersburg University only in 1857. But a few years later he was forced to resign along with other professors due to student unrest.

Like many of his contemporaries, Kavelin was interested in the philosophy of Hegel, and in the last decades of his life he gave preference to positivist knowledge. Kavelin defined himself as a supporter of the Europeanization of Russia, defended the need for its reform, and became one of the leaders of Russian liberalism.

Kavelin repeatedly turned to the historical knowledge of previous eras. He identified several stages in the development of this knowledge, determined by the form of “national self-awareness.” Initially, history attracted attention as a “curious tale about antiquity,” then history became a “teaching” and “reference”, turned into an “archive of old political and state affairs.” Finally, the time came for “deep thoughts.” But, Kavelin came to the conclusion, before Until now, “our national self-consciousness has not yet been established.” A look at Russian history, assessments of historical events turn out to be “childish babble of immature and unsteady thoughts.” Time dictates the need to understand “the meaning and significance of our historical existence,” to make historical science “the source and mirror of the people.” self-awareness."

Theory of Russian history. Kavelin saw the main task of history as developing a “theory of Russian history.” Kavelin presented its main provisions in the works “A Look at the Legal Life of Ancient Russia”, “A Critical Look at Russian History”, “Thoughts and Notes on Russian History”. His theory of Russian history was based on the integrity and unity of the laws of the historical process, gradual change due to internal reasons, i.e. self-development of an organism imbued with “the same spirit”, the same principles. The phenomena of history were understood as various expressions of these principles, “necessarily interconnected, necessarily flowing from one another.”

The content of the historical life of peoples, according to Kavelin, consists of two main elements - the forms of the social organism and personality. They change gradually under the influence of internal, external and random circumstances. Consequently, Kavelin concluded, the key to understanding Russian history “is in ourselves, in our inner life,” in the initial forms of education. The purpose of historical science is to study the development of forms of social formations and explain to a person his position in society.

The history of Russia, he wrote, shows from the half of the 9th to the 18th centuries the gradual decline of family relations and the development of state, as well as the development of the individual. He attached particular importance to the formation of state relations as the basis of the entire life of the Russian people. Kavelin formulated the main provisions of his understanding of the development of statehood in the article “A Look at the Legal Life of Ancient Rus'” (l847). The initial way of life was determined by blood, relatedness to the Slavs. An increase in the number of families, increasing their independence, and focusing on their own interests weakened clan relations, the power of the elder in the clan, and led to civil strife. The Varangians, who were called to stop the strife, did not disrupt the overall course of Russian history. Their attempts, which lasted about two centuries, to introduce civil principles were unsuccessful. Yaroslav, “a purely Russian prince,” as Kavelin calls him, was the first to plan to establish the state life of Rus' and establish political unity on the basis of the clan. However, civil strife between the princes leads to its disintegration into several independent territories. The period of appanages begins.

The Principality of Moscow was considered by Kavelin as important step forward in the development of internal life. The Moscow princes abandoned the blood union in the name of the idea of ​​the state. The concept of the state appeared, a new political system, legislation, legal proceedings began to take shape, and the concept of public service appeared.

Representing the evolution of patrimonial relations into state ones, Kavelin paid primary attention to the internal processes of the gradual, natural disintegration of tribal relations, the appearance of the individual “on the stage of action,” and the desire for unification. The Tatar-Mongols brought to the fore in their relations with the Russian princes the personal qualities of the latter, and thereby contributed to the destruction of clan relations and the restoration of political unity and the manifestation of personality. The “gifted, intelligent, intelligent princes of Moscow” took advantage of this. They strengthened the Russian state by destroying the power of regional rulers. This was facilitated, he believed, by the introduction of the oprichnina by Ivan 1U, the creation of the service nobility, and the publication of the Code of Laws. In place of the blood principle, the tsar replaced the principle of “personal dignity” in public administration. Thus, the second main element of social life – personality – emerged.

The main thing, according to Kavelin, is that the idea of ​​the state has already deeply penetrated life. In the Time of Troubles, Russia stood up for its defense of the state in the name of Faith and Moscow. The new dynasty completed the process of state formation. Thus, the Moscow state, according to Kavelin, prepared the ground for a new life. It began with the reign of Ivan IV and ended with Peter the Great. Both, Kavelin believed, were aware of the idea of ​​the state and were “its noblest representatives.” Naturally, time and conditions left their mark on their activities.

This is the theory of Russian history proposed by Kavelin. Its essence consisted in the replacement of clan relations with patrimonial relations and the latter with state ones. The transition process is a reflection and implementation of the idea of ​​the state, which was originally inherent in Russians.

Political system of Russia. The fact of the formation of the state for Kavelin is the most important point Russian history. This is the result, on the one hand, of the natural, logical course of development of society, on the other, the embodiment of the basic idea of ​​the historical life of the Russian people, the manifestation of their spiritual strength. He repeatedly emphasized that only the Great Russian element, the only one among the Slavic tribes, was able to found a strong state.

The internal structure of Russian society, which developed by the 17th century. and right up to Peter I was determined, Kavelin believed, by the initial relationships that developed in the Great Russian tribe - a house, a courtyard, consisting of the head of the family and members of the household. The princely court that then appeared repeated the previous structure of relations: the prince is the head of the family, whose members and squad are his servants. The same is true of the basis of the political power of the Moscow state. Only the limits are greater and the development is higher. The king is the unconditional master and hereditary owner of the lands. The mass of the people are his slaves and orphans. He is the protector of the people. This is his duty and responsibility. In turn, each member of society is also obliged to serve in favor of the state. From the 17th century, universal serfdom was established, where everyone had to pay a certain duty “until death and hereditarily.” Not only peasants, but gradually all groups of the population became enslaved. Nobles, merchants, artisans, etc. were assigned to the land, to the department, to the institution. Serfdom, Kavelin repeatedly returned to this issue, was the basis of all social life and, in his opinion, directly flowed from the internal life of the Great Russian home and courtyard. It was neither a strictly legal nor an economic phenomenon. In popular morals and beliefs, serfdom was supported not by violence, but by consciousness. In ancient Rus', serfdom was a power, sometimes cruel and harsh, due to the rudeness of the then morals, but not the right of ownership of a person. In the 19th century it began to express itself in outrageous exploitation. People began to be turned into slaves and this raised the question of its abolition.

In the half of the 18th century. the gradual abolition of serfdom and the granting of civil rights to the Russian people began. This process, like all movements in Russia, took place from top to bottom, from the highest strata of society to the lowest. The nobility, clergy and merchants received civil rights, then the heterogeneous layers of middle society, then the state-owned peasants and, finally, the landowners. As civil rights spread to all states and ranks, class organizations were created, and a communal zemstvo system appeared. These ideas of the scientist were called “the theory of enslavement and emancipation of classes”

The essence of the Russian political system is a strong centralized government, autocracy. Under Peter the Great, Kavelin noted, royal power acquired a new meaning, but it was Peter who expressed the principles of ancient power much more sharply, more definitely and more consciously than his predecessors (excluding Ivan IV). Peter was not only a tsar, he was the engine and instrument of transformation of Russian society. With his personal life, he gave the autocracy a new character and, in this sense, determined the entire subsequent course of our history, forever introducing into our state charter the idea that power “is labor, feat, service to Russia.” He strengthened the royal power, raised it and gave it high moral and “national significance.” In this Kavelin saw Peter’s greatest merit.

Personality. Along with the development of internal life and the state, Kavelin also considered another, in his opinion, the most important element of the life of the people - the personal principle. “I take personality,” he wrote, “in the simplest, everyday sense, as a clear consciousness of his social status and vocation, one’s external rights and external duties, as well as a reasonable determination of immediate practical goals and the same reasonable and persistent pursuit of them”1. If everyday life determines the content of social development, he argued, then his personality “moves.” “A person’s desire for complete, comprehensive, moral and physical development is the driving principle and cause of reforms and revolutions.”2 The level of its development has a corresponding impact on society itself. He stated with regret that Russian history began with a complete absence of a personal beginning. But, Kavelin argued, “if we are a European people and are capable of development, then we should have discovered a desire for individuality, to free ourselves from its oppressive oppression; Individuality is the basis of all freedom and all development; human life is not unthinkable without it.”3 The transition from the natural union of people to their conscious formation made the development of personality inevitable.

Kavelin attributed the origins of the appearance of personality in Rus' to the time of Russia’s adoption of Orthodoxy. However, neither family life nor patrimonial relations allowed the individual to express himself. The first beginnings of its manifestation date back only to the time of the Moscow State. But his life, in particular, the general enslavement, made any individual actions impossible. Therefore, the awakening of the personal principle to moral and spiritual development, Kavelin believed, began only at the beginning of the 18th century. under the influence of external circumstances and only in the upper strata. Peter is “the first free Great Russian personality with all the characteristic features: practicality, courage, breadth... and with all the shortcomings.” The private life and state activity of Peter 1 is “the first phase of the realization of personality in history.” Hence Kavelin’s assessment of the Petrine era as a whole and of the transformer himself, who, acting in all respects in connection with the needs and possibilities of his time, set the development of the beginning of personal freedom as a requirement that must be realized in reality. Russian society solved this problem in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries.

Russia-West. Having understood for himself the meaning of Russian history, Kavelin also determined his view of Russia’s relations with Western Europe. The solution to the issue is based on the scientist’s ideas about the unity of the historical process, which is determined primarily by the unity of goals of all peoples, defined by Christianity, and the general laws of development of human society, however, “presuming differences in their qualitative basis.” This goal is to affirm the dignity of man and his comprehensive development, primarily spiritual. But the ways to achieve these goals are different. They are determined by specific circumstances: their internal original way of life, geographical conditions, cultural influence of other peoples, etc. Therefore, Kavelin concluded, comparing the historical life of peoples is difficult, since the history of each people has its own qualitative characteristics. A comparison of events and processes taking place in Europe and Rus' can only show their “complete opposite.” Kavelin focused on quality characteristics those factors under the influence of which the development of the Russian people took place. First of all, as mentioned above, we were talking about internal life. Kavelin, like other scientists, pointed out such a feature of Russians as the adoption of the Christian faith of the Eastern religion. Orthodoxy not only contributed to the development of national identity, but also became “an expression of our state unity.” Faith and the church in Rus' received the character of a state and political institution.

Kavelin saw another feature in the constant settlement of the Great Russians, their colonization of the northern lands, the beginning of which he attributed to the 11th-12th centuries. Over the course of 700 years, vast areas were developed and a state was created. Besides, distinctive feature Russian history was that Russia was not influenced by conquerors. It also did not have at its disposal the heritage of cultural, enlightened peoples. “We were condemned to live by our own minds,” Kavelin concluded. All this did not contribute to the rapid achievement of a common goal - the development of personality, the development of norms of civil life. The extreme slowness of this process was a feature of Russian history and, ultimately, before the Russians and peoples Western Europe different tasks arose. The second had to develop a personality, and the first had to create. This conclusion revealed Kavelin’s position “about the complete opposite of the history of Russia to the history of Western states.” This position manifested itself in him in the 40s, which apparently gave Korsakov grounds for saying that Kavelin “was not a Westerner at all.” On the other hand, the affirmation of the personal principle in the era of Peter I allowed him to conclude that Russia “having exhausted all its exclusively national elements, entered into universal life.”

Confirming his thesis that the key to Russian history lies in itself, Kavelin warned against the rash transfer of any Western European models of life to Russian soil. “By accepting from Europe, without critical verification, the conclusions it has drawn for itself from its life, observations and experiences, we imagine that we have before us pure, unalloyed scientific truth, universal, objective and unchangeable, and thereby paralyze our own activity at the very root, before it could even begin. Until recently, we treated European institutions in exactly the same way, until finally, through experience, we were convinced that customs and institutions always and everywhere bear the imprint of the country where they were formed, and living traces of its history.”1

Kavelin sees the result of Russia's development in the creation of a civil society, the development of soil for the moral development of a free individual. The future will show what the new period will bring to Russia and what it will contribute to the treasury of world history, he concluded.

The theory of the historical process formulated by Kavelin presents a coherent picture of the development of Russian social life, imbued with a single principle. The state is the result of historical development, the highest form of social education, which creates conditions for the spiritual and moral development of the entire society.

In constructing his theory, Kavelin relied on the achievements of contemporary Western European history and the tradition of Russian historical thought. It was based on ideas about development as a necessary sequential transition from one stage of development to another higher one, about the conditioning of the historical process primarily by internal sources. He affirmed the idea of ​​organicity, smooth development, the gradual growth of the new in the old and the denial of the latter by the former.

Kavelin established in Russian historiography the idea of ​​historical science as a science of self-knowledge as a necessary condition for the spiritual development of society. Having set its main task to study the history of the state, its legal norms and institutions, he for the first time tried to resolve the issue of the role of the individual, the individual as a subject, the basis for the development of society. Kavelin spoke as a supporter of a closer connection with Europe, however, declaring that “every thinking person who takes the interests of his homeland to heart cannot help but feel himself half Slavophile, half Westerner.”

Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin(1828-1904) - theorist of the “public school”, famous public figure, publicist. In 1849 he graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow University. T.N. Granovsky and I.D. Kavelin had a great influence on the formation of his worldview and historical views.

He thoroughly studied Hegelian philosophy and became interested in the “new worldview,” which revealed to him “in amazing harmony the supreme principles of existence.” Acquaintance with ancient monuments taught Chicherin to “rummage through sources and see in them the first basis for a serious study of science.”

In 1861, Chicherin was elected professor at the Department of State Law at Moscow University. In 1866, he resigned from the university in protest against the violation of the university charter adopted in 1863. Chicherin focused his attention on scientific work, making it the main occupation of his life. In 1893 he was elected an honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

The combination of scientific and socio-political activities was characteristic feature life and work of Chicherin. Modernity and history walked side by side with him. “Only the study of the past,” he wrote, “gives us the key to understanding the present, and at the same time the opportunity to see the future.”

The main place in Chicherin’s work was occupied by works on national history. He paid special attention to the issues of the origin and development of the state, the history of legal and social institutions, the relationship between the state and society, power and law. They received coverage in his dissertation, in the works “On National Representation”, “Spiritual and Contractual Letters”, in numerous articles and journalistic works. He was one of the first Russian scientists, who turned to theoretical problems of sociology and politics, which was reflected in his works of the 80-90s.

Theory of Russian history. The history of humanity is for him the history of the development of the “spirit”, realized in the private aspirations of the individual and the general norms of social life. Chicherin represented the real historical process as a change of social unions, gradually elevating human society to the establishment of a “moral and legal whole,” that is, a state. The forms of public unions reflected the relationship between the common principle and the personal at a particular historical stage.

Chicherin identified three stages in the development of society. The first is patriarchal life, based on blood kinship. The development of personality gradually led to the loss of the importance of blood ties. The second stage is civil society (the Middle Ages). It is based on the principles of personal freedom and private law. But “personality in all its contingency, freedom, in all its unbridledness” led to the dominance of force, inequality, civil strife, which undermined the very existence of the union. This made it necessary to establish a new order - the highest form of social union - the state. “Only in the state can both rational freedom and a moral personality develop,” Chicherin emphasized. Only it is capable of bringing disparate elements to unity, stopping the struggle, putting everyone in their place and thus establishing inner peace and order. This, Chicherin concluded, is the dialectic of the development of social elements.

These ideas about the development of human society were for Chicherin the basis for considering the history of Russia, as one of the manifestations of the general history of mankind. It has all the basic elements that make up society; it goes through the same stages of development. However, in Russia they have their own characteristics, which are a consequence of the conditions in which its history takes place.

First of all, Chicherin paid attention to the specifics of natural geographical conditions: boundless steppe spaces, the absence of natural barriers, the monotony of nature, the small population, its dispersion across the plain. Under the influence of these conditions, the character of the people was formed. Sufficiently favorable living conditions did not cause “activity and tension of mental and physical strength” and did not contribute to the development of various aspects of the human spirit, science, and industry. Dispersing in space, the Russian people were deprived of an “internal focus”, did not have their own center, which deprived them of the opportunity to achieve state unity on their own basis.

Secondly, the Eastern Slavs did not have such a source of development of legal and civil institutions as Western Europe in the person of Rome. They were cut off from the ancient educated society. However, the Russian people, with all their peculiarities, belongs, Chicherin argued, to the family of European peoples. He developed in parallel with them, according to the same principles of life. Differences in the history of Western peoples and Russia were manifested in the ways and forms of transition from one stage to another.

Patriarchal life was shaken as a result of the influence of external forces and the calling of the Varangians. Varyazhskaya established a new order. The weakening of clan ties brought property interests to the forefront. Each prince sought to increase his strength. This led to the disintegration of Rus' into small principalities. A specific system was established.

The state appeared in both the West and Russia simultaneously, during the transition from the Middle Ages to modern times. Chicherin assigned a large role in the formation of the state to external factors, Tatar-Mongol yoke, which, in his opinion, taught the people to obedience and thereby contributed to the establishment of a single, centralized power. As a result, the state was formed “from above” by the actions of the government, and not by the independent efforts of citizens. However, all previous eras in the development of society had “one goal, one task - the organization of the state.”

Chicherin emphasized two processes in the formation of the state in Rus': bringing the people into a static state, collecting land and concentrating power in the hands of the prince. He traced these processes through the contractual and spiritual charters of the great and appanage princes. The princes were the first to settle, he believed, and gradually they conquered the nomadic elements. The princes “became educators and builders of the Russian land.” Ivan IU, wrote Chicherin, had to arm himself with all the fury of a formidable crown-bearer, Boris Godunov had to use all the intelligence of a cunning politician to curb the rampant nomadic life. “The invasion of foreigners overflowed the cup of patience...,” he wrote, “the people rebelled... drove out the Poles and chose a king for themselves,” leaving him to his further fate.

Based on the understanding that the new order is breaking through the old norms of life, Chicherin tried to trace the process of the formation of new norms of life. As a result of the gradual destruction of the concept of seniority, the disappearance of the concept of common clan property, the property of each member of the clan acquired predominant importance. The land was divided on the basis of private law. Each prince sought to increase his possessions. Hence the constant clashes between them. The first sign of the new order was the Grand Duke's understanding of the need to strengthen the heir, the eldest son. So, under Vasily Vasilyevich, the eldest son received more possessions. The one who received the strength began to conquer the weaker. In this way, the fragmented masses began to gather and a “single body” was created, with one head, who became the sole ruler. Thus, the extreme development of the personal principle led to the establishment of the principles of the state, that is, it translated the territorial meaning of the grand ducal dignity into a personal, dynastic meaning.

Under Ivan III, these aspirations intensified. The final triumph of state relations was determined in the spiritual letter of Ivan 1U. He blessed his eldest son with his kingdom, stopped the division of lands, wrote down the duties of the princes, and, finally, declared the complete destruction of all independence of the appanage princes. They became subjects of the king. The Russian kingdom became a single undivided land in which the private order of inheritance no longer took place.

State and society. Like Kavelin, Chicherin argued that state power in the person of the sovereign, who embodied the social principle, united the disparate forces of society, closed the disparate social elements into estates and local unions, and subordinated them to the state order. This was done not by defining their rights, but by imposing duties and state taxes on them. “All the same, they had to serve the state all their lives... Everyone in their place: service people on the battlefield and in civil affairs, taxable people - townspeople and peasants - by performing various services, taxes and duties, peasants served their patrimonial owner, who only with with their help I was able to improve my service to the state.”1 This was, Chicherin wrote, not the strengthening of one class, but of all classes together; it was a state tax imposed on everyone, no matter who he was. Such relations finally took shape under Peter 1. With the strengthening of state power, the opportunity arose

free the estates from the tax imposed on them. This process began, according to Chicherin, in the second half of the 18th century. During his time, it was the turn to free the peasants.

State power, according to Chicherin, was not only the creator of estates in Russia and their corporate organizations, but also of the contemporary rural community. In the article “Review of the historical development of the rural community”, “Once again about the rural community (response to Mr. Belyaev)”, he drew attention to the fact that the rural community developed according to the same principles on which the entire social and state life of Russia developed. Therefore To clarify its condition in his contemporary era, Chicherin considered it necessary to delve into the foundations of civil life, to explore its origins and fundamental principles, that is, to study it historically.

The needs of the state, according to Chicherin, were determined by the emergence of zemstvo representation in Russia. It was imposed by actions from above, mechanically, and did not grow organically, like a fruit internal development society. He was one of the first in Russian historiography to examine the development of zemstvo representation in connection with the general course of historical development of Russia. Turning to the current situation of these bodies, Chicherin believed that the Zemsky Sobors had disappeared, not as a result of class strife and fear of monarchs, but simply as a result of internal “insignificance.”

By uniting the population into strong unions, forcing them to serve public interests, the state, Chicherin believed, thereby formed the people themselves. Only in the state “an indeterminate nationality, which is expressed primarily in language, gathers into a single body, receives a single fatherland, and becomes a people.” At the same time, both the people and the state each have their own purpose, their own independence. The people “live and act, giving rise to various aspirations, needs, interests.” They constitute the state body. The state establishes harmony in society, encourages the people to take collective actions for the benefit of society. It is the “head and manager.” Only in the state does Chicherin believe that the merits rendered by an individual to society are assessed and the inner dignity of a person is elevated. He becomes an active social factor and can achieve the full development of his interests. The individual has the opportunity to express himself. State power connects general wills and private aspirations; in it, conditions are achieved for the development of reasonable freedom and moral personality.

All this determined in Chicherin’s concept the special role of the state in Russian life. His education “is a turning point in Russian history. From here it is an unstoppable flow, in harmonious development until our time.” At its apex stood a strong autocratic power, which gave the state unity and directed social forces. Gradually, with the increase in government funds, power became stronger. There is no people in Europe, wrote Chicherin, whose “government would be stronger than ours.”

Chicherin identified two stages in the development of the state. The first is the centralization of all public life, the concentration of all power in the hands of the government. The folk element recedes into the background. The government is getting stronger. In society, differences emerge between legislation and enforcement. During his time, government activity, he believed, had reached an “intolerable extreme.” The process of state organization was completed: “government... sent out its branches throughout all regions, and centralization crowned the entire building and became its obedient instrument of a single will... The government became comprehensive, dominating everywhere... and the people grew increasingly pale and disappeared before it”1 . The consequence of this was the “general corruption of the state body”: the development of bureaucratic veneration, the replacement of capable people, “the proliferation of writing, which took the place of the real thing,” official lies, bribery. Russia has reached a critical moment in historical life. A historical necessity arose to free all social elements from state tutelage, and, above all, to free the “national element” and allow it to operate independently. This will be the basis, Chicherin argued, for the transition to the second stage - liberalization, that is, achieving the unity of all social and state elements. “We need freedom!” wrote Chicherin, clearly expressing his political position, freedom of conscience, public opinion, printing, teaching, publicity of all government actions, openness of legal proceedings. He considered serfdom to be one of the greatest evils. Despite his passion for liberal ideas, Chicherin associated the possibility of achieving them with the distant future, preferring “an honest autocracy to an insolvent government.”

Principles of studying history. Thus, the basis of Chicherin’s historical concept was the position of the community of the world historical process, which is based on common goals and common laws. This led him to recognize the fundamental unity of Russian and Western European history. Russia is a European country, he argued, which is developing, like others, under the influence of the same forces. In accordance with the basic sociological laws, it went from the tribal system to individual freedom in civil society and to the state.

Chicherin also proceeded from the fact that, just like every European people under common living conditions, has its own characteristics, then even more so Russia has them. One people may develop predominantly one form of life, another - another. One may have richer content, the other poorer. One went through several stages, the other stopped at one and was not able to achieve higher development.

Chicherin believed that one of the laws of development was the gradualness of processes occurring in history. Tracing the process of state formation, he proceeded from the fact that each new stage is a consequence of the development of the previous one. With the advent of civil society, blood ties do not disappear completely, but become part of it as one of its constituent elements. The state, in turn, does not destroy all elements of civil society. People remain with their private interests, with their morals and relationships of kinship, property, contract, and inheritance. Chicherin emphasized the complexity of the historical process. Its direction can change, deviate to the side, but the nature of the movement is the same. The movement is based on personal and public interests. The contradictions that arise between them are the motivating reason for changes in the social organism.

In general, the scientist adhered to the ideas of Hegel’s philosophy of history in his approaches to studying and understanding the past. But at the same time, he noted some features of its limitations. This philosophy, he wrote, has reached the highest limits of speculation, embracing the entire world and all phenomena. She brought them under her point of view, stringing facts together with a “thread of false conclusions,” forcibly bringing them under logical formulas. The depravity of this path is proven when we delve deeper into reality, when we come into contact with the real world. Historical science must be based on a conscientious, comprehensive study of facts and analysis of all aspects of social life. To thoroughly study facts and draw accurate conclusions from them - this was the historical method in Chicherin’s definition. The gradual transition from the particular to the general, from phenomena to the laws and principles inherent in them, according to Chicherin, gives science accuracy and reliability. Scientific knowledge is the knowledge of reason. It takes nothing for granted and subjects everything to strict criticism of reason. Its goal, Chicherin defined, is to develop the immutable principles of truth, a firm view of the relationship between thought and knowledge, and establish the line between the internal and external aspects of human life. Such an understanding of the research objectives and attitude towards the subject under study represented an opportunity for the scientist to go beyond the Hegelian attitude to history. Historical science must stand on solid ground, but changes in social thought lead to changes in scientific points of view.

Recognizing the state as the highest form of social development and its defining role in Russian history, in the formation of the Russian people, and state legal and social institutions as the main subject of historical research, Chicherin identified the main elements and gave a theoretical justification for the historical concept of the state school, which became one of the main achievements domestic historiography of the 19th century.

Modern historiography considers the second generation of representatives of the state school to be a professor at Moscow and St. Petersburg universities Vasily Ivanovich Sergeevich ( 1832-1910), author of works on zemstvo councils, appanage veche Rus' of the 18th century. and others. Just like other statesmen, he gave priority in the development of society to the state. Historical phenomena and public relations considered in their legal content. He developed the theory of contractual relations put forward by Chicherin, which determined in Ancient Rus' (the Old Russian state was the result of an agreement between the prince and the people's representatives) and in subsequent centuries all aspects of the state and public life of Russia. Tribal ties prevailed until the 19th century. This also explained the fragmentation of Rus'. The concentration of supreme power in the hands of one person gradually led to the replacement of treaties with decrees of the king. Through the prism of legal principles, Sergeevich also considered questions about the class division of society, their responsibilities in relation to the state, joining the “theory of enslavement of classes.” In each era, Sergeevich noted, law had its own special features, reflecting the spirit of the era. Through law, he tried to evaluate and comprehend all historical events. Actually, that’s why the history of law was for him the history of Russia.

Sergeevich’s views were formed under the influence of positivist theory. In his work “Tasks and Methods of State Science” (1871), he rejected the metaphysical view of the past of his predecessors and accepted the position of the positivists about the unity of human society and the natural world. Having abandoned broad generalizations and focusing on establishing historical facts, Sergeevich, however, did not abandon attempts to explain and search for the meaning of history.

Chicherin shared the main approaches to the study of Russian history A.D. Gradovsky(1841-1889), known for his work in the field of history and theory of law of ancient Rus' and European countries. The main subject of his study was the history of local self-government in Russia in the 16th-18th centuries, the activities of the Senate, the Supreme Privy Council, and the administrative transformations of Catherine II and Alexander 1.

Note proximity to public school F.I.Leontovich(1833-1911), who studied the legislation on peasants of the 16th-16th centuries, historians of Russian state law I.E.Andreevsky, and others.

Some aspects of the concept of Russian history, formulated by public school scientists, were developed in the works of many historians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Today our contemporaries are turning to them again.

Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820-1879). Solovyov’s entire life’s scientific and pedagogical activities are connected with Moscow University. In 1845 he defended his master's thesis, a year later his doctorate and became a professor and head of the department of Russian history. In 1864 - 1870 Solovyov was elected dean of the Faculty of History and Philology, and in 1876-1877 rector of the university. In 1872 he was elected a full member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

In his political convictions, Soloviev, as he put it, was “very moderate.” He was a supporter of strong state power, which was supposed to carry out the necessary reforms in the country. “Transformations are carried out successfully by Peter the Great, but it’s a disaster if Louis XV1st and Alexandra II are taken for them. A converter like Peter the Great keeps the horses in a strong hand during the steepest descent - and the carriage is safe; but converters of the second kind will let the horses run down the mountain at full speed, but they have no strength to restrain them, and therefore the crew will die.”1

Solovyov showed an early interest in history: “I was born a historian,” he said. To Pogodin’s question to Solovyov the student, “What do you especially do?” he answered: “To all Russians, Russian history, Russian language, history of Russian literature.”

“In the study of history, I rushed in different directions,” he reported about himself, “I read Gibbon, Vico, Sismondi; I don’t remember exactly when Evers’s “The Ancient Law of the Russians” fell into my hands, this book constitutes an era in my mental life, for from Karamzin I collected only facts, Karamzin only struck my feelings, Evers struck my thoughts, he made me think about Russian history"1. He listened to lectures by M.P. Pogodin, S.P. Shevyrev, N.I. Davydov, M.T. Granovsky. Soloviev was well acquainted with the works of German scientists - Schelling, Hegel, the historian Ranke, G. Buckle and others. While serving as a teacher in the Stroganov family abroad, he listened to lectures by Michelet and Guizot, whom he considered above all others in European historiography of the 19th century. Solovyov had exceptional erudition.

Theory. Research methods. Soloviev defined the main points of his historical concept and his main interest in his dissertations - the study of relations between princes, between princes and the squad, with neighboring countries, between the state and the people.

If we keep in mind that, according to Klyuchevsky’s definition, in the life of a scientist “the main biographical facts are books, important events are thoughts,” then regarding the first, this resulted in Solovyov writing the 29-volume “Russian History from Ancient Times.” (1851 – 1879); large quantity articles on Russian and general history, series of articles on Russian historiography of the 18th-19th centuries, textbooks with numerous reviews, etc. As for thought, the main thing is the creation of an organic concept of Russian history. It was based on the ideas of Hegel's philosophy of history. But according to the fair opinion of many modern researchers Solovyov's creativity, in the process of their practical application to the study of Russian history and the solution of problems facing historical science, the theoretical provisions of German philosophy underwent significant changes. They also did not meet the historian’s religious feelings.

Already in his first student essay “Philosophical Views on the History of Russia”, then in two dissertations, in the works “Historical Letters”, “Observations on the Historical Life of Nations”, “Public Readings about Peter the Great” and others, he defined the main theoretical principles of his historical concept.

The essence of Solovyov's theory of organic development was the idea of ​​the unity of the historical process, its internal conditionality, the natural and progressive nature of development.

Peoples, he wrote, live and develop according to known laws, “like everything organic, they go through certain modifications of existence in the same way: they are born, grow, become decrepit, and die”1. All peoples pass through two periods or ages. The first period is “religious,” a period of dominance of feelings, rampant passions, strong movements, exploits, creativity, and the creation of strong strong states. The second period is a mature one, the period of the dominance of thought, when philosophy takes the place of religion, education and science develop, the people mature, and “the people’s consciousness of their own destiny” appears. Solovyov connects the time of transition to the second period in the West with the Renaissance, in Russia - with the activities of Peter 1. Likewise, all peoples move from tribal relations to state ones.

The goal of human life, the historian wrote, is to embody the ideals of Christianity, justice and goodness in the lives of peoples. But Christianity has set such high requirements, which “mankind, due to the weakness of its means, cannot satisfy; if it did, the movement itself would cease.” This, in fact, according to Solovyov, is progress, i.e. Society is driven not by the absolute idea of ​​Hegel, but by the ideals of Christianity. Progressive progressive development is the law of historical life.

Soloviev understands progress as evolution, gradual improvement, the transition from lower to higher forms. The historian deals not with absolute progress, he believed, but with development, in which “with the acquisition or strengthening of one principle, some abilities, others are lost or weakened.” In the process of this movement, struggle is not excluded. In the history of Russia, he observes the struggle between clan and state principles, “old” and “new” cities, forests and steppes. But at the same time, he concludes, “peoples do not make leaps in their history,” and if they do occur, then this is a disruption of the normal course of history, its “painful attacks.” Diseases accumulate as a result of “stagnation, one-sidedness, exclusivity of one known direction.” He saw an example of this in the French Revolution, which represented a “sad moment” in the history of France. What is needed is a “calm, gradual revolution from above.” He sees an example in the history of Russia in the reforms of Peter 1.

The laws of development, Soloviev wrote, are the same for all peoples. The difference comes from more or less favorable conditions that accelerate or retard development. These, by his definition, are the natural and geographical conditions of life of the people, the character of the tribe (people) and external events, relations with other peoples. The definition of these conditions and development factors is not new in Russian historiography, but Solovyov deepens their content, relying on the analysis of specific historical phenomena. Qualitative differences in these factors introduce diversity into the historical process and determine the specifics of the development of individual peoples.

He considered the nature of the country as the initial factor influencing the occupations of the population, customs, morals, and psychology of people. In Russia, he wrote, the monotony of natural forms leads the population to monotonous occupations, the monotony of occupations was determined by the monotony of needs, customs, morals, and beliefs; which excluded hostile clashes. Soloviev also connects other social processes in Russia with natural conditions. Thus, the vastness of the territory did not tie the population to a place and did not create a settled pattern. Hence the long process of movement, settlement, colonization, the “liquid” state of the population. But, Solovyov concluded, no matter how vast the territory was, no matter how “diverse” the population of Russia was at first, sooner or later all regions became a single state, because the people have the same goal and therefore the means of satisfying it are the same. The natural and geographical conditions of Russia determined the pace of the historical process, but not its nature.

Soloviev noted that the influence of the natural factor at different stages of history is not the same. The people carry within themselves the ability to obey and not to obey natural influences. The influence of natural conditions on the life of the people is stronger “in times of infancy,” but with the development of their spiritual powers, under the influence of people’s activities, natural conditions can change. Solovyov associated the solution to this problem with the factor of the “nature of the tribe”, the characteristics of the Slavic peoples: “In the strong nature of this tribe lay the possibilities of overcoming all the obstacles presented by stepmother nature”1. Unfavorable conditions were overcome thanks to the special properties of the Slavic nature, as an active, energetic, persistent nature.

Soloviev assigned a large role in the historical process to the course of external events and the interaction of peoples. Peoples living without communication with other peoples are doomed to stagnation. Only in the society of other peoples can one, he believed, develop one’s strengths and one can know oneself. Peoples who are in constant communication are characterized by the strongest development. These were, according to Solovyov, European, Christian peoples.

Soloviev demanded a cumulative consideration of all factors. The difference in their qualitative content explained the differences and features in the historical life of peoples. The influence of a combination of factors in the history of Russia (natural conditions, lack of access to the sea, constant struggle with nomads), he noted, led to the fact that it was delayed in its development and entered the age of thought 200 years later than European countries. But the Russians, being a people capable of development, a European, Christian people, have the opportunity to overcome this delay and catch up with other peoples.

Solovyov's recognition of the general laws of historical development allowed him to include the Russian people, the history of Russia in the composition of European peoples and their history. Thus, he introduced a new element into Hegelian philosophy - the Russian people, the Aryan people, capable of overcoming the unfavorable conditions of their life, a historical people.

All this determined the specific tasks set by Solovyov for historical research and the principles of studying the past.

Soloviev defined the basic principles of studying history in the preface to his “Russian History”: “Do not divide, do not split Russian history into separate parts, periods, but connect them, follow primarily the connection of phenomena, the direct succession of forms; not to separate the principles, but to consider them in interaction, to try to explain each phenomenon from internal causes, before isolating it from the general connection of the event and subordinating it to external influence...”1. Only by clarifying the nature of each era, the gradual course of history, the connection of events, the natural emergence of some phenomena from others, the historian, he wrote, can unite the disparate parts into one organic whole and answer the questions of his contemporary society, and historical science will become the science of popular self-knowledge.

This understanding of the tasks of historical science determined another important principle of studying the past - historicism, the desire to correlate the life of a people with the age and conditions of its life. It is historicism that is the strongest side of Solovyov’s scientific concept. He warned about the inadmissibility of transferring modern concepts to the interpretation of antiquities. In the interests of the moment, a historian may try to distort historical phenomena. With its instructions they want to illuminate their opinions; they look in history only for what they need. History, he warned, is a witness on whom the decision of the case depends, and the desire to bribe this witness and force him to say only what is necessary is understandable.

The scientist's view should be as comprehensive as possible. Discussions, Soloviev emphasized, arise due to the fact that scientists look at different aspects of the phenomenon and “do not realize to combine their views, to complement each other.” Soloviev is a man of science, as evidenced by all his work. But he also assigned a proper area to feeling, religious faith, and was able to determine the boundaries of the area of ​​​​knowledge and the area of ​​​​faith.

The people are the state-personality. The main thing in history, Solovyov declared, is the masses. The Russian people are a great people, living a long and glorious life and feeling within themselves the ability to continue it. The people were strong, able, despite their scattered nature, to gather together and “become like one person” when troubles threatened the country. Not a single nation, according to Solovyov, could imagine “such a great multilateral transformation” that was accomplished by the reforms of Peter 1.

Soloviev objected to the opposition between the people and the state, as some Slavophiles did. At the same time, it was unacceptable for him to recognize the complete subordination of the people by the state, as was the case with Chicherin. He argued that there is an organic connection between the people and the state: the basis of the state is the “spiritual structure of the people,” in turn, the state forms the structure of life, the spirit of the people. It “is a necessary form for a people who are inconceivable without a state.” The historian, who has in the foreground the life of the state, the scientist wrote, has on the same plane the life of the people, for they cannot be separated. Thus, national disasters have an impact on public affairs. Disorders in the state machine, which have a harmful effect on people's life. The main task of history is to study the history of the people and especially the state, since in Russia, due to the vastness of the territory, the scattered population, the weakness of internal ties, and the lack of awareness of common interests, it played a decisive role in Russian history, with a distinctive feature - a strong autocracy.

However, history, Soloviev further stated, does not have the opportunity to deal with the masses. He deals with their representatives, even when the masses of the people are in motion. “The best, richest material for studying people’s life,” according to Solovyov, is found in the activities of the government and rulers. Government, whatever its form, “represents its people; in it the people are personified, and therefore it was, is and will always be in the foreground for the historian.” Therefore, in the foreground he has its leaders, who, thanks to their actions, become accessible to the historian. However, Soloviev did not accept the assertion that history is created at the whim of individuals. “The arbitrariness of one person, no matter how strong this person is,” the scientist wrote, “cannot change the course of people’s life, or knock the people out of their rut.” The very actions of government officials are determined by the state of society and the conditions of their time. A great man, and this, according to Solovyov, can be a monarch, orators, a party leader, a minister, is “the son of his time, his people..., he rises high as a representative of his people at a certain time, a bearer and exponent of popular thought; His activities receive high significance as satisfying the strong needs of the people, leading the people onto a new path necessary for the continuation of their historical life.”1

A great man does only what the people are capable of, what they are given the means to do. He cannot feel or be aware of it. what the people themselves do not feel and do, what they are not prepared for by previous history. If this happens, then Peter the Great appears: “the people realized..., the people got ready to go on the road. They were waiting for the leader."

Aware of the significance of the activities of a great personality, we are aware of the significance of the people, Soloviev concluded. A great man, through his activities, erects a monument to his people. At the same time, the individual must have a certain and significant amount of independence and freedom. True personal freedom, Soloviev argued, is moral and religious. Turning to modernity, Soloviev noted the one-sidedness, narrowness, and pettiness of views that flooded society. Man “ceased to believe in his spiritual beginning, in its eternity, to believe in his own dignity.

"History of Russia from ancient times." In it he presented the most complete concept of Russian history. This is the largest generalizing work in Russian historiography. Events cover time from ancient times to 1775.

“Armed with techniques and tasks,” wrote Klyuchevsky, “developed in historical science in the first half of our century, he was the first to look at the entire mass historical material, remaining from the life of the Russian people from the half of the 19th century to the last quarter of the 18th century, connected with one thought the torn flaps of historical monuments”1.

Having begun to write “History,” Solovyov already had a fairly clear idea of ​​the process of historical life. In his “Report on the state and actions in 1845/46 at Moscow University,” Soloviev wrote that in his lectures he especially paid attention to clan life and its gradual transition to state life. For the first time, in his dissertation on the relations of the princes of Rurik's house, he depicted how a number of forms of political life flowed from one beginning in the form of a continuous process, how from relations based on the concepts of community, undivided possessions, the concept of separate princely property gradually emerged.

Studying individual, even small phenomena of Russian history, Solovyov did not lose sight of general patterns, drew attention to how internal ties are preserved during external division, how they gradually strengthen state unity. He tried to monitor the growth of the state along with the development of the people. The main thing for Solovyov was to reproduce the movement of a society based on tribal principles towards the state and to prove the beneficial, decisive role of the state in the historical process, the internal conditionality and regularity of the processes taking place.

In the process of preparing “History,” he studied almost all published monuments on Russian history - chronicles, legislative acts. literary monument, made wider use of geographical data. He, as Bogoslovsky put it, “went down into the mines and for many years, with invariable accuracy, appeared every day in one archive or another with inexorable energy, extracting more and more new treasures”1. Particularly noteworthy is his inclusion of sources on the history of the 18th century in historical science. No one, Klyuchevsky noted, penetrated deeper than him into its most hidden currents. The actual completeness of history is amazing; it surpasses everything that has been done previously in Russian historical science.

Russian history traditionally opened with Solovyov's description of the calling of foreign princes to establish a unified government. Defining the relationship between the called (government) principle and the tribe that called him, he believed that this dealt the first blow to tribal relations, but they did not disappear. He believed that Kievan Rus could be considered a state only conditionally, since it was based on tribal relations. The princes considered all Russian lands to be the common indivisible possession of their clan. The movement of the princes, despite all the disputes between them, involved them in common life and preserved the consciousness of non-division and unity of the state. Solovyov rejected the idea of ​​any serious influence of the Normans and did not connect the creation of the state with their calling. The state, the historian argued, arose at a certain stage of historical development and was conditioned inner life

Soloviev dates the beginning of the turning point in relation to clan and state relations to the second half of the 18th century. (from Andrei Bogolyubsky to Ivan Kalita). Through the weakening of clan relations, “through a visible violation of the unity of the Russian land,” “the path was being prepared for its gathering, concentration, and unification of parts around one center, under the rule of one sovereign.” The nature of the country and the way of life of the tribe, according to Solovyov, determined a special form of spread of Russian statehood - colonization, which ensured an influx of population to the north, which led to the rise of northeastern Rus' and the disintegration of tribal ties. Soloviev abandoned the interpretation of the Mongol invasion as one of the main conditions for the establishment of a new order. For Russian princes they served only as a weapon in the fight against family ties. Solovyov attributed the beginning of the gathering of Rus' into a single state to the time of Ivan Kalita. Ivan 1U completed the centuries-long process of struggle between state and clan principles, when appanage princes became completely subjects of the Grand Duke, who received the title of Tsar and established autocracy.

Solovyov assigned a decisive role in the formation of the state to the activities of princes. With a scattered population, poor urban development, and underdeveloped trade and industry, society was pulled together by strong government centralization - a “surgical bandage.” He argued that the entry into Russia of various non-Slavic lands was the result not of conquest, but of colonization and the need to defend the country. This determined, in his opinion, the main feature of the Russian state, its defensive nature. To strengthen itself, the Moscow state, having no means, is forced to oblige all classes to serve the state: landowners perform military service, the urban population bears financial obligations, and peasants are attached to the land so that the military class can carry out their service. “The attachment of the peasants is a cry of despair emitted by a state in a hopeless economic situation”1; this, on the one hand, is a “heavy loan” from the people. On the other hand, the scientist believed, it was a natural result of ancient Russian history. - this is Solovyov’s conclusion regarding the enslavement of the peasants.

In the structure of “Russian History,” the presentation of all this material takes eight volumes and covers three periods of Russian history.

Soloviev devoted the next four volumes to a lengthy description of the 18th century. The main events of this time for him were the Troubles, in which, despite many internal and external enemies, the state was saved thanks to the connection between “religious and civil.” He associated with the new dynasty preparations for a new order of things, which marked the beginning of Russia’s entry into the European system. The material he presented was new both for the reader and for professional historians. In addition to this, the seventeenth century. was very important for Solovyov as a substantiation and disclosure of patterns, continuity of the historical process and determination of the prerequisites for Peter’s reform activity. He dedicated three volumes to the reformer king. In his scheme of Russian history, he did not separate the 18th century from the first half of the 18th century. Based on materials from the beginning of the 18th century. Solovyov managed to substantiate his most important definitions of the role of the state, the individual in history, and reform. Peter 1 led Russia onto a new road to a new life. A powerful state appeared on the world stage, destroying the “monopoly of the Germanic tribe” and uniting both halves of Europe.

From the middle of the 18th century. Solovyov defined a new stage in the history of Russia, ending with the reforms of the 60s. He noted a change in the direction of Russian history. The view of Peter and his reforms has changed. The progressive movement of the spiritual life of the people began, not only the fruits of European civilization were borrowed for the purpose of “material well-being,” but also “the need for spiritual, moral enlightenment, the need to put the soul into the previously prepared body appeared. Finally, in our time,” he concluded, “enlightenment has brought its necessary fruits - knowledge in general has led to self-knowledge.” Solovyov devoted the last fourteen to this time. Scientists note that Solovyov is cautious in his assessments of the figures of this era, determined by their proximity to modernity. The latest volumes are characterized by a decrease theoretical level comprehension of the material, looseness of presentation, which is explained by the novelty and lack of study of the sources he introduced into historical science.

Thus, Soloviev, for the first time in a systematic form, outlined the history of Russia from ancient times to the middle of the 18th century. He also touched on the reign of Catherine II and Alexander 1. He also presented the history of Russia’s neighbors - Poland, Lithuania, and Sweden. This enriched the content and increased the scientific significance of his work. He introduced very extensive chapters into “History” devoted to state system, social composition population, legislation. He drew attention to the state of trade and industry; activities of the church, religion, customs and morals, education. Thus, Solovyov significantly expanded the subject of his study and presented not only the political history of the state. However, he did not always present them fully and structurally justifiably in his “History”.

Using specific material from Russian history, Solovyov traced the interaction of factors and showed the possibilities of his theoretical and methodological approaches for studying the historical process. Presented an organic concept of Russian history.

Peter 1. Soloviev assigned a special place in the history of Russia to Petrine transformations and the personality of Peter himself. In addition to “Russian History,” he gave a series of public lectures, which were published under the title “Readings about Peter the Great,” where he not only gave a detailed description of Peter’s transformations, but also identified the main theoretical and methodological problems in their specific historical application.

A contemporary of the four reigns from Nicholas I to Nicholas II, a contemporary of Turgenev, Sechenov, Vladimir Solovyov and Pavel Novgorodtsev, a Russian Roman, as those who knew about his origin from an Italian called him, who came to Moscow in the retinue of Sophia Palaeologus, but not only for that reason. He was called so for his merciless logic, as well as for his moral inflexibility. His liberalism met with sympathy and recognition in all progressive circles of Russian society...

P. Struve

B. N. Chicherin and his place in Russian education and society

Speech delivered at a meeting of the Russian Scientific Institute in Belgrade

B. N. Chicherin seems to me to be the most versatile and knowledgeable of all Russian, and perhaps European, scientists of the present time.
Vladimir Solovyov (1897)

I

There can be no national identity without historical memory. We must therefore guard our historical memory and remember those people and deeds that inspired and built the Russian public.

Speaking recently to the Belgrade public about the Aksakovs, I pointed to the mixture of blood from which, like some noble fruit, these glorious figures of Russian literature emerged. We meet the same thing in the person of that great Russian scientist and public figure, whose centenary of birth we are celebrating today. The Chicherins trace their origins to an Italian who came to Moscow in the retinue of Sophia Paleologus, and in fact, wasn’t there something truly Roman in the stern logic and moral inflexibility of Boris Nikolayevich Chicherin?

First of all, some biographical information about B. N. Chicherin. The exact dates of his birth and death are as follows: May 25, 1828 - February 3, 1904. In 1849, B. N. graduated from Moscow University, Faculty of Law. In 1856, he received a master's degree for the essay "Regional Institutions in Russia" and in 1861 he became a professor of state law at Moscow University - on October 28 of this exceptional year in the history of Russia, he reads his introductory note, filled with the deepest moral seriousness and consciousness of the solemnity of the historical moment lecture for the course of state law. In 1866, Chicherin completed the book that was to be his doctoral dissertation, “On National Representation,” but even earlier, in 1865, he received an honorary doctorate of rights from St. Petersburg University. In 1868, Chicherin left Moscow University in protest against the violation of the rights of the autonomous university. In 1869, volume I of his “History” was published political doctrines", the last fifth volume of which appears in 1892. In 1882, Chicherin was elected to the mayor of the city of Moscow. In connection with the coronation celebrations of 1883, B.N. makes a wonderful speech, restrained, moderate, conservative, but the reactions of these forces, which then prevailed, did not like the reaction, and Chicherin must leave his post. He finally, until his death, retires into private life. In 1893, the Imperial Academy of Sciences elected B.N. to its honorary members. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, a number of Chicherin’s journalistic works appeared anonymously abroad (in Berlin), which could not then see the light of day in Russia. The most important of them is: “Russia on the eve of the 20th century” - the author on the title page called himself a “Russian patriot”.

A man who was born in the first third of the 19th century and lived until the beginning of the 20th century, B. N. Chicherin belonged to one of the most brilliant generations of the Russian public. Let us remember that he was only 10 years younger than Alexander II, I.S. Turgenev, M.N. Katkov, K.D. Kavelin and F.I. Buslaev, born in 1818, 8 years younger than S.M. . Solovyov, 5 years younger than I. S. Aksakov, 2 years younger than M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin and was born in the same year as gr. L. N. Tolstoy, with the famous historian of Russian literature M. I. Sukhomlinov, with the famous chemist A. M. Butlerov, with the famous publicist N. G. Chernyshevsky. A year after Chicherin, the physiologist I.M. Sechenov and the historian K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin were born, whose centenary will be celebrated in the future, 1929. I name next to B.N. Chicherin I.M. Sechenov and K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin not by purely chronological association. The first, in his materialist-positivistic worldview, represented almost the direct opposite of Chicherin, who was closer to the people of the 40s than to his peers, the Pentecostals and the Sixties. K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, on the contrary, in his spiritual and scientific development was associated with the Chicherin family. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, who, as a home teacher, spent two and a half years at the Chicherins’ estate “Guard” in the Kirsanov district of Tambov province, gives the following review of B. N. Chicherin’s father:

“The main charm was the owner. Nikolai Vasilyevich’s mind was one of the rare broad minds to whom everything is accessible and who always avoids extremes.” In the time remembered by Bestuzhev-Ryumin, B. N. Chicherin lived in the “Guard” during the summers, and once K. N. had to spend the whole winter there with him. On his father’s estate, Chicherin “wrote his famous (master’s) dissertation,” which Bestuzhev-Ryumin read in manuscript. Chicherin “was then a complete Hegelist, and even later he gave in a little: so, in 1855 he showed me his article, in which almost all the main foundations of his “Science of Religion” were developed. Chicherin gave Hegel’s “Logic” to Bestuzhev-Ryumin, and he compiled a summary of it (See Memoirs of K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin in the “Collection of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Imperial Academy of Sciences,” vol. 67 (1901), p. 36 -- 37).

B. N. Chicherin was a contemporary of four reigns: Nicholas I, Alexander II, Alexander III and Nicholas II. He was a scientist and public figure; professor at Moscow University and mayor of the city of Moscow; historian and lawyer; philosopher and social scientist. His scientific and literary productivity was enormous. The works of B. N. Chicherin constitute a whole library; his “History of Political Doctrines” is still in the world scientific literature - the only work so monumental and so comprehensive in its field. As a thinker "B. N. fulfilled the philosophical task he proposed with amazing energy. To complete it, already in his old age, he devoted several years to studying higher mathematics and natural science, leaving traces of his work in this area in the form of several special articles intended to serve to confirm his philosophical views. German philosophical literature cannot indicate such a complete and versatile application of Hegelian principles” (P. I. Novgorodtsev in the obituary of B. N. Chicherin, published in the journal “Scientific Word” for 1904)

A man who matured into a major force in the late 40s and early 50s, B. N. Chicherin at the university was a student first and foremost of T. N. Granovsky, with heartfelt praise of whom, which still makes the strongest impression, ends Chicherin's inaugural lecture at Moscow University (Printed in the collection “Several Modern Questions”. Moscow. 1862, pp. 23 - 42).

Chicherin's senior colleagues and teachers at the university - as well as Bestuzhev-Ryumin - were K. D. Kavelin, N. V. Kalachev, P. G. Redkin and S. M. Solovyov.

But Chicherin, as a mental figure, is connected by personal influence and relationship with people of subsequent generations. True, in journalism, i.e. journalism, in the late 50s and 60s. he was almost alone. But in science and philosophy, both then and later, he was destined to have a significant influence. Chicherin's closest student and ally was the famous historian of Moscow University, whom I recently had to remember in our midst in connection with the celebration of the memory of the great French thinker, critic and historian Hippolyte Taine. I'm talking about Vladimir Ivanovich Gerye. He is 9 years younger than Chicherin. Together, Chicherin and Guerrier wrote a witty and thorough polemical treatise against the populist-economic ideas of the book. A. I. Vasilchikov, defender and promoter of the community.

Through personal acquaintance and communication, Chicherin was connected with Vladimir S. Solovyov, who was 25 years younger than him, and with even younger thinkers, Prince. Sergei and Evgeniy Nikolaevich Trubetskoy.

Despite their personal acquaintance, a very long one, and undoubted personal communication, B. N. Chicherin and Vlad. Serg. Soloviev was twice rather sharply polemicized. However, in the 80s. only Chicherin attacked Solovyov regarding his doctoral dissertation “Critique of Abstract Principles,” but Solovyov did not answer Chicherin. In the 90s they exchanged polemical articles, and the harshness of this polemic was striking precisely in 1897, when both Chicherin and Solovyov, who was exactly 25 years younger than Chicherin, stood at the pinnacle of their lifetime fame. Soloviev, who fought off Chicherin’s attacks, with all his respect for both Chicherin’s scholarship and political views, did not skimp on ridicule, which almost turned into mockery, which this, perhaps the most skillful polemicist in the history of Russian literature, justified in this case as “the state of necessary defense.” in an ideological, but not in a personal sense.

In the person of Pav. Iv. Novgorodtsev, who was 38 years younger than Chicherin, the latter extended his hand to his distant successor at the law faculty. On the other hand, in Hegelianism, Chicherin’s successor in our time was an even younger teacher at Moscow University and a doctor of state law at the same university, the author of perhaps the best philosophical monograph on Hegel, Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin.

Finally, allow one personal memory and confession. The last representative of Russian “radical” journalism to cross swords with the “liberal conservative” Chicherin was your humble servant. This was done in an article that appeared in 1897 and is still perhaps the only experience of a historical assessment of Chicherin as a publicist and politician” (“Chicherin and his appeal to the past” in Novy Slovo for 1897. Reprinted in the collection my articles “On Various Topics”, St. Petersburg, 1902, pp. 84 -- 120. In this presentation I widely use the material from this article). In my further development, I, who polemicized with Chicherin as a “Marxist” (who, however, was never a true believer, but, on the contrary, was always a heretic in Marxism), came in my own ways to a socio-political worldview close to the views of the late Moscow scientist.

However, in 1897, the liberal elements of Chicherin’s teaching met with sympathy and recognition in all progressive circles of Russian society, and this was reflected in my rather fervently, youthfully written polemical article against Chicherin. This sympathy was expressed even more clearly in Chicherin’s obituary, which I published in Osvobozhdenie for 1904 (No. 18 of March 3).

Understanding the cultural and state development of Russia, we see two main problems in it in a peculiar combination and interweaving:

Freedom and power

For the sake of the interests of the state, state power partly allowed, and partly itself, enslaved the mass of the population to the service class as the bearer and instrument of government.

This is how Russian serfdom bordered on slavery and the class division of Russian society came about.

And in the interests of concentrating state power, a state power that was less limited by individual and group claims, an autocratic monarchy, developed in Russia, perhaps than anywhere else.

“A distinctive feature of Russian history,” wrote B. N. Chicherin in 1862 (“Several Contemporary Issues,” pp. 166.455), “in comparison with the history of other European nations, is the predominance of the beginning of power. Since the calling of the Varangians, when the Novgorod ambassadors, exactly a thousand years ago, declared society’s inability to self-govern and transferred the land to the power of foreign princes, public initiative has played too insignificant a role in our country. The Russian person has always been more capable of submitting, sacrificing himself, bearing on his shoulders the heavy burden placed on him, rather than becoming the initiator of any business. Only in extreme cases, when the state was threatened with ultimate destruction, did the people rise up as one man, expel the enemies, restore order, and then again transfer all power and all activity to the government, returning to the previous, suffering position, to the vegetable process of life. Power expanded, built and consolidated a huge body that became the Russian empire. The government stood at the head of development, the government forcibly imposed enlightenment, embracing with its activities the entire life of the people - from the state structure to private life. The greatest man of the Russian land, Peter the Great, contains in himself the whole meaning of our past history. And now this character has not yet changed: the government owns the initiative and implementation of those great transformations that constitute the honor and glory of our century.”

From the first times of its inception, Russian social thought faced: 1) the problem of liberation of the individual and 2) the streamlining of state power, introducing it into the framework of legality and compliance with the needs and desires of the population.

That is why, ever since Russian socio-political thought arose, it has been moving around these problems, and moving, so to speak, along two parallel axes: along the axis of liberalism and along the axis of conservatism. For individual consciousnesses, these axes for the most part never come closer or converge. On the contrary, for the most part they diverge widely.

But in Russian spiritual development there were bright and strong representatives of the rapprochement and even merging of the axes of liberalism and conservatism. The essence of liberalism as an ideological motive is the affirmation of individual freedom. The essence of conservatism as an ideological motive is the conscious affirmation of the historically given order of things as a precious heritage and tradition. Both liberalism and conservatism are not only ideas, but also moods, or more precisely, a combination of a conscious idea with an organic, deep mood.

The special place of B. N. Chicherin in the history of Russian culture and society is determined by the fact that he represented in it the most complete, most vivid expression of the harmonious combination in one person of the ideological motives of liberalism and conservatism. This combination was not news in the spiritual and social history of Russia even before Chicherin. In its own special way, this ideological combination appears before us in the great legislator of the 18th century - Catherine II. It also found a unique embodiment in the majestic figure of the famous figure of the four reigns, Admiral N. S. Mordvinov (born 1754 - 1845), and we find it in two great figures of our culture and public, the mature Karamzin (born 1766 - 1826); . 1792 - 1878). Vyazemsky was perhaps the first in Russia to coin the formula “liberal conservatism,” and, moreover, precisely when applied to none other than Pushkin himself.

But if Catherine II, due to her position as an autocratic monarch, should have been devoted to conservatism and in the last era of her reign even pursued a reactionary policy, if N. S. Mordvinov, being a liberal in the political sphere, always remained a conservative in the social sphere and, let’s face it, , “serf owner”, if both Karamzin and Pushkin, and, later than both of them, Prince. Vyazemsky asserted himself in his conservatism as and to the extent that they matured spiritually, then Chicherin, who matured early, whose spiritual structure almost immediately molded into some kind of solid and strong form, was always a “liberal conservative” or “conservative liberal” (this is how I described Chicherin back in 1897. See “On Various Topics,” p. 86). In Chicherin's socio-political views, of course, there is a certain development. Expressed in the conventional conventional terms of politics, we can perhaps say that Chicherin was “level” from the beginning of the reign of Alexander II to the 20th century, but only because, being a conscientious observer and responsive participant in the historical process, he perceived and realized this process as a process deep, fundamental changes.

IV

During the era of great reforms, in the late 50s and early 60s, Chicherin placed himself on the extreme right flank of the progressive trend of Russian life. He was then much “to the right” of M. N. Katkov, sharply polemicizing in “Our Time” N. F. Pavlov with “Modern Chronicle” - Katkov’s “Russian Messenger”. He boldly opposed Herzen in his own Kolokol, spoke out when public opinion was for Herzen, and in this polemic between Chicherin and Herzen there was much more ideological content than in Katkov’s later struggle with the publisher of Kolokol (the wonderful “Letter to to the publisher of “The Bell” was published in it in 1858 and reprinted as “the first protest of a Russian person against the direction of this publisher” in 1862 in the collection “Several Contemporary Questions” The characterization of Herzen’s journalism given by Chicherin as a contemporary is historically curious and psychologically characteristic. “In a young society, which is not yet accustomed to withstanding internal storms and has not yet acquired the courageous virtues of civil life, passionate political propaganda is more harmful than anywhere else. Our society must buy its right to freedom with reasonable self-control, but what are you teaching it to? To irritability, to impatience, to unstable demands, to unscrupulousness of means. With your bilious antics, your inordinate jokes and sarcasms, which carry a tempting cloak of independence of judgment, you indulge that frivolous attitude towards political issues, which is already too much. us in progress. We need independent public opinion - this is perhaps our first need, but public opinion, wise, persistent, with a serious view of things, with a strong temper of political thought, public opinion that could serve the government as a support in good undertakings, and prudent delay in the event of a wrong direction” (pp. 17 - 18). For this polemic, history and historical assessment have now fully arrived, which could not yet be said in 1897)

Against Katkov, Chicherin in that era defended the class system with arguments of realistic conservatism, which, however, firmly adopted the well-known principles of liberalism.

Clearly under the influence of the famous German statesman, also a Hegelian, Lorenz Stein, the Moscow professor in his “protective liberalism,” which he contrasted with both “street liberalism” and “oppositional liberalism” (see article “ Different kinds liberalism" in the collection "Several Contemporary Issues", pp. 185 - 201.), started from a realistic thesis that sounded almost Marxist (this is not surprising, because, as I showed at one time, the economic interpretation of history developed in Marx under the influence Lorenz Stein): “Every political organization is based on the distribution of social forces existing among the people.”

It is interesting and significant that against Chicherin’s direction, which he himself recognized and characterized as “a special direction in Russian political literature” and in which his opponents saw an “unfortunate doctrine” that sacrifices “everything ... as a sacrifice to the state,” a doctrine according to which “everything comes from power and everything returns to it,” - in Russian journalism of that era, not only “Sovremennik” in the person of Chernyshevsky himself and “ Russian word"in the person of the now completely forgotten publicist Gieroglyfov, but also none other than the main publicist of Slavophilism, Ivan Aksakov. Aksakov contrasted the legal historicism of Chicherin with the confession of natural law (For this, see my mentioned article about Chicherin, which contains quotes from Chernyshevsky, Gieroglyfov and Ivan Aksakov). Here we have a clash of not only worldviews, not only attitudes, but also temperaments. Now they can say that Ivan Aksakov was wrong in characterizing Chicherin’s socio-political worldview as an “unfortunate doctrine”, from the point of view of which “there is no place, outside the order of statehood, for any free creativity of the people’s spirit.” Even in that era, Chicherin was not at all a blinded herald of the “dead state mechanism,” as Aksakov claimed. The ideas of order and freedom had equal charm for Chicherin.

“Public opinion,” he wrote then, “is not a bureaucracy obliged to carry out and support the instructions given to it; it is an independent force, an expression of free social thought. The protective party in society can express approval only of what is consistent with its own principles. Neither reaction, nor the ingratiation of popularity, nor the suppression of freedom, nor hasty innovations will find sympathy in it. But she will not frivolously take up arms against power, undermine its credit, mock trifles, losing sight of the essential, raise an outcry in the name of private interests, forgetting the general benefit. The protective party, above all others, must be ready to support power whenever possible, because the strength of power is the first condition of social order" ("Several Contemporary Issues", pp. 168 - 169.).

Claiming that “historical principles always serve as the most solid point of support for the protective party,” Chicherin at the same time well understood that “historical principles wear out, weaken, lose their former meaning” and that therefore “stick to them at all costs.” , under changed circumstances, with a new structure of life, means to deprive oneself of all hope of success... If an old stone, by the force of centuries-old friction, has turned into sand, it is insane to build a building on it” (Ibid., p. 155). Even then, Chicherin was possessed by the “single” and fundamental idea of ​​liberal conservatism: “a combination of order and freedom as applied to historical development and modern needs” (Ibid., pp. 7 - 8.).

The conservative liberalism of Chicherin, alien to Kavelin’s populist sentimentality (Kavelin had a strong repulsion from Chicherin, whom he contemptuously called “square head” in his letters, but, of course, Chicherin was immeasurably superior to Kavelin in both mental strength and knowledge), and later supposedly conservative Katkov’s extremes, had neither then nor later any success either in the ruling spheres or in public opinion. True, in St. Petersburg in the 60s, bureaucratic circles sometimes praised the Moscow statesman, calling him le grand (great, outstanding, French).

Chicherin (see “Iv. Serg. Aksakov in his letters”, part II, vol. 4. St. Petersburg, 1896, p. 244. Given in my article about Chicherin), but they never seriously followed his instructions in in their completeness and in their spirit.

During the reign of Alexander II, Chicherin most definitely wrote in an interesting handwritten note, the original of which was at the beginning of the 20th century. I held it in my hands, categorically spoke out in favor of Russian-Polish reconciliation and never approved of the anti-Polish policy of the Russian government. In the same spirit, much later, he criticized and condemned the anti-Finnish policy of the reigns of Alexander III and Nicholas II (indications of this note and extracts from it can be found in Barsukov’s huge collection of facts from the spiritual and social history of Russia, published under the title “Life and works of M. P. Pogodin”).

During the era of Loris-Melikov, Chicherin wrote a note in which he recommended constitutional reform to the authorities. This is also what the main meaning of the work “Russia on the Eve of the 20th Century”, published at the turn of this century in Berlin and which was, as it were, a political testament of the famous Russian statesman, boils down to.

In general, Chicherin’s historical position can be depicted as follows: since he believed in the reformatory role of historical power, i.e. in the era of great reforms, in the 50s and 60s, Chicherin acted as a liberal conservative, resolutely fighting the extremes of liberal and radical social opinions. Since the government began to persist in reaction, Chicherin acted as a conservative liberal against the reactionary government, defending liberal principles in the interests of the state, defending already implemented liberal reforms and demanding during the reign of Alexander III and, especially energetically and consistently, during the reign of Nicholas II, a radical transformation of our state building.

Thus, Chicherin, in his spiritual and social activities, never ceased to inextricably combine conservatism and liberalism, revealing in this regard the most complete and vibrant figure in the history of the spiritual and political development of Russia.

How clearly Chicherin understood the significance of the beginning of freedom for the future of Russia is shown by his following words, spoken at the very height of the liberation reforms, precisely when he was clarifying to Russian society, “what are protective principles?” (this is the title of the article we quote):

“In the hands of conservative routinists, the existing order is doomed to collapse... Violence produces irritation or indifference. Only a thought that has matured in a person himself gives that willpower and self-control that are necessary for rational activity. Therefore, at the present time (1862! - P.S.) in the situation in which Russia finds itself, a matter of paramount importance is the emergence in society of independent forces that would set themselves the task of maintaining order and countering reckless demands and anarchic ferment minds Only the energy of reasonable and liberal conservatism can save Russian society from endless vacillation. If this energy appears not only in the government, but also in the people themselves, Russia can look at its future without fear” (“Several Contemporary Issues”, p. 151 and p. 162. It is interesting to note that this collection of the most interesting and brilliantly written journalistic Chicherin's articles, published in 1862, in 1897, i.e. 35 years later, were not sold out and were sold by the publisher K. T. Soldatenkov - a fact showing how indifferent the Russian reading public was to political ideas of such a thinker as Chicherin.)

These words sound today not only as the testimony of a contemporary or a historical document, but also as a genuine historical prophecy about the collapse that befell Russia.

First published: “Russia and Slavism”, 1929, N 5.
Our publication publishes according to: P.B. Struve. Social and economic history of Russia from ancient times to our own, in connection with the development of Russian culture and the growth of Russian statehood. Paris, 1952, pp. 323-331

Introduction

2. Chicherin’s doctrine of the state

2.1 The essence of the state

2.2 Evaluation of forms of government

2.3 State and institution of property

2.4 State and church

3. Evolution of B.N.’s views Chicherina

4. Correlation of political views of K.D. Kavelin and B.N. Chicherina

Conclusion

List of used literature and other sources

Introduction

Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin is one of the most powerful and multifaceted Russian thinkers of the second half of the 19th century V. He can rightfully be considered the founder of political science in Russia. His “History of Political Doctrines” still remains the most profound study of this issue not only in Russian, but, perhaps, in world science. Chicherin dedicated his main works to the development of key ideas of political and philosophical teaching, such as: “On People's Representation”, “Property and the State” in two volumes, and the three-volume “Course of State Science”. Political and philosophical teaching also develops in his research on the history and law of Russia, and it also develops in numerous detailed articles by Chicherin on various issues of current Russian politics.

Both during his life and after his death, the influence of Chicherin’s ideas on Russian society was quite significant, while increased interest in Chicherin and his theoretical legacy invariably arose precisely at turning points in Russian history: this was the case during the era of the Great Reforms of Alexander II, and this was the case on the eve of the 1905 revolution. years, and so it was after the revolutionary events of 1917.

Legacy of B.N. Chicherin is in demand and relevant. This heritage is multifaceted; it becomes the subject of research by specialists from a number of disciplines: history, law, sociology, philosophy, political science and economics. Moreover, even within the same discipline, specialists of very different specializations find their own subject of research. Now Chicherin has begun to be perceived as one of the largest Russian theorists of liberalism, developing the idea of ​​“deep” liberalism, not “superficial”, having very simplified ideas about the nature of society and the state, mainly “economic” with very narrow-minded ideas about man, his values ​​and meanings being.

The basis of the political and philosophical teachings of Boris Chicherin is the idea of ​​the individual, its dignity and its freedom. The entire complex edifice of social sciences, the doctrine of the state, believes Chicherin, should be built on this foundation. The study of his doctrine of the state from this angle today seems extremely important and relevant for both political theory and political practice.

Among the best pre-revolutionary researchers of Chicherin’s work, one should first of all include his closest student and follower I.V. Mikhailovsky. It should also be noted the works of E.N. Trubetskoy, P.I. Novgorodtseva, P.N. Milyukova, B.P. Vysheslavtsev, and after the revolution in emigration, the works of P.B. Struve, G.D. Gurvich, N.O. Lossky, V.V. Zenkovsky. Among domestic researchers, Soviet and Russian, it should be noted V.D. Zorkina, V.A. Kitaeva, R.A. Kireev, G.B. Kieselshteina, V.I. Prilensky, S.S. Sekirinsky, A.N. Medushevsky, V.F. Pustarnakova, V.S. Nersesyants, L.I. Novikov, I.N. Sizemskaya, L.M. Iskra, A.N. Erygina, A.I. Narezhny, A.V. Zakharova, A.V. Polyakova, A.S. Kokoreva, G.S. Krinitska.

1. The doctrine of “protective liberalism”

Activities of B.N. Chicherin unfolded in the romantic era of the history of Russian liberalism, which he perceived, like many other representatives of the intellectual elite, with great enthusiasm, with faith and hope for deep and radical transformations of the socio-political system of Russia that began after Crimean War on the initiative “from above” by the reformer Tsar Alexander II.

Chicherin devoted his entire life to the theoretical justification of the problems of the formation of freedom, the personal principle on Russian soil, in their combination with other eternal principles of social life, with order, with property, with law, with morality, with the state. He played the role of the founder of the concept of “protective liberalism”, or liberal conservatism, which, in the words of P. Struve, “immediately took on some kind of strong and solid form, harmoniously combining in one person the ideological motives of liberalism and conservatism.”

Freed from the extremes and one-sidedness of liberalism, conservatism and all kinds of socio-political radicalism, “protective liberalism” as a socio-philosophical and political theory should become, according to Chicherin, a banner capable of “uniting around itself people of all spheres, all classes, all directions in solving public problems for the reasonable reform of Russia.”

In almost all his works, Chicherin adheres to the concept of “protective liberalism,” which he never changed, despite a certain evolution of his socio-political views. This concept clearly took shape by the early 60s. He outlined its essence in his work “Different Types of Liberalism” (1862), considering “protective liberalism” in comparison with other varieties of liberalism - street and opposition.

The characteristic features of street liberalism are: unbridled impulses, self-will, intolerance of other people's opinions, personal freedom, indiscriminateness in the choice of means in the fight against one's opponent (lies, slander, violence), irreconcilable hatred of everything that rises above the crowd, intolerance of authorities, equalizing everyone in their ignorance, baseness, vulgarity, etc.

Oppositional liberalism views freedom from purely negative aspects. The pinnacle of his well-being is the abolition of all laws, liberation from all constraints. By denying modernity, he denies the past that produced it. Chicherin considers the main tactical means of oppositional liberalism to be his use of criticism of centralization, bureaucracy, the state, conducting a “smart” argument for the sake of argument, the fight against aristocratic prejudices, a strict division of public life into irreconcilable opposites (poles), preaching - not the slightest contact with power.

Protective liberalism (or liberal conservatism) excludes the extremes of both types of liberalism and represents a synthesis of the principles of freedom with the principles of power and law. In political life his slogan is: “liberal measures and strong power.” The liberal direction, Chicherin explains, “must act by understanding the conditions of power, without becoming systematically hostile towards it, without making unreasonable demands, but preserving and delaying where necessary, and trying to explore the truth through a cool-blooded discussion of issues.”

Chicherin’s doctrine of “protective” liberalism was born not only under the influence of the socio-philosophical thought of D. St. Mill (as V.I. Prilensky points out in his studies), E. Burke, A. Tocqueville and other great liberals and conservatives. The main thing is that it was formed on the basis of the ideas of his early works: “On serfdom” (1856), “On the aristocracy, especially Russian” (1857), “Modern tasks of Russian life” (1857), published in collections of articles " Voices from Russia", published by A.I. Herzen and P.P. Ogarev in London, as well as in the essay “Essays on England and France” (1858). In them, Chicherin not only outlined the essence of his understanding of the program of the new reign, but also substantiated the inseparability of the combination of liberal and conservative principles in it, “understanding the impossibility of changing the image of government in the present, recognizing its goal in the future.”

The liberal principle found its concrete expression in the demands: the abolition of serfdom (the liberation of peasants for a ransom with the land and the establishment of individual rather than communal land ownership); recognition of freedom of human conscience, freedom of individual rights; establishing publicity as a necessary condition for proper development; recognition of public opinion as a spokesman for social needs; non-interference of the state in the economic sphere and free private enterprise; introduction of public proceedings; transition in the future to a limited, representative monarchy.

Chicherin's introduction of the conservative principle into the liberal program was essentially dictated by the conditions of Russian reality itself, the peculiarity of the autocratic system. Since, unlike Western Europe, in Russia there was no strong social base of liberalism, a sufficiently educated society, but the traditional belief in a strong stronghold of state order and enlightened absolutism, capable of leading the people on the path of citizenship and enlightenment, remained, for this reason freedom “cannot be given absolute significance and set as an indispensable condition for any civil development." In other words, in order not to fall into radicalism and resist destructive tendencies that forcefully introduce freedom and new orders, it is necessary, according to Chicherin, to prevent the useless and harmful breakdown of the state and social order, to separate from the narrow reaction that is trying to stop the natural course of things, from striving forward . At the same time, one cannot stubbornly retain what has lost its vitality, but it is necessary to preserve what is a useful element of the social system, for example, religious, moral values ​​or social, political, economic institutions, etc.

In a word, Chicherin, like representatives of the Western European conservative tradition of modern times, starting with E. Burke, de Maistre, A. Tocqueville, considered the “protective” conservative principle to be a serious basis for a social building, especially on Russian soil, which cannot be ignored and destroyed, without falling into “zealous liberalism,” like Herzen’s, “throwing to extremes, furiously pursuing every manifestation of despotism.” Kavelin warned about the need to take into account the importance of the conservative mentality of the Russian public when reforming Russia: “Not being a doctrine,” he wrote, “conservatism is great power, which has to be taken into account at every step. Our public and people are the greatest inexorable conservatives."

Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin is an outstanding Russian lawyer, publicist, historian, philosopher, public figure, who left a noticeable mark on Russian legal science. Coming from a noble family, Boris Chicherin was born on the Karaul family estate in the Tambov province, where he received his primary education at home. Possessing phenomenal abilities and an amazing memory, young Chicherin easily entered the law faculty of Moscow University in 1844.

At the university, Boris Chicherin became close to the then luminaries of Russian legal thought and established close contacts with them. The spiritual mentors of the future statesman are P.G. Redkin, N.I. Krylov, V.N. Leshkov, K.D. Kavelin, T.N. Granovsky. Under the powerful influence of the latter, student Chicherin, who had previously been occasionally interested in Slavophilism, becomes a Westernizer.

It was the university years that had the greatest influence on the emerging mind and value system of Boris Nikolaevich. At this time, his religious and moral ideals, views on the history of Russian law and statehood, and patriotism took shape, which became the starting point for the transformation of a student of law courses at Moscow University into a prominent figure in the Russian liberal movement.

For his pro-Hegelian views, which were fashionable at the time, Boris Chicherin was nicknamed “Hegel” among students. Having taken into consideration the fruits of Georg Hegel's creativity, Chicherin's inquisitive mind passed through the famous Hegelian triad - synthesis, thesis and antithesis, replacing it with his own four-link system - unity, relationship, combination, plurality. With the exception of this moment, Boris Chicherin was faithful in everything to the ideals of his spiritual teacher from Germany, and admitted that as he grew older and accumulated worldly wisdom, he more and more clearly understood the “killer truth of Hegelian philosophy.”

Soon after graduating from university, Chicherin returned to his native estate and worked on his master's thesis. Despite the high appreciation of the work by the scientific community, it was not allowed to be defended due to censorship requirements. The successful defense of the master's thesis took place only four years later - in 1857, when state censorship was somewhat relaxed.

Chicherin travels a lot, meets outstanding lawyers and philosophers from England, France and Germany, and in between trips visits his native village; in the capital rarely, on short visits.

Despite the tough schedule and work schedule, in the early 1860s Boris Chicherin defended his doctoral dissertation on the problems of popular representation and became a professor at Moscow University at the Department of State Law. In parallel with this, Boris Nikolaevich was authorized to perform an important function - he, who was known as an ardent opponent of the revolution and a moderate liberal, was invited to participate in legal education and give lectures on state law to Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich. However, soon the precocious and promising heir to the throne died suddenly.

Chicherin, having enormous popularity and high authority in the scientific societies of both capitals, as well as for his eloquence and clarity of judgment, was elected an honorary citizen of Moscow, the Russian Physical and Chemical Society and received the post of Moscow mayor in 1882. In this position, Chicherin took measures that were very popular among the people, showing himself to be a talented manager and administrator. In particular, he achieved an improvement in the quality of drinking water by introducing water from the suburbs into the Moscow city water supply system.

In the last years of his life, Boris Chicherin published a number of works that became significant and key in the field of philosophy of law and state science. In particular, he prepared a two-volume book “Property and the State”, a three-volume book “Course of State Science”, a course in the philosophy of law, and a fundamental work “History of Political Doctrines”, work on which was carried out for more than thirty years. In addition, the outstanding lawyer and philosopher left valuable memories of his European travels and years spent at Moscow University...

Key Ideas

The central attention in Chicherin’s works is occupied by the problem of the individual, the protection of his rights and freedoms. Chicherin divided freedom as such into negative and positive according to the degree of independence from the will of others. He considered law to be a mutual restriction of freedom under general law. From his point of view, law is a bearer of a unique independent nature, and it cannot be seen as a lower level of morality, as his foreign colleagues, for example, Georg Jellinek, believed.

Boris Chicherin considered property an integral element of personal freedom: restriction of the rights of the owner and possessor, as well as any government intervention in the area of ​​private property, according to Chicherin, was unconditionally evil. The state, Chicherin believed, is obliged to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens.

It is noteworthy that, while advocating the moral and legal equality of all citizens, the researcher rejected the possibility of material equality, considering this a fundamentally unfeasible situation.

B.N. Chicherin advocated the idea of ​​peaceful coexistence of people and human coexistence, and believed the structure of civil society to be more stable than any state mechanism.

Boris Nikolayevich considered the constitutional monarchy to be the highest stage of development of statehood and the most perfect form of government; he fundamentally rejected autocracy for oppression and reactionary nature. However, Chicherin revered the strong power of the monarch as necessary and perfectly suitable for the peculiarities of the Russian territorial structure and national mentality.

A contemporary of the Great Reforms of Alexander II and the counter-reform activity of Alexander III, inspired by former like-minded people of Chicherin, yesterday's liberals Katkov and Pobedonostsev, Boris Nikolayevich strongly substantiated the urgent need for reforms. But his ideas and projects did not see the light of day - having fallen into disgrace, the founder of the science of Russian state law was deprived of the opportunity to participate in public administration affairs.

The fruitful activity and creativity of Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin serves as an example and example of the outstanding merits of a bright analytical mind and a thorough understanding of the deep-seated problems of Russia.

) made a significant step forward compared to the historiography of the nobility. The range of historical sources has expanded. New scientific institutions emerged that published documentary material. Bourgeois historians tried to reveal the pattern of the historical process, understanding it idealistically. However, despite the forward movement of bourgeois historical science during the period of development of capitalist relations, its class limitations were already evident at that time.

Development of Russian historiography in the 19th century. took place in the struggle of currents: noble-serfdom and bourgeois-liberal, on the one hand, and revolutionary-democratic, on the other. At the same time, in connection with the growth of the revolutionary movement, the reactionary nature of bourgeois liberalism became more and more apparent. V.I. Lenin in his article “On the occasion of the anniversary” (1911) contrasted the liberal and democratic trends in Russian social thought and pointed out in this regard “... the difference in the ideological and political directions of, say, Kavelin, on the one hand, and Chernyshevsky , with another" .

Lenin gives the same opposition of the revolutionary-democratic trend to bourgeois liberalism in the article “In Memory of Herzen” (1912), in which he speaks of the diametrical opposition of two directions: on the one hand, the revolutionary Herzen, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, “representing a new generation of revolutionaries-raznochintsy ", on the other hand, - "a vile liberal", "one of the most disgusting types of liberal rudeness" Kavelin. The class essence of Russian bourgeois liberalism was revealed especially clearly by Lenin in his work “Another March on Democracy” (1912): in the attitude of the liberal Kavelin to the democrat Chernyshevsky, Lenin points out, “one can see... the exact prototype of the attitude of the Cadet party of the liberal bourgeois to the Russian democratic mass movement ".

Ideologists of the bourgeois monarchy S. M. Solovyov, K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin The basis for the periodization of the Russian historical process was seen in the replacement of clan relations with state ones. They viewed the state as a supra-class force that acted in the interests of the “common good.” At the same time, the majority of representatives of bourgeois-liberal historiography defended the Norman “theory”. Thus, Solovyov outlined the following periods in the historical development of Russia: “from Rurik” to Andrei Boyulubek; from Andrey Bogolyubeky to Ivan Kalita; from Ivan Kalita to Ivan III; from Ivan III to the “suppression of the Rurik dynasty” at the end of the 16th century. In the first period, “princely relations were purely tribal in nature.” The second period is characterized by the struggle of tribal principles with state ones. The third period is the time when “Moscow rulers are increasingly giving strength to state relations over clan relations.” The fourth period marks the triumph of state forces, “bought by a terrible bloody struggle against the dying order of things.” Solovyov’s concept of “clan” is devoid of social content; it is of a formal legal nature. Considering ancient Rus' as an era of dominance of tribal relations, Soloviev at the same time considered the “calling” of the Varangians to be the initial moment in the history of the state, attaching extremely great importance to this event.

In the positions of the state school there were also Kavelin , whose works Lenin regarded as “an example of professorial lackey profundity,” and Chicherin, whose reactionary political views Lenin criticized in his work “Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Annibals of Liberalism,” and other so-called “Westerners.”

Considering the “natural continuity of legal life after the tribal one,” Kavelin drew the following diagram of historical development. “At first, the princes constitute a whole clan, owning together the entire Russian land.” Then, as a result of the settling of the princes on the land, “territorial, proprietary interests had to prevail over personal ones.” “Through this, the princely family turned into many separate, independent owners.”

The collection of lands led to the formation of a “huge fiefdom” - the “Moscow State”. IN early XVIII V. this “patrimony” turned into “a political state body and became a power in the real meaning of the word.” Chicherin stood in the same positions, speaking about three stages of the historical development of Russia: “In the first era, at the dawn of history, we see a blood union; then there is a civil union, and finally a state union.”

The reactionary class meaning of such schemes was an apology for the bourgeois monarchy, which represented the most perfect, from the point of view of Kavelin and Chicherin, political form of government. V.I. Lenin revealed the class essence of such liberal concepts, pointing out that “liberals were and remain the ideologists of the bourgeoisie, which cannot put up with serfdom, but which is afraid of revolution, afraid of a mass movement capable of overthrowing the monarchy and destroying the power of the landowners.”