Pobedonostsev Konstantin Petrovich

- famous lawyer and statesman , DTS, State Secretary, b. in Moscow in 1827. After completing a course at the School of Law, he entered the service in the Moscow departments of the Senate; in 1860-65 occupied the department of civil law at Moscow University; at the same time he was a teacher of jurisprudence. book Nikolai Alexandrovich, Alexander Alexandrovich, Vladimir Alexandrovich, and later - the now reigning sovereign emperor. In 1863, he accompanied the late heir, Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich, on his journey through Russia, which he described in the book “Letters about the heir-Tsarevich’s journey across Russia from St. Petersburg to Crimea” (St. Petersburg, 1864). In 1865, Pobedonostsev was appointed a member of the consultation of the Ministry of Justice, in 1868 a senator, in 1872 a member of the State Council, and in 1880 chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod; he still holds this position. He is an honorary member of the universities of Moscow, St. Petersburg, St. Vladimir, Kazan and Yuryevsky, as well as a member of the French. acad. P.’s versatile, scientific, literary and journalistic activities, which have not stopped until recently, make it possible to clarify in all details the worldview of this statesman, who over the past 20 years has taken an outstanding part in the highest government administration. Particularly characteristic in this regard is Pobedonostsev’s publication, which appeared in 1896 under the title “Moscow Collection”. Here the basic foundations of modern Western European culture and political system are criticized, in comparison with the main features of national Russian ideals. The main vices of Western European culture, according to Pobedonostsev, who agrees with Le Play (see), are rationalism and faith in the good nature of man. The first places a person under the full power of logical inference and generalizations, which in reality have meaning and force only insofar as the facts of life underlying the premises are true; the second leads to the idea of ​​democracy and parliamentarism - “the great lie of our time.” Taken together, both factors produce extreme turmoil in the entire structure of European society, striking the “Russian crazy heads.” Called to discuss logically developed broad theoretical programs on which all public administration is based, the mass of the population, incapable of verifying broad generalizations through a careful study of facts, is sacrificed to people who know how to influence it with their eloquence, the ability to deftly and craftily make generalizations, and others. , even lower methods of struggle (selection of parties, bribery, etc.) d.). Parliamentary figures belong, for the most part, to the most immoral representatives of society; "with extreme limitation of mind, with limitless development of selfishness and malice itself, with baseness and dishonesty of motives, a person with strong will can become the leader of the party and then becomes the leading, dominant head of a circle or meeting, even if it includes people far superior to him in mental and moral qualities." People of duty and honor are disgusted by the election procedure; only selfish, egoistic natures who want to achieve personal goals. People of honor and duty are usually not eloquent, incapable of “stringing loud and vulgar phrases”; they “reveal themselves and their strengths in their working corner or in a close circle of like-minded people.” According to this view, everything that is based on domination rationalism and ideas of popular representation, finds a strict judge in P. A court based on these principles will give birth to “a crowd of lawyers, for whom the interest of pride and self-interest helps them soon achieve significant development in the art of sophistry and logomachy in order to act on the masses”; in the person of the jury in it there operates “a motley mixed herd, collected either by chance or by artificial selection from a mass in which neither the consciousness of the duty of a judge nor the ability to master the mass of facts that require analysis and logical disassembly are available.” Even more harmful is the so-called periodical press. spokesperson for societies. opinions. This is a corrupting and destructive force, for it, being irresponsible for its opinions and judgments, invades with them everywhere, into all corners of honest and family life, imposes his ideas on the reader and mechanically influences the actions of the masses in the most harmful way; “any street rogue, any chatterbox of unrecognized geniuses, any seeker of gesheft can, having his own money or having obtained other people’s money for profit and speculation, found a newspaper, gather a crowd of hacks,” etc. Of course, the spread of public education is also harmful, because it does not educate people, does not impart skills, but only gives knowledge and the habit of thinking logically; meanwhile, “one has only to recognize the syllogism as the highest, unconditional measure of truth - and real life will fall into slavery to the abstract formula of logical thinking, the mind with common sense will have to submit to the emptiness and stupidity that owns the tool of the formula, and art, tested by life, will have to fall silent before the reasoning of the first young man who comes across, familiar with the ABCs of formal reasoning... Belief in the unconditional moral action of mental education, refuted by facts, is nothing more than a preconceived position, stretched to the point of absurdity.”

Pobedonostsev's positive ideals are as definite as his criticism of the modern system of Western European state and social life. “There is in humanity,” he says, “a natural force of inertia, which has great significance... This force, which myopic thinkers new school indifferently mixed with ignorance and stupidity - is absolutely necessary for the well-being of society. Neglecting or forgetting this force is the main flaw of modern progress." The common man knows the meaning of this force and feels well that, succumbing to logic and reasoning, he will have to change his entire worldview; therefore, he firmly preserves it, without giving in to logical arguments. It rests not on knowledge, but on the main motive of human actions - immediate sensation, feeling, experience. “Only a fool can have clear thoughts and ideas about everything. The most precious concepts that the human mind contains are found in the very depths of the field and twilight; around these vague ideas, which we are unable to bring into connection with each other, clear thoughts revolve, expand, develop, rise." Politically, this power of unconscious sensations will give rise to respect for old institutions, which are "those precious, therefore irreplaceable, that they were not invented, but created by life, came out of past life, from history and were sanctified in popular opinion by the authority that history and history alone gives. "The main support of social life is directly connected with the above force - faith, which stands above all theoretical formulas and conclusions of reason. “The people feel in their souls that absolute truth cannot be grasped materially, exhibited tangibly, determined by number and measure, but that it can and should be believed, for absolute truth is accessible only to faith.” The people, thanks to their unconscious feeling for truth, do not knowing the scientific pragmatic history, and does not need it, since he creates his own history - a legend, "in which he senses a deep truth, - the absolute truth of ideas and feelings, - a truth that no one - the most subtle and artistic - critical analysis of facts." Associated with the dominance of faith is the dominance of the church and especially church rite, in which the people directly, with the same instinct, and not by reasoning, perceive the meaning of church teaching. Taking shape historically, in connection with folk life, ritual is an integral part of this life. Therefore, there can be no talk of uniting different churches on the theoretical basis of an agreement regarding the understanding of dogmas; churches will remain different as long as the rite is different, that is, as long as nations exist. Pobedonostsev does not allow members of one church to censure members of another for their faith (“everyone believes as he feels best”) - but faith in the unconditional truth of his religion leads to the fact that a person convinced of it “considers it his duty not only to openly profess his teaching , but, if necessary, forcefully impose it on others.” In accordance with this, P. does not allow the equality of churches in the state, much less the separation of church and state. The ideal for him is the position of the church in Russia. “The religious life of a people like ours, left to themselves, unlearned” is for P. “a sacrament.” “Our clergy teach little and rarely; they serve in the church and fulfill the requirements. For illiterate people, the Bible does not exist; what remains is the church service and a few prayers, which, passed on from parents to children, serve as the only connecting link between an individual and the church. In others "In remote areas, the people understand absolutely nothing in the words of the church service, or even in the Lord's Prayer. And yet, in all these uneducated minds, an altar to an unknown God has been erected, as it was in Athens, by someone unknown." That “our people are ignorant in their faith, full of superstitions, suffering from bad and vicious habits, that our clergy is rude, ignorant, ineffective” - all “these” are insignificant phenomena (course in the original). In his government activities, P. always remained true to his views. They are also reflected in his legal treatises. Characteristic feature his "Course of Civil Law" is, as in the journalistic treatise, disdain for scientific theories and fundamental disputes. It doesn't have that name at all. "general part" stating general concepts about law, its relationship to other areas of knowledge, methods, basic institutions. P.'s views on law, on the processes of its formation, and especially on the factors of its progress are therefore characterized by uncertainty. In the "Moscow Collection" P. tries to prove that the concept of law is inseparable from the concept of commandment, the moral truth of the law, the keeper of which is the power that regulates its application in candy cases and does not allow citizens to get entangled in the networks of a mass of private legal provisions. Therefore, P. does not attach importance to the detailed development of norms. “Besides the law, although in connection with it, there is a rational force and a rational will, which acts authoritatively in the application of the law and which everyone consciously obeys” (89). In the Course, Pobedonostsev argues that legal relations “are determined by life itself and its economic conditions; law (law) strives only to recognize and embrace these conditions, to ensure as a rule the free action of the sound economic principle of life, just as in the sphere of family relations the rule strives to ensure moral principles, following them and applying to them" (I, 1-2). In other places, P. insists on the precise application of detailed rules of law, even if they are unjust: “where it comes to applying the force of a given known law to a given case, it remains only to determine the true meaning of this law, and considerations of justice can only be allowed in within the limits of this legitimate meaning" (II, 313). In the “Judicial Guide” he says that the law is “only a support for performers and requires from them a certain knowledge and understanding, acquired not from the letter of the law, but from school and from that jointly and consistently accumulated reserve of strength and experience, which is collected by labor generations." For his “Course,” P. chose a “comparative method of presentation: at the beginning of each article the main idea of ​​the institution is indicated, then it is explained, in its distinctive features, according to Roman, French and German law. When the reader’s mind is ready, as complete and rounded as possible image of an institution, it is set out according to Russian law with a preliminary outline of its origin and historical development on our soil. Thus, the reader is able, in necessary cases, to judge in what way the Russian law of institution corresponds or does not correspond to its general type, as it was expressed in history, in economy and law Western Europe". In this form, P.'s "Course", being at the same time the first independent and detailed development of the current Russian law in its history and in connection with practice, received great scientific and practical value in Russian literature and became a counterweight to German novelistic scholasticism, which had renounced history and modern law in its newest, not similar to Roman, formations. The author, however, does not provide a solid basis for assessing the reforms, the need for which follows from the presentation of the Course. Emphasizing the inconsistency of Russian norms with the “general idea” of this or that “institution,” Pobedonostsev always finds that their reform is not ripe, that it depends more on morals than on legislation (guardianship), that the issue is not clarified (family property), that its decision is influenced by the peculiarities of the relationship between the Russian church and the Russian state (family law), etc. The fear of introducing logical thought into the construction of institutions is often reflected in the clarity of legal definitions. In addition to the above-mentioned works, Pobedonostsev owns: one of the first and serious scientific monographs on the history of serfdom (in “Historical Research and Articles”, St. Petersburg, 1876), a number of legal articles in Kalachev’s “Archive”, “Journal of the Ministry of Justice. ", "Legal Gazette" and "Russian Gazette" (the main features of which were largely included in the "Course"), "Historical and legal acts of the transitional era of the 17th-18th centuries." (“Readings in the Imperial General History and Ancients at Moscow University,” 1886); “Materials for the history of writ proceedings in Russia” (ibid., for 1890), article about Le Play (“Russian Review”, 1889, No. 9). Translations: “The Adventures of the Czech nobleman Vratislav in Constantinople” (from Czech); “On the imitation of Christ” (St. Petersburg, 1890), “Victory that conquered the world” (4th ed., Moscow, 1895), etc. About the “Moscow collection”, see “Vestn. Evropy” 1896, no. 10 and "Historical Bulletin" (1896, No. 9).

POBEDONOSTSEV KONASTANTIN PETROVICH - Russian statesman, lawyer, publicist, actual Privy Councilor (1883), honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1880).

Grandson of a priest, son of professor of literature at Moscow University P.V. Po-be-do-nos-tse-va (1771-1843). Graduated from the School of Law (1846). Since 1846, in service in Moscow: acting as chief secretary of the 8th deputy of the Senate (1848-1853; the highest court of appeal for civil matters -lam), Chief Secretary of the General Council of Moscow Deputies Se-na-ta (since 1853, serving until 1858), Chief Pro-curator 8 th department of Se-na-ta (1863-1866). One-time professor of civil law at Moscow University (1860-1865). Since 1865, member of the Consultation under the Ministry of Justice. Se-na-tor (since 1868). Member of the State Council (since 1872).

In the 1850s-1860s, he became famous as a talented publicist and an expert on civil law. From the flock of principles of glas-no-sti and not-for-vi-si-mo-sti su-da. Actively participating in the development of “Basic pre-development of the su-deb-hour” -ti in Russia", approved by Emperor Alexander II in 1862, in the work of the Commission for the creation of projects for-co-but-po-lo-zhe-ny about the su-deb-part (1862-1863), under-the-viv-shay su-deb-reform of 1864. Author of the fundamental “Course of the Gra-Dan-sko-go-go Law” (part 1-3, 1868-1880; more than once re-from-da -val-xia, latest edition - 2003), used both as an educational tool and as a practical guide -dstvo for lawyers, a collection of materials on su-do-pro-iz-vod-st-vu “Su-deb-noe ru-ko-vod-st-vo” (1872), and also work on the history of Russian civil law (“Is-to-ri-che-studies and articles”, 1876, and others).

Pre-po-da-val for-ko-no-ve-de-nie tse-sa-re-vi-chu Ni-ko-bark Alek-san-d-ro-vi-chu (from 1861 until his death in 1865), in 1863 he co-pro-vo-zh-gave him to the po-te-she-st-vii across Russia, received a wide range of news -ness as one of the authors (together with I.K. Bab-st) of essays about pu-te-she-st-vii, with-keep-from-cli-ki on evil- daily soci- ity -no-ka Tse-sa-re-vi-cha across Russia from St. Petersburg to the Crimea,” published in the newspaper “Mo-s-kovskie ve-do-mo-sti", in 1864 from-yes-from-del-but). Pre-po-da-val for-co-no-ve-de-nie to the Grand Duke Alek-san-d-ru Alek-san-d-ro-vi-chu (since 1881 Emperor Alexander III) and his soup-ru-ge to Maria Fe-do-rov-ne, as well as to the great princes Vla-di-mi-ru Alek-san-d-ro-vi-chu and Ser-gay Alek-san- d-ro-vi-chu, in the 1880s - tse-sa-re-vi-chu Ni-ko-layu Alek-san-d-ro-vi-chu (since 1894 Emperor Ni-ko-lay II ).

Pobedonostsev's political views evo-lu-tsio-ni-ro-va-li. In the second half of the 1850s - early 1860s, he came out in support of the pre-education of Emperor Aleksandr II, but called to the os-birth-no-sti in the pro-ve-de-niy of re-forms, on the non-ob-ho-di-mo-sti of their co-gla-co-vani- with use technical traditions of Russia. Under the influence of the revolutionary movement in the 1860s and 1870s, he switched to con-serva- tion tive in position, became from-re-tsa-tel-but from-to-s-to-dative pre-ob-ra-zo-va-ni-yams -ri-che-ski layer-of-living-she-go-xia of social uk-la-da, paying the main attention to the impact on the creation of spirits -the life of people, the improvement of their morals. Since the mid-1860s, Pobedonostsev was closely connected with the con-serv-va-tiv-no-sla-vya-no-fil-ski circles, group-pi-ro-vav- shi-mi-xia around Empress Maria Alek-san-d-rov-ny (sup-ru-gi Alek-san-d-ra II) and her maid of honor - sister A.F. and D.F. Tyut-che-vykh, Countess A.D. Blu-do-howl.

Supported by a number of prominent slavs - I.S. Ak-sa-ko-vym, Yu.F. Sa-ma-ri-nym, that’s why F.I. Here you go. Actively published in the magazine “Gra-zh-da-nin”, collaborated with F.M. Dos-to-ev-sky, together with Prince V.P. Me-shcher-skim entered the nearest entourage of Grand Duke Alek-san-dr. Alek-san-d-ro-vi-cha. During the Eastern Crisis of 1875-1877, he participated in the movement in support of the Balkan Slavs, provided administrative and legal support with the help of the Slavic bla-go-creative co-com-te-there, defended the Slavic-fil-organizations of the pe-cha- ty from tsen-zur-nyh pre-sled-to-va-niy, under-kept-li-val con-tact with the British op-po-zi-tsi-ey (W. Glad-ston and others ), you have fallen for the search for a com-pro-mis-sa with Russia in resolving the Eastern issue. Afterwards, one of the or-ga-ni-za-to-rov and the first chairman of the board of directors (1879-1883) of the joint-stock company

The most complete expression of Pobedonostsev’s views is his “Moscow collection” (1896, 5th edition: 1901, re-ve -den into a number of European languages). The basis of Pobedonostsev’s views is the non-acceptance of in-di-vi-dua-liz-ma and rational-on-liz-ma, reliance on ve -ru, experience and commitment to tradition, which, in his opinion, is characteristic of the Russian people. The traditional religious world-view of the masses has been disseminated as one of the foundations of the social order. At the same time, it is believed that the people are not capable of self-sustaining historical activity, well-yes- is in state custody. Rez-ko kri-ti-ko-val par-la-men-ta-rism (“the great lie of our time”), with which simple people -they come under the authority, according to his conviction, of the self-called and without-responsibility of the public vert-khush-ki - vo-zh-dey po-li-ticheskih par-tiy, ad-vo-ka-tov, zhur-na-listov. He considered himself a force capable of equally ensuring the good of all layers of society. sche-st-va.

It’s under-whelming that the very-mo-der-zha-vie is the most important personal responsibility of the king of the world. ed by God, continuous service to his people, “and therefore, in essence, the business itself sacrifice." At the same time, I condemned the government's bureaucracy. He believed the principle of freedom of co-ves-ti, which, in his opinion, “turns out in fact in freedom” do na-si-lia and pre-sled-do-va-niya.” Believed that “the state-su-dar-st-vo, which in the name of the demon-st-attachment to all faiths -I am from all the faith”, whether there is a strong connection with the people.

Author of memoirs about Emperor Aleksandr III, Grand Duchess Eka-te-ri-ne Mi-khai-lov-ne, Prince V.F. Odo-ev-skom, ba-ro-nes-se E.F. Raden, N.I. Il-min-skom, initi-ation-to-re creation of schools for girls of spiritual rank N.P. Schultz and others. Honorary member of the French Academy (1883), as well as the Russian Historical Society (1871), the Legal Society at Moscow University (1873), and the Righteous Pa-le -Stine Society (1882), Society of Russian History and Antiquities (1900) and others.

On-gra-zh-den or-de-na-mi of St. Alek-san-d-nev-sko-go (1883, al-maz-ny-mi-zna-mi to him - 1888 ), St. Vladi-mi-ra 1st degree (1896), St. An-d-ray First-called (1898) and others.

Essays:

So-chi-ne-niya / Comp. A.I. Pesh-kov. St. Petersburg, 1996;

K.P. Po-be-do-nos-tsev: Pro et contra. An-to-logia / Comp. S.L. Fir-sov. St. Petersburg, 1996.

Historical sources:

K.P. Po-be-do-nos-tsev and his cor-res-pon-den-you. M.; P., 1923. T. 1;

Letters from K.P. Po-be-do-nos-tse-va to Count N.P. Ig-nat-e-vu // By-loe. 1924. No. 27-28;

Letters from K.P. Po-be-do-nos-tse-va to Alek-san-dr. III. M., 1925-1926. T. 1-2;

Letters from K.P. Po-be-do-nos-tse-va to E.M. Fe-ok-ti-sto-vu // Li-te-ra-tour-noe-next-st-vo. M., 1935. T. 22-24;

K.P. Po-be-do-nos-tsev in 1881 (letter to E.F. Tyut-che-voy) / Publ. A.Yu. Po-lu-no-va // Re-ka time. M., 1995. Book. 1;

“Be strong and courageous...”: Articles from the weekly “Gra-zh-da-nin”, 1873-1876: Letters / Ed. V.V. Ve-der-ni-kov. St. Petersburg, 2010.

POBEDONOSTSEV, KONSTANTIN PETROVICH(1827–1907), Russian politician, legal scholar and publicist. The son of a professor of literature at Moscow University and the grandson of a priest, he was born in Moscow on May 21 (June 2), 1827. In 1846 he graduated from the School of Law, entering service in the departments of the Senate. In 1860–1865 he occupied the department of civil law at Moscow University. From 1861 he taught jurisprudence to the grand dukes, including the future emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II. Senator (1868), member of the State Council (1872), chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod (1880). Enjoying great influence at court, he was a participant in, and often the initiator of, the adoption of a number of state acts that marked a sharp shift to the right, characteristic of the era of Alexander III (it was Pobedonostsev who wrote the manifesto of 1881, where the tsar committed himself to “affirm and protect” autocratic power “from any attempts on her”). On the contrary, at the first signs of forced liberalization of the state system - when the 1905 manifesto was being prepared, granting considerable political freedoms - Pobedonostsev defiantly resigned, considering any concessions to the “spirit of reform” destructive for Russia.

His ideological principles were most clearly manifested in articles published in 1896 under the title Moscow collection; Important materials are also contained in his extensive correspondence. “Old institutions, old legends, old customs are a great thing” - Pobedonostsev’s most characteristic motto (from the article Spiritual life). The concepts of “parliamentarism”, “constitutional system”, “democracy”, “public opinion”, “freedom of the press” seemed to him to be false illusions that ruined the West and ruined Russia. His love for the pristine folk “soil” brought him closer to F.M. Dostoevsky in last years the life of a great writer. The practical way out of this “ground” was to expand the network of parochial schools (with the active support of Pobedonostsev, from 1880 to 1905, their number increased more than 150 times, reaching 43,696), which were designed to provide the people with education, while at the same time protecting him from the “corrupting” spirit of universities.

Clear examples of his religiosity were the repeatedly republished translation of the treatise On imitation of Christ(1898), attributed to the late medieval Dutch mystic Thomas a à Kempis, as well as a translation of the New Testament (1906), combining Russian and Church Slavonic vocabulary.

Carrying out strict censorship of Russian theological thought as Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, he himself proceeded not from Orthodox orthodoxy, but rather from the philosophy of German romanticism (the doctrine of K. G. Carus about the unconscious, which formed the basis of his ideas about the patriarchal people who pray to the “unknown God"). Remained an original monument of Russian legal science Civil law course Pobedonostsev (1896), which is based on general system laws, but the historical traditions of different peoples.

A widely educated and deep researcher, Pobedonostsev was the author of a number of works on civil and Russian law, translated into Russian the works of Augustine, Thomas a à Kempis, T. Carlyle and others.

Pobedonostsev’s philosophical and religious worldview was influenced by the ideas of Plato, T. Carlyle, Goethe, and representatives of Eastern patristics. In his own philosophy, the idea of ​​“organicism”, the integral organicity of natural and socio-historical existence, played a significant role. “Life,” according to Pobedonostsev, has a goal “in itself,” any “violence” against it, any attempts to “restructure” it are dangerous and theoretically untenable.

Pobedonostsev believed that the source of Russian radicalism and nihilism was Western theories, the belief in the limitless possibilities of man, which provokes selfishness and the unbridled growth of “artificially formed needs.” Pobedonostsev was a principled opponent of the democratization of public life, parliamentarism and a convinced supporter of the aristocratic principle: “Clarity of consciousness is accessible only to a few minds... and the mass, as always and everywhere, consisted and consists of a crowd... and its ideas will necessarily be vulgar.” Pobedonostsev believed that the democratic idea must be opposed by loyalty to tradition, a program of extremely careful, conservative reforms, and the principle of monarchy. The most important thing is that life in all its diversity and completeness should not be sacrificed to “abstract formulas of logical thinking,” no matter how convincing and sophisticated they may be.

Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev. Born May 21 (June 2), 1827 in Moscow - died March 10 (23), 1907 in St. Petersburg. Russian statesman of conservative views, legal scholar, writer, translator, church historian; actual privy councilor. The main ideologist of the counter-reforms of Alexander III.

In 1880-1905. served as Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. Member of the State Council (since 1872).

He taught law to the heirs to the throne - Nikolai Alexandrovich (the emperor's eldest son), future emperors and Nicholas II, from whom he enjoyed great respect. Along with M. N. Katkov, he is considered the “gray eminence” of the government of Alexander III.

Born in Moscow, in the family of Pyotr Vasilyevich Pobedonostsev, professor of literature and literature at the Imperial Moscow University, whose father was a priest, and his second wife Elena Mikhailovna; was the youngest among his father's 11 children (from two marriages).

In 1841-1846 he studied at the Imperial School of Law, from which he graduated with the rank of IX class.

In 1859 he defended his master's thesis “Towards the reform of civil proceedings” and in 1860 he was elected professor at Moscow University in the department of civil law, and taught at the university in 1862-1865.

At the end of 1861, he was invited by the chief educator of the Grand Dukes, Count S. G. Stroganov, to teach law to the heir, Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich and others. In 1863, he accompanied Nikolai Alexandrovich on his journey through Russia, which he described in the book “Letters about the journey of the Sovereign Heir Tsarevich across Russia from St. Petersburg to Crimea” (M., 1864).

In the early 1860s, he was a member of commissions preparing draft documents for judicial reform. In December 1861, he submitted a note “On Civil Proceedings” to the commission for drawing up judicial statutes, in which he critically assessed a number of proposals made by the drafters of the new statute of civil proceedings.

In 1865 he was appointed a member of the consultation of the Ministry of Justice; in 1868 - senator; in 1872 - member of the State Council.

In April 1880 he was appointed Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod; On October 28 of the same year - a member of the Committee of Ministers, which was an unprecedented formal increase in the status of the chief prosecutor's position (his predecessor, Count D. A. Tolstoy was a member of the Committee of Ministers as Minister of Public Education). B.B. Glinsky wrote in a posthumous biographical sketch: “The resignation of gr. Tolstoy and the appointment in his place as chief prosecutor was even considered by many as a liberal measure, carried out then by the “dictator of the heart” in the form of a concession to public opinion, excited by the conservative way of thinking of the count. Tolstoy."

Soon after the death of Emperor Alexander II, he acted as the leader of the conservative party in the government of the new tsar; as the closest adviser to Alexander III, he was the author of the Highest Manifesto of April 29, 1881, which proclaimed the inviolability of autocracy.

In addition to the “Department of Orthodox Confession,” which he led ex officio, Pobedonostsev played a leading role in determining government policy in the field of public education, in national issue, as well as foreign policy.

He was the author and active promoter of the reform of parochial education (1884 - 3 PSZ No. 2318; and 1902 - 3 PSZ No. 21290), designed to restore the special internal structure of these schools and return them to the jurisdiction of the Holy Synod, from where they were actually taken away in the 1870s. The assimilation by students of the principles of faith and morality, loyalty to the Tsar and the Fatherland, as well as the acquisition of “initial useful knowledge” as the goal of parochial schools, in general, repeated the goal of primary public schools of the Ministry of Public Education, according to the Regulations of 1872: “Primary public schools have the goal to establish religious and moral concepts among the people and to disseminate initial useful knowledge” (Const. Uch. Uchr., Art. 3469, Holy Law, vol. XI, part 1). It is noteworthy that later the same goal was proclaimed by the State Duma of the 3rd convocation in the bill “On Primary Education” approved by it in 1911 (Regulations, Article 1): “Primary schools have the goal of giving students a religious and moral education, developing in them a love for Russia , provide them with the necessary initial knowledge..." (Appendices to verbatim reports, printed material No. 87 III/4). If by the end of the reign of Alexander II in Russia there were 273 parochial schools with 13,035 students, then in 1902 there were 43,696 such schools with 1,782,883 students.

Maintained friendly relations with M.N. Katkov and. From his letter to the Heir Tsarevich Alexander Alexandrovich on January 29, 1881: F. M. Dostoevsky died yesterday evening. He was a close friend of mine, and it’s sad that he’s gone. But his death is a great loss for Russia. Among writers, he - almost alone - was an ardent preacher of the basic principles of faith, nationality, and love for the fatherland. Our unfortunate youth, wandering like sheep without a shepherd, had confidence in him, and his action was very great and beneficial. He was poor and left nothing but books. His family is in need. Now I am writing to Count Loris-Melikov and asking him to report whether the Emperor would deign to take part.

On the night of March 8-9, 1901, an attempt was made on his life; the son of the titular adviser to the statistician of the Samara provincial zemstvo, Nikolai Konstantinov Lagovsky, shot at his home office; bullets hit the ceiling. The attacker was captured and on March 27 sentenced to 6 years of hard labor.

In the early 1900s, Pobedonostsev resolutely opposed the reform of church governance (the leader of which in the Synod, in his opinion, was Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky), the expansion of religious tolerance, and the convening of a local council, about which he wrote a number of notes to Emperor Nicholas II in March 1905 (a number of ideas expressed in them were reflected in the tsar’s resolutions at the reports of the Synod.) However, it was K. P. Pobedonostsev in 1905 who became the author of the program of “preparatory works” for the upcoming Council of the Russian Church, which he presented to the Holy Synod on June 28, 1905 Among these activities, K. P. Pobedonostsev outlined the following:

1. precise determination of the composition of the cathedral, establishment of the procedure for considering and resolving cases by the cathedral and the organization of a temporary governing and preparatory body of work under it;
2.discussion of the advisability of restoring metropolitan districts “in territories in which there are historical and vital grounds for this”;
3.organization of “an effective diocesan body of episcopal power, which would unite under its jurisdiction the entire area of ​​diocesan administration” (school affairs, missionary work, fraternal, diocesan congresses, auxiliary and emerital cash offices, candle factories, etc.) with attention to the one developed in 1870 year The draft of the main provisions for the transformation of the spiritual-judicial part and the opinions of the spiritual consistories regarding the draft; 4. comprehensive development of the issue of improvement of the parish in religious, moral, educational and charitable relations;
5.improvement of theological educational schools (elimination of multi-subject, change of policy in relation to the persons in charge, improvement of educational techniques), as well as “the establishment of such theological schools with a shortened general education course, which would serve exclusively for the preparation of candidates for the priestly, church and ministerial positions.” positions, with the admission to these schools of children who have completed a course in parochial schools without distinction of class”;
6. revision of laws relating to the procedure for the acquisition of property by the church - abolition of the rule on the mandatory request of the Highest permission for the acquisition of real estate by churches, monasteries and bishops' houses, granting the clergy as an estate (in fact, the entire Russian Church) the rights of a legal entity to participate in property turnover;
7. establishment of more precise rules about diocesan congresses, discussion of the question of “whether diocesan congresses should not be assigned the status of an auxiliary body under the bishop not only on issues of material, but also religious and moral needs”; 8.preliminary development, with the assistance of representatives of theological science, of the “objects of faith” to be discussed by the Council, “relating to knowledge, confirmation and purification from various misconceptions Orthodox Christian faith", in particular, the question of the position of the Orthodox Church in relation to Old Believers, sectarians and non-believers following the publication of the Highest Decree on April 17, 1905 on religious tolerance.

The last important act in the career of K. P. Pobedonostsev was the leadership of the commission, which was tasked with developing the edition of the Manifesto notifying the people of the establishment of the State Duma (July-August 1905).

After the publication of the October Manifesto, which he did not accept, he was dismissed from the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Synod and a member of the Committee of Ministers, retaining the positions of member of the State Council, Secretary of State and Senator.

He died at 6:30 pm on March 10, 1907. The removal of the body and funeral service took place on March 13; the service in the Novo-Devichy Convent was led by Metropolitan Anthony of St. Petersburg and Ladoga; members imperial family were not present, the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod P.P. Izvolsky and a number of ministers were present. It is noteworthy that the government body “Government Gazette” did not publish a message about his burial (there was only an obituary). He was buried at the altar of the church of the St. Vladimir Church and Teachers' School in St. Petersburg, now the courtyard of house 104 on Moskovsky Avenue (yard of the emergency hospital No. 21 named after I. G. Konyashin). The grave has survived to this day.

Since 1880, Pobedonostsev lived in St. Petersburg in the house of the spiritual department at the address: Liteiny Prospekt, 62. His wife (from January 9, 1866) - Ekaterina Aleksandrovna Engelhardt (1848-1932), daughter of the landowner of the Mogilev province, staff captain Alexander Andreevich Engelhardt, - for more than 30 years, until 1917, she headed the St. Vladimir Women's Church and Teachers' School; died in Leningrad and was buried next to her husband. The couple had no children. Adopted daughter - Martha (1897 - 12/07/1964, in Montfermeil, part of the Seine-Saint-Denis department, near Paris).

Pobedonostsev’s ideology:

In his early youth, Pobedonostsev was a supporter of liberal ideas. In the diaries of A. A. Polovtsov there is an entry (February 21, 1901) about a conversation with Nicholas II: “I mention the name of Pypin and say that in the past he was a liberal, but that over the years this has passed; and who wasn’t a liberal in their youth? After all, Pobedonostsev himself wrote articles for Herzen in Kolokol. - Sovereign. In a low voice. Yes, I heard that. - I am. He told me so himself. He wrote a pamphlet on Count Panin." The work mentioned is an anonymous pamphlet-biography of Panin, published by Herzen in the seventh book of “Voices from Russia,” the author of which is considered to be twenty-one-year-old Pobedonostsev.

However, the liberal hobbies of his youth were quickly forgotten. Mature K. P. Pobedonostsev is a thinker of the conservative-protective direction. His most complete worldview is set out in the Moscow Collection, published in 1896. He sharply criticized the basic foundations of culture and principles of government in the countries of contemporary Western Europe; condemned democracy and parliamentarism, which he called “the great lie of our time”: general elections, in his opinion, give birth to corrupt politicians and lower the moral and mental level of the administrative strata.

Tried to resist the spread of liberal ideas; sought to restore the religious principle in public education after the introduction of secularism into the chief prosecutor of Count D. A. Tolstoy: in the preface to his textbook “History of the Orthodox Church before the division of churches” he wrote: “It is sad and offensive if, when thinking about “Church History”, the idea of ​​memorizing arises known facts, arranged in a certain order, The history of the Church must be imprinted not in one memory, but in the heart of everyone, as a mysterious story of suffering, for the sake of great, endless love.”

Pobedonostsev believed that church and faith are the foundations of the state: “The state cannot be a representative of the material interests of society alone; in this case, it would deprive itself of spiritual strength and would renounce spiritual unity with the people. The stronger the state and the more important it is, the more clearly spiritual representation is indicated in it. Only under this condition is the sense of legality, respect for the law and trust in state power. Neither the beginning of the integrity of the state or state good, state benefit, nor even the moral beginning are in themselves sufficient to establish a strong connection between the people and state power; and the moral principle is unstable, fragile, devoid of a fundamental root, when it is renounced from religious sanction. Religion, and namely Christianity, is the spiritual basis of all rights in state and civil life and of all true culture. That's why we see that political parties The parties most hostile to the social order, radically rejecting the state, proclaim ahead of everything that religion is only a personal, private matter, only personal and private interest.”

Noteworthy are the thoughts and terminology of his draft speech for Emperor Alexander III in the Grand Kremlin Palace, during his first visit to Moscow as a tsar in July 1881: “Here, in Moscow, the living feeling of love for the fatherland and devotion to the legitimate Sovereigns has never been exhausted ; here the Russian people never ceased to feel that whoever is an enemy of the Russian Tsar and His legitimate power is an enemy of the people, an enemy of his fatherland. Here, in the midst of living monuments of God’s providence over Russia, I am filled with new hope for God’s help and victory over lawless enemies. "While in Moscow on July 17-18, the emperor did not utter the words proposed in Pobedonostsev’s draft, saying at the end of his short speech at the Highest Exit in the Catherine Hall: “as Moscow testified before, and now testifies that in Russia the Tsar and the people are one unanimous, strong whole.”

Political and legal views of K.P. Pobedonostsev was also expressed in his lectures on law to the future Emperor Nicholas II (1885-1888):

- “The very idea of ​​power is based on law, and the main idea of ​​power is the strict distinction between good and evil and reasoning between right and wrong - in justice”;
- “The state is not a mechanical structure, but a living organism. Properties of an organism: a living joint, and the members connected together by the principle of life and spirit act in harmony, and the organism develops and grows”;
- “The state is the highest of human institutions, and just as a person lives for the comprehensive and moral development of all his abilities, the goal of the state is the comprehensive achievement of all the highest goals of human nature”;
- “Only in Europe is the beginning of personal freedom expressed in law (to give everyone their due, according to right)... In Rome, the concept of a person (persona) who is assigned certain rights is expressed, and the purpose of the law is expressed - to equalize rights between citizens”;
- “The general reasons for the weakening of the monarchical principle are the invasion of new ideas”;
- “Our history has developed unlimited royal power, but has not developed representative institutions limiting it, although history is known of repeated attempts to do so, emanating not from the people, but from a small party - either ambitious or doctrinaire.”

March 10/23, 2007 marks 100 years since the death of the great statesman Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev. For a quarter of a century, he was the closest adviser to two Russian emperors - Alexander III and St. Nicholas II, exerting a guiding influence on the direction Russian politics, which did not go unnoticed by the public and even, according to K.P. himself. Pobedonostsev, was exaggerated. “There is,” he wrote, “an inveterate opinion that in Russia, under autocratic power, there is certainly one or the other - one omnipotent person who controls everything and on whom everything depends. And everyone everywhere began to consider me this person and still do, a person who always shies away from any exclusive appropriation of any power to himself." Possessing versatile knowledge, distinguished by a sharp, sober, observant mind, he could formulate a thoughtful, weighty judgment on any issue of public policy, based on concern for the highest interests of the fatherland.

K.P. Pobedonostsev was not only a high-ranking dignitary - a member State Council and Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, but also, which is rarely combined in one person, an outstanding scientist - a major specialist in the field of civil law and - which makes his personality even more ambitious and multifaceted - a thinker, standing in this regard on a par with Danilevsky, Leontiev, Tikhomirov, who came closer to him in different ways with their historiosophical views. But he, being a statesman of high rank, differed from his like-minded people in his special responsibility for every word he wrote and therefore in the balance, validity and pragmatism of both his theoretical constructions and statements on private issues of church, state, public and even literary life. On top of everything else, K.P. Pobedonostsev was an insightful and talented literary critic. A century before Pobedonostsev, Catherine II wrote to her famous correspondent Diderot that rulers, unlike writers who write with a pen on insensitive paper, write their letters with a whip on living human skin and therefore cannot be as frivolous as writers in their actions. So, Pobedonostsev, the adviser to the tsars, remembered the high responsibility for every word he wrote and did not allow himself, when speaking on topics affecting state and church life, associated with the lives of millions of people, to allow himself literary liberties and witty paradoxes, of which he was a master, for example, K. Leontiev.

K.P. Pobedonostsev was born in 1827 in the family of a professor of literature at Moscow University, who was the son of a priest in the Zvenigorod district. As Konstantin Petrovich himself characterized his family in a letter to Emperor Nicholas II, his father “had 11 children... He was raised in a pious family, devoted to the Tsar and the Fatherland, hardworking.” He received his education in St. Petersburg, at the School of Law, from which he graduated in 1846, after which he returned to Moscow, entering service in the Senate department. In the 1850-1860s, he was a professor at the Faculty of Law at Moscow University, taught civil law, wrote scientific monographs and articles - his special area of ​​research was land surveying law. He combined his university studies with service in the Senate department.

Having a reputation as an excellent expert in legal science and a brilliant lecturer, in 1861 he was invited to the palace to teach law to the heir, Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich. Upon completion of the course of teaching the heir, Pobedonostsev returned to Moscow to his previous studies, but after the early death of Nikolai Alexandrovich, the new heir Alexander Alexandrovich wished that Pobedonostsev teach legal sciences to him as well. Having accepted this offer, Pobedonostsev finally moved to St. Petersburg in 1866, where he had to teach not only the heir Alexander Alexandrovich, but also other grand dukes - his brothers Vladimir and Sergei, Nikolai Konstantinovich, as well as the heir’s wife Maria Fedorovna. Subsequently, Pobedonostsev taught law to the future Emperor Nicholas II when he was heir to the throne. Emperor Alexander II, appreciating the knowledge, abilities, remarkable business qualities and, most importantly, the devotion of the mentor of his children to the throne, appointed him a member of the State Council.

In 1880, Pobedonostsev was appointed to the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. He occupied it until October 1905. Two days after the publication of the famous imperial manifesto on civil liberties and the convening of the legislative chamber - State Duma K.P. Pobedonostsev, who did not approve of this step, resigned. Two years later he died.

Emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II treated Pobedonostsev with deep respect, K. Leontyev highly valued him, and I.S. maintained friendly relations with him. Aksakov. Characterizing the new atmosphere in society after the accession of Alexander III, a prominent church scholar and author of remarkable memoirs, Archbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich), wrote: “This is something new, a new trend, some kind of revival of the Russian spirit, the religious spirit. For how long, I don’t know. .. It was felt that this was a new trend - a new reign, that in all this... the spirit of K.P. Pobedonostsev was breathing."

But Pobedonostsev still had more ill-wishers than admirers, especially if we judge this by literary assessments of his activities. The textbook poetic quintessence of society’s perception of his place, his role in the history of Russia at the turn of the century were lines from A. Blok’s poem “Retribution”:

In those years, distant, deaf
Sleep and darkness reigned in our hearts:
Pobedonostsev over Russia
He spread out his owl's wings.
And there was neither day nor night,
But only the shadow of huge wings,
He outlined a wondrous circle
Russia, looking into her eyes
With the glassy gaze of a sorcerer.

The owl is a symbol of wisdom among the ancients, but Blok, being captive of common prejudices, put something else into this image, apparently correctly conveying the perception of Pobedonostsev by Russian society, which was already ready to rush down the steep slope into the abyss of the “world fire.” Pobedonostsev had a strong reputation as a monarchist and cleric, a reactionary and an obscurantist, a chauvinist and a serf-owning bison. And all these characteristics - minus his undoubted monarchism, or, better to say, his loyalty to the Tsar, loyalty to the oath - are completely unfounded.

K.P. Pobedonostsev, whom the liberal and radically oriented society of his time branded as an obscurantist, probably did more to spread literacy among the people than anyone else not only among his contemporaries, but in general throughout history. Russian Empire. Thanks to his initiative, his concerns, his patronage, parochial schools began to open everywhere in Russia. Millions of peasant children were involved in their teaching, and they received the rudiments of knowledge in these schools under the tutelage of Orthodox pastors. The number of students in parish schools was significantly ahead of zemstvo schools. “For the good of the people, it is necessary,” Pobedonostsev wrote, “that everywhere... near the parish church there should be a primary school of literacy, in inextricable connection with the teaching of the law of God and church singing, which ennobles every simple soul. Orthodox Russian people dream of a time when all Russia will be covered in parishes with a network of such schools, when each parish will consider such a school its own and take care of it through parish guardianship.” And he achieved amazing success in creating a system of parish primary education. Before his chief prosecutor, literate peasants in Russia were in negligible numbers, and as a result of the activities of parish schools at the beginning of the twentieth century, already a quarter of the population knew how to read and write, and in the younger generation, literate people made up the majority.

One can have a different attitude towards the fact that Pobedonostsev did not consider it necessary for graduates of parish schools to receive training sufficient to enter secondary school. educational institution. But common sense was undoubtedly present in this feature of his educational policy. He did not want to flood society with half-educated elements; he did not see the need for a gap between people higher education and a higher culture, on the one hand, and a people for whom, as he believed, elementary literacy and the ability to read the most soul-helping books they needed were enough, to be filled with half-educated people who are easily infected with nihilism, susceptible to dubious new ideas, which they poorly understand, extremely vulgarizing them. In any case, through no fault of Pobedonostsev, the half-educated element that multiplied on the eve of the Russian catastrophe contributed to this catastrophe itself and left its characteristic stamp on the later course of Russian history.

Carefully patronizing parochial schools, Pobedonostsev singled out among the teachers employed in them teachers with extraordinary talent and an ascetic attitude to the work they had chosen. In a letter to Alexander III, he asked the sovereign to provide financial assistance to S. Rachinsky, “who, having left his professorship at Moscow University, went to live on his estate... and has been living there continuously for more than 14 years, working from morning to night for the benefit of the people.” He inhaled completely new life in a whole generation of peasants sitting in pitch darkness... he founded and runs, with the help of four priests, five public schools, which now represent a model for the whole earth.”

And in this letter, and in his other letters to the emperor, in many of his articles, in all his state activities, it is obvious that his enemies completely unfairly saw him as a defender of the interests of the noble class. And indeed, his main concern was about the Russian peasant, about teaching him to read and write, rescuing him from tavern captivity, improving him financial situation. And the main thing is that the peasants will continue to remain within the saving fence of the Orthodox Church, from which the insane, in Pobedonostsev’s opinion, students and female students who called themselves populists tried to extract them.

And therefore, Archpriest Georgy Florovsky aptly described his own political views as conservative populism. Pobedonostsev believed in the strength of patriarchal folk life, in the spontaneous wisdom of the common people. “People feel it in their soul,” he liked to repeat. And in his religious views, he, a man of high culture and versatile erudition, tried to identify with the common people. According to him, he loved to “disappear with his “I” in this mass of praying people. The people understand absolutely nothing in the words of the church service, or even in the “Our Father,” but this does not matter, for the truth is not comprehended by reason, not by faith, and the most precious concepts... are found in the very depths of the will and in the twilight.”

As for Pobedonostsev’s attitude towards the upper class, only one thing can be said positively: he really preferred to see nobles as landowners, rather than moneybags from those who were his ideological antipode and at the same time, unlike Pobedonostsev, he himself belonged to an old noble family M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin called them “grimy.” “Although from no one,” wrote Pobedonostsev, “one can expect perfection and unconditional virtue, the nobility, by its historical position, more than any other class, is accustomed, on the one hand, to serve, and on the other hand, to rule. That is why the noble landowner always the landowner is more trustworthy than the merchant, and will have more trust among the people, and they know about the merchant that he primarily has in mind his profit in the economy. That is why, in our present situation, it is extremely important that noble landowners strive to live as much as possible on their estates inside Russia, and did not accumulate in the capitals."

Pobedonostsev’s reputation as a chauvinist was created by the Poles - Russian Poles who defended the privileges of Catholic landowners in the Orthodox West of Russia, which is now called Ukraine and Belarus, and the Baltic Lutherans, who dominated in Estland, Livonia and Courland, energetically and until Pobedonostsev, not unsuccessfully resisted the gravity of a significant part of the locals subject to them Estonian and Latvian peasants to Orthodoxy, in which they found consolation, because Lutheranism with undisguised straightforwardness manifested itself in the Baltics as the religion of the dominant German element, and the belonging of the natives to it was perceived by this element as a sign of their submission to their landowners and the real masters of this region.

Meanwhile, for a long time, many Latvians and Estonians, even remaining Lutherans, went on pilgrimage to the Pskov-Pechersk Monastery and gradually became convinced of the truth of Orthodoxy. Back in the 1840s, more than 100 thousand Latvians and Estonians converted to Orthodoxy. The Baltic barons were alarmed by this, fearing that the strengthening of Orthodoxy in the Baltic states would undermine their dominance. Relying on the support of senior government officials - Benckendorff, Osten-Sacken, Dubelt, the German party at the imperial court, breaking the resistance of Chief Prosecutor Count Protasov, obtained from the Holy Synod an order that “extreme caution and gradualism” be observed when accepting Lutherans into Orthodoxy. . As a result, events began to occur that seemed impossible in an Orthodox state: the German police in Riga dispersed people with weapons from the bishop's house, for one attempt to approach this house they were beaten with whips and thrown into prison.

A new wave of mass joinings among Estonians and Latvians arose in the 1880s, and this time Chief Prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostsev firmly withstood the blow from the same Baltic party, which remained influential in his time, even being present in the cabinet of ministers. And Lutherans then began to complain to the whole world about religious persecution. In 1886, Pobedonostsev was sent a letter from Switzerland from the Evangelical Union accusing him of persecuting Lutherans and demanding that they stop. This letter was followed by a response in which the Chief Prosecutor rightly asserted that the complaints of the Baltic Lutherans stemmed from completely worldly desires to maintain dominance over the local population of the Baltic states.

Commenting on this correspondence in a letter to Alexander III, Pobedonostsev wrote: “Concerning the current movement towards Orthodoxy in the Baltic region and the new measures being taken, foreign German newspapers are filled with unimaginable gossip and slander... It is known that there is no lie that foreigners would not believe when "It is told about Russia. Unfortunately, even among the Russians, especially among the noble ladies here, they also believe all sorts of absurdities from a foreign voice." In this regard, it must be admitted, both in the West and in Russia little has changed in the more than hundred years that have passed since then; “gullible” ladies have not disappeared anywhere, especially in the journalistic environment, but if they can be called noble, then with a special connotation of this word, appropriate in relation to journalism.

As for clericalism, which was also attributed to Pobedonostsev, it never existed in Russia, and could not have existed. This is, after all, a phenomenon that naturally grew only on the soil of Catholicism. Moreover, it did not exist in our country. synodal era, although in the 18th century the Russian government seriously feared this ghost - hence the reprisal of Catherine the Great over the hieromartyr Metropolitan Arseny (Matsievich). Pobedonostsev was a faithful son of the Orthodox Church; in his position as Chief Prosecutor, he constantly dealt with the Church, but the direction of his activity in this department, which corresponded to his convictions, was directly opposite to what is commonly called clerical. In this, he rather shared the prejudices of the Russian government, which developed in the era of Peter the Great and lasted until the last reign.

K.P. Pobedonostsev not only did not allow the thought of independent participation of the church hierarchy in matters of state government (which, in fact, is what clericalism consists of), but, as he believed, even in church affairs the episcopate should be under the tutelage of state power. He was filled with deep distrust of the ability of the Russian episcopate to independently, without state tutelage, resolve church affairs: “Experience (admittedly sad) and observation confirm me that our church hierarchy needs a layman and is looking for support outside the circle of church government.. "In general, here in Russia it is impossible in any sphere of activity to rest on the assumption that everything will be organized and go by itself; everywhere you need a master."

An apt and insightful criticism of Pobedonostsev’s views is contained in a letter addressed to him by his friend I.S. Aksakov, written in 1882: “If in those days they asked you: should we convene Ecumenical councils, which we now recognize as saints, you would have presented so many solid critical reasons against their convening that they, perhaps, would not have taken place... Your soul is too painfully sensitive to everything false, unclean, and therefore you began to have a negative attitude towards all living things , seeing in it an admixture of impurity and falsehood."

Pobedonostsev spoke out against the convening of the Local Council, because in church cathedral saw the danger of slipping into democracy, which was harmful according to his beliefs. Prime Minister S.Yu. In March 1905, Witte submitted to the emperor a lengthy note “On the current situation of the Orthodox Church” compiled by an unknown author, in which the bureaucracy of the synodal government and the dominance of the chief prosecutor’s power were sharply criticized. The "Note" put forward the idea of ​​convening a council and restoring the patriarchate. Painfully hurt by this document, K.P. Pobedonostsev came up with “Considerations on the issues of desirable transformations in the organization of our Orthodox Church,” in which he categorically rejected the advisability of restoring the patriarchate. Pobedonostsev feared the patriarchate, as is clear from his correspondence with Emperor Nicholas II, because he saw in this institution a threat of diminishing unlimited autocracy, which he considered the only acceptable form of government in Russia.

A consistent apologist for autocracy, Pobedonostsev, however, was not a reactionary, if this term is used not just as an abusive label, but as a designation of a political direction focused on the restoration of the previous order. In this sense, with much greater justification, the Slavophiles and Pochvenniks can be considered reactionaries, whose common place in the historical concept was a critical attitude towards Peter’s reforms and an idealization of pre-Petrine antiquity. Pobedonostsev, on the contrary, was an apologist for Petrine reforms, a convinced guardian of the basic principles of the state system created by Peter the Great, with its absolutism modeled on the Protestant German states of the Westphalian era, not limited, as it was in the pre-Petrine era, by the independence of the Church with its consecrated cathedrals and its patriarch, nor Zemsky Sobors, similar to Western European medieval parliaments.

At the same time, in contrast to Peter’s ideology of Europeanization of Russia, which the Russian government adhered to for almost two centuries, K.P. Pobedonostsev treated the Western civilization of his day (but not the Europe of the era of absolutism) with undisguised disgust. He saw European liberalism as the last step before a total catastrophe and in his policy was inspired by the hope of keeping Russia from repeating the disastrous dead ends of the Western path. In the views of I.S. Aksakov, as well as his like-minded people - the Slavophiles, or F.M. Dostoevsky was a mixture of reactionary and liberal ideas, and to characterize Pobedonostsev’s political position, the only appropriate way to describe it is as conservative. He was precisely and above all a conservative - a bearer of protective ideas who feared risky changes.

Naive conservatism is born from an uncritically complacent perception current situation affairs, out of a tendency to see life through rose-colored glasses. But Pobedonostsev, in his protective, conservative policy, did not rely on beautiful-hearted illusions. In an article with the characteristic title “Diseases of our time,” he sketches bleak pictures of contemporary domestic life: “Here is the hospital that people are afraid to go to, because there is cold, hunger, disorder and the indifference of selfish management... here is the street along which to walk It is impossible without horror and disgust from the uncleanliness contaminating the air, and from the accumulation of houses of debauchery and drunkenness, here is a public place called to the most important state function, in which chaos of disorder and untruth has settled... This scroll is great, and how much is written in it for us sobs, and pity, and grief." Pobedonostsev had no doubt that Russia “needs” “an abyss of improvements.”

Just what improvements? Some of his contemporaries found that improvement could only be achieved in the most radical way - by blowing up old world and on its ruins build a new one, like a palace made of crystal and aluminum. And Pobedonostsev observed with bitterness that this cheap and unrealizable utopia (this is not said about large-block construction, which is flourishing), coupled with the very real prospect of an all-Russian Pugachevism, is intoxicating and dizzying almost more than half of the Russian students. And people of more respectable years and more restrained impulses pinned their hope for improvement on the introduction of a constitution, representative democracy, and parliamentarism, which Pobedonostsev called “the great lie of our time.” “According to the theory of parliamentarism,” he wrote, “a reasonable majority should dominate, in practice five or six party leaders dominate... in theory, conviction is affirmed by clear arguments during parliamentary debates, in practice... it is guided by the will of the leaders and personal considerations.” interest. According to theory, the people's representatives have in mind only the people's good, in practice - they, under the pretext of the people's good and at the expense of it, have in mind primarily the personal good of themselves and their friends. According to the theory, they should be among the best... citizens, in practice, are the most ambitious and impudent citizens." Pobedonostsev made such conclusions from observations of political life the country that became the birthplace of parliamentarism. In our fatherland, after the introduction of parliamentarism in it, the same qualities of parliament and parliamentarians appear with a particularly prominent, if not to say artistic expression. Pobedonostsev already foresaw such a prospect then - otherwise there would have been no need to warn. Behind his conservatism lay great anxiety with almost apocalyptic tones. “Russia needs to be frozen,” he said, so that it does not go rotten.”

Of course, his protectiveness, his conservatism can easily be called an uncreative reaction to the threats hanging over Russia at the end of the 19th century. But two types of “creative” reactions - the introduction of parliamentarism and the derailment of the train of Russian statehood - Russia has already experienced and... survived. Pobedonostsev's concern was to avoid what turned out to be inevitable. And isn’t the method of treating Russian diseases, which he saw as the only acceptable one, in fact the most reliable and even creative in essence, if creativity is not called revolutionary destruction and not the fireworks of crackling phrases, but selfless service according to the precepts of the Gospel?! “The title of authority,” wrote K.P. Pobedonostsev, “is tempting for human vanity; it is associated with the idea of ​​honor, a preferential position, the right to distribute honor and create other powers out of nothing. But whatever the human idea, the moral principle power has one, immutable: “He who wants to be first must be the servant of all.”

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/jurnal/070323091548