Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev(1827-1907) - Chief Prosecutor of the Senate, who for twenty-five years (1880-1905) had a decisive influence on government policy from the position of official monarchism and orthodox conservatism. “He was the spiritual leader of the old monarchical Russia in the era of decline” (N. Berdyaev). Being a nihilist in relation to man and the world, having absolutely no faith in man, his human nature, he, according to Berdyaev, believed that “only through violence and coercion of monarchical statehood can peace be maintained.” A week after the assassination of the monarch, at a meeting of the State Council (March 8, 1881), in his speech he formulated the main goals of the conservative program and regime of power: the unity of the autocracy and the people, the state and the Orthodox Church; removal of the constitutional issue from the agenda of the State Council; a sharp contrast between the Russian national way of life and the Western European one; strengthening the class institution of the nobility; introduction of elementary primary education; establishment of strict legality and police order. Pobedonostsev considered the meaning of his life to be “to protect the people from ignorance, from savage morals, from debauchery, from a disastrous infection, from absurd, outrageous teachings through the church, a school associated with the church.”

Main principle his priestly instructions are to prevent any innovations in the system of the Russian political system (democratic institutions, constitution, parliament, system of voting rights). Like Leontyev, he believed that the introduction of constitutional foundations would hasten the demise of the autocracy, and with it the death of Russia as a state. In his work “The Great Lie of Our Time,” Pobedonostsev, criticizing the theory and practice of parliamentarism, calls constitutional and parliamentary impulses a great hoax. "Parliament exists an institution serving to satisfy the personal ambition and vanity and personal interests of representatives... Providence saved our Russia from such a disaster, given its diverse composition. It’s scary to think what would happen to us if fate sent us a fatal gift - the All-Russian Parliament!

Remaining a consistent supporter of the absolute monarchy, he defends the class system of Russia that has developed over centuries and its strong foundation - the service nobility, which “by historical position is more than any other class got used to it, on the one hand, to serve, and on the other hand, to command. That is why a noble landowner is always more trustworthy - than a merchant landowner will seek more trust" ( Pobedonostsev K. P. The great lie of our time. P. 386).

Pobedonostsev is trying to penetrate the secrets of the human personality going to power. He sees the reasons in the imperfect nature of man, primarily in the ugly development of his pride and pride. He names three reasons for the destruction of the inner “I”: firstly, the internal lie of ideas about life, which, at the first collision with reality, runs away from the struggle and breaks itself; secondly, the powerlessness to reconcile lofty ideals with lies environment(with the lies of people and institutions); thirdly, the lack of understanding of the measure of elevation to power, which one or another official often takes beyond his strength. “The common and dominant disease among all so-called statesmen is ambition or the desire to become famous as quickly as possible, while there is still time and while the helm is in hand.” Power, as the bearer of truth, “needs most of all people of truth, people of strong thought, strong understanding and right words.”

One of the main themes of his thoughts is the problem of achieving unity and a true understanding of the Christian kinship of souls. In order to achieve unity in the Orthodox faith, it is necessary, according to Pobedonostsev, to live in accordance with common specific traditions, spiritual life, family living conditions of people, and their common affairs. In the formation of this unity, he assigns a large role to the union of the Orthodox Church with the state, so he was a supporter of the idea of ​​​​establishing a “state church.” It is in this case that the spiritual unity of the state with the people is preserved and “the sense of legality, respect for the law and trust in state power” is strengthened in the minds of the people.

Pobedonostsev’s attempt, given the presence of other religions in the state, was reactionary to justify the idea of ​​​​the dominance of one Orthodox Church, which has a monopoly influence on civil and public life, capable, if necessary, of forcibly imposing its teachings on others. Pobedonostsev believed that it was impossible to build the national unity of the Russian state on the basis of party and church pluralism.

The idea of ​​uniting state and church is not new. This idea was especially deeply developed by I. Kireevsky, relying on the Byzantine teachings of the Athonite holy elders. However, for Pobedonostsev this idea has lost its humanistic meaning. It will find its further development in the ideocratic concept of monarchical statehood by L. Tikhomirov.

The accession to the imperial throne of Alexander III strengthened Pobedonostsev's role in the political life of the Russian Empire, although he remained in his previous positions and was only promoted in rank: on April 17, 1883, he was awarded the title of actual privy councilor.

For a whole quarter of a century - a huge period at that time - Pobedonostsev became one of the most influential figures in the Russian political elite.

In Russian society late XIX- at the beginning of the twentieth century, there was a strong opinion about the omnipotence of Pobedonostsev, about his immense power, comparable to the power of the emperor himself. This opinion had some basis. Konstantin Petrovich really played decisive role in the appearance of the manifesto of Alexander III of April 29, 1881, which confirmed the inviolability of the unlimited power of the monarch and rejected attempts to introduce elements of representative government in Russia, proposed by a group of dignitaries led by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Count M.T. Loris-Melikov. Actually, the dismissal of the latter from this position was carried out by Alexander III on the advice of Chief Prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostseva. The subsequent appointment to the post of Minister of Internal Affairs of Count N.P. Ignatiev can also be attributed to Pobedonostsev's influence. And replacing Ignatiev with Count D.A. A year later (May 30, 1882), Alexander III produced Tolstoy at the suggestion of his stern mentor * (340).

Reading letters from K.P. Pobedonostsev to the Russian autocrats, documentary materials reflecting the internal policies of Alexander III and Nicholas II, memoirs and diary entries of people who were included in the highest government spheres of Russia at the time in question, one can find a lot of other evidence of the undoubted influence of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod on the course of state affairs . But what was the secret of this influence, why was the opinion of a person who occupied far from the highest positions in the dignitary hierarchy of the Russian Empire so often accepted by their imperial majesties as a command for action?

It seems that the answer to this phenomenon lay hidden both in the peculiarities of the then Russian mechanism of power and in the personality of K.P. himself. Pobedonostseva.

The system of absolute and autocratic power that existed in Russia assumed that decisions on all major issues of public administration were made individually by the emperor. However, it is quite obvious that one person, no matter how outstanding he may be, is not able to cover all state affairs. Pobedonostsev was well aware of this. In one of his letters to Emperor Alexander III, he wrote: “In theory, all appointments, dismissals, etc. come from the Supreme Power. But this is just a fiction, because, without a doubt, Your Majesty does not know about the personalities in the vast mass of officials from all over Russia.” may have a separate consideration"*(341).

The same could be said not only about personnel issues, but also about all issues of public administration in general. The autocrat could not have “separate considerations” about various aspects of numerous state affairs. That is why in Russia, in all historical eras of the existence of autocratic power, we see next to the autocrat some statesman who is especially close to the sovereign, his main assistant to the autocrat in state affairs.

Under Emperor Alexander I, such a person was Count A.A. Arakcheev. In Russian society of the first quarter of the 19th century, especially in the period after Patriotic War 1812, the widespread opinion was that the emperor had given all his power to an all-powerful temporary worker. Count Arakcheev indeed played an extremely important role in the mechanism of governing the Russian Empire, but not at all the one attributed to him by his contemporaries. Having elevated this statesman, bringing him closer to his august person, Emperor Alexander I did not give him control of the state, but, on the contrary, took this control into his own hands in a way he had never taken before. The temporary worker became for him a kind of auxiliary instrument, through which his august gaze and hands could penetrate into such corners of the space he controlled that they would never have penetrated on their own. Only with the help of the omnipresent, unusually energetic, extremely efficient Arakcheev, Emperor Alexander I was able to rule Russia the way he wanted, that is, keeping everything and everyone under his control and influence, directing all any important matters. And at the same time always remaining in the shadows, especially when it was necessary to take measures that caused strong irritation and discontent in society * (342).

K.P. Pobedonostsev was also a special kind of auxiliary instrument with the help of which the autocrat (first Alexander III, and then - the first half of his reign - Nicholas II) ruled a vast empire. However, Konstantin Petrovich was not the second Arakcheev. He was an instrument of a completely different nature - not at all the same as Arakcheev was. The new historical era required a new management tool.

In the eighties of the 19th century, for various reasons, the importance of the ideological and spiritual factor in public administration sharply increased. K.P. understood this well. Pobedonostsev, who wrote in the article “Power and Management”: “The wider the circle of activity of a person in power, the more complex the management mechanism, the more necessary for him are subordinate people who are capable of doing business, who are able to unite themselves with the general direction of activity towards a common goal. People are needed for everything.” time for any government, and in our time it is almost more necessary than ever: in our time the government has to reckon with many newly emerged and established forces - in science, in literature, in the criticism of public opinion, in public institutions with their independent interests"*(343) (italics mine. - V.T.).

Under these conditions, the autocrat needed, first of all, a statesman - an ideologist - as a temporary assistant. K.P. Pobedonostsev was suited to this role in many respects better than others from the high-ranking entourage of Emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II.

First of all, Konstantin Petrovich was a man of extraordinary intelligence.

V.V. Rozanov described one of his meetings with him in the following way: “Pobedonostsev entered, shining with intelligence and calmness: that intelligence and calmness that I have always loved in him, like everything pleasant and beautiful. It seems to me, “my own thought,” my own half-thought-out thought and unfinished reflection was always in him, inherent in him both day and night. And because of this presence of thought in his face, now thoughts, it was spiritually more beautiful than other faces, wherever he entered, wherever he appeared. Everyone else thinks about "now", and this thought about "now" is short, small. Pobedonostsev, entering the situation of "now", carried on himself the remnants and traces of precisely long thoughts, naturally more important and more beautiful than ordinary ones"*( 344).

In June 1899, Rozanov wrote about S.A. Pobedonostsev. Rachinsky: “In terms of intelligence, he is actually higher, I think, than Speransky; but his distrust of people and the general lack of youthful power of intuition took away 1/2 of his virtues. He “strengthens” everything and is a “strengthening Russia” when in relation to many things it needs to be "cleansed". But he somehow endears me with the sharpness of his words, the quickness of his gestures, all the passion of his dry and tall and flexible figure. You know, in the cycle of ideas that are now dear to me, I am completely outside the cycle of his concerns and sympathies: but he is dear to me as a person, as a moral character" * (345).

Even those who disliked him recognized Pobedonostsev’s extraordinary intelligence. True, Konstantin Petrovich’s enemies did not talk about a bright mind, like, for example, Rozanov, but about “cynical”, “dangerous”, “harmful”, etc.

Another quality that distinguished K.P. Pobedonostsev was uniquely educated among the Russian dignitaries of his day. S.Yu. Witte, noting Pobedonostsev’s “great statesmanship” in his memoirs, simultaneously wrote about him as a man of “outstanding education and culture” * (346). In his words, "you can have different opinions about the activities of Pobedonostsev, but there is no doubt that he was the most educated and cultured Russian figure with whom I had to deal" * (347). In another place in his memoirs, Witte emphasized: "He was undoubtedly a highly talented, highly cultured and a scientist in the full sense of the word" * (348).

On highest level Pobedonostsev’s intellectuality and culture appealed Special attention and V.V. Rozanov. According to him, “the entire period of Russian history, which can be dubbed the name “Pobedonostsev’s time,” - this entire period, in the part in which it depended on Pobedonostsev or was under pressure from him, in the words of the poet: “... Worthy of tears and laughter..." But all this profound uselessness and even direct harm of Pobedonostsev for the state was concealed and obscured by his great intelligence. It can be said without exaggeration that for the entire 18th, 19th and also ten years of the 20th century there was no member of our highest government not a single figure similar to him in terms of deep spiritual interest, spiritual beauty, spiritual attractiveness..." * (349) (emphasis added. - V.T.).

In the biographical literature dedicated to K.P. Pobedonostsev, sometimes the opinion is expressed that if he had not devoted himself to government activities, he would have turned out to be an outstanding scientist. This opinion was most consistently held by E.M. Feoktistov, who wrote the following about Pobedonostsev: “There is no doubt that he had a remarkable mind, lively and responsive, he was interested in everything, he was not indifferent to anything; his education was multifaceted and thorough; not to mention the legal and church issues that occupied from time immemorial, in literature, in science, and even in art, he discovered solid information. He could understand everything, and judged many things correctly. If not for chance, he would have turned out to be a remarkable figure in the scientific or literary field... "*(350).

Contents of works by K.P. Pobedonostsev testifies, however, that the ideologist still prevailed over the scientist in him. And in his lectures, and in articles, and in books, he did not so much teach as educate. It is no coincidence that in organizing public education his main emphasis was not on teaching, but on upbringing, and in the primary education system he gave preference to parochial schools. “The “folk” concept of school,” he emphasized, “is a true concept, but, unfortunately, it has been overdone everywhere in the structure.” new school. According to the popular concept, school teaches reading, writing and counting, but, in inseparable connection with this, it teaches to know God and love Him and fear Him, love the Fatherland, and honor parents. This is the sum of knowledge, skills and sensations that, taken together, form a conscience in a person and give him the moral strength necessary to maintain balance in life and withstand the fight against the bad impulses of nature, against bad suggestions and temptations of thought" * (351) .

In his letters to various individuals, Pobedonostsev repeatedly and with deep regret said that a completely false idea of ​​his role in state affairs prevails in society. “Since ancient times, people, both European and Russian, who do not know what and how our administrative springs are moving, imagine that everything that comes from the government in Russia moves by the will or whim of one person, who is in one direction or another. minute are considered an influential force, so to speak, “the first person according to the pharaoh,” wrote Konstantin Petrovich in a letter to P. A. Tverskoy * (352) dated February 19, 1900. “And so, unfortunately, the fantastic idea of , that I am such a person, and they made me a scapegoat for everything that one or another is dissatisfied with in Russia, and for which one or another is indignant. So, they blamed the Jews, and the press, and Finland on me - and now the Doukhobors - affairs in which I did not take any part - and all sorts of orders of the authorities, of which I am not at all guilty. Such a burden of so-called public opinion has to be endured - it is impossible to refute it, and no one will believe it, so the illusion of ignorance, ignorance and prejudice"*(353). In denying his influence on the movement of “administrative springs,” Pobedonostsev was not lying. Never, at any period of his official career, did he have such powers of authority that would give him the opportunity to exert a significant influence on the course of state affairs. Occupying the post of chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Pobedonostsev attended meetings of the Committee of Ministers. In addition, he was a member of several committees and commissions created to resolve various government issues and develop certain bills: the Commission for the drafting of legislation on the transformation of the judiciary under the State Chancellery, which operated in 1862-1865, the Special Commission on the introduction of magistrates' courts regulations in the Baltic provinces (1877-1880), a special commission for preliminary discussion of projects for the establishment of patrimonial regulations and patrimonial charter (1896-1904), etc. In any case, his administrative powers were very limited in nature.

However, there is no escaping the fact - for a whole quarter of a century, from 1881 to 1905, this man was the most influential dignitary of the Russian Empire. The solution to this contradiction is simple - Pobedonostsev’s influence on the policies of Russian state power was not the influence of a ruler who is obeyed under pain of punishment or seeking rewards, but of an ideologist who fascinates with the logic of his judgments. This feature of Pobedonostsev as a statesman did not escape the gaze of some of his insightful contemporaries. The publicist M. Rostovtsev wrote in 1907 in the newspaper Penza Gubernskie Gazette, responding to his death: “In Russian “civil” history, we know two such large typical figures: Speransky and Pobedonostsev, by the way, both of the clergy. Not by relationship or property, without borrowing and humiliation before the powerful of the world, these two people advanced to the role of paramount statesmen. Speaking about the latter, we can say that his activities for 25 years are the history of Russia during this period. By his will, we steadily went back, although everyone felt the need to move forward. Pobedonostsev was considered the evil genius of Russia, but all those who were not at all dependent on him obeyed his logic, as if hypnotized" (emphasis added - V.T.).

It is only necessary to make one important clarification to the above statement: Pobedonostsev convinced not only with logic, but also with the feeling that he put into his words. V.V. Rozanov in his essay response to the death of K.P. Pobedonostsev, published in the newspaper " Russian word"On March 13, 18 and 27, 1907, he recalls how he once sat visiting Metropolitan Anthony. In the midst of the conversation, the arrival of Konstantin Petrovich was announced. “Right away,” writes Rozanov, “the door opened and Pobedonostsev entered . He was as lively and mentally handsome as ever. Pobedonostsev was now served a glass of tea, and he chatted cheerfully with all of us, of course, about those pre-troubled days that were then flowing (the time of Plehve). Among his other speeches was that “it is impossible to live in Russia and work without knowing it, but to know Russia, how many of us know it? Russia is an endless world of diversity, a homeless and patient world, completely dark: and in Wolves wander in this darkness." He expressed the last thought well, with feeling. It seems that it literally sounded like this: “a wild dark field and a dashing man walks among it”... He said the last word with hostility, fear and contempt. His hands lay on the table:

And when that’s the case,” he concluded, “then nothing is needed in Russia more than power; power against this dashing man who can cause trouble in our darkness and desert darkness. And his fingers clenched enormously, as if grabbing something" * (354) (emphasis added - V.T.).

Pobedonostsev spoke and wrote not only with his mind, but also with his heart. He convinced others that he was right, largely because he sincerely believed in the truth of his judgments. Lawyer and publicist V.V. Berenstam cites in his memoirs an interesting statement by V.A. Manasein, who personally knew Konstantin Petrovich: “You know,” Vyacheslav Avksentievich told me, “Pobedonostsev is a sincere person. He is undoubtedly a hypocrite, but he is a deeply sincere person. I saw him in the 60s, when everyone around was liberal, when it was necessary to have great courage, literally courage, not to be a liberal in the professorial environment. And at this very time, Pobedonostsev, approaching the monastery, knelt down, stood up and, constantly falling to his knees, crawled along the ground to the temple. This is what this man is like ! Look what a convinced man he is! You read his “Moscow Collection”. After all, this was written by a 69-year-old man, and how much polemical fervor there is! And no matter how much Pobedonostsev did evil to Russia, this man never lied and was always himself I am sincerely convinced of the benefits of what I did" * (355).

"Moscow collection", which was mentioned by V.A. Manasein, a very unusual work. It was first published in 1896, in the same year the second and third editions were published, in 1897 - the fourth, and in 1901 - the fifth, supplemented, edition. By genre, this is a collection of essay articles devoted to such phenomena as the church, faith, Christian ideals, political system, democracy, parliamentarism, jury trials, the press, education, family, etc. When writing it, Pobedonostsev relied on the writings of a number of Western European intellectuals: therefore, on the title of the published book he did not identify himself as its author. Perhaps in no other work did he reveal his qualities as an ideologist to such an extent as on the pages of the “Moscow Collection” * (356). Its content expressed in concentrated form the worldview that guided Konstantin Petrovich in his state activities throughout the reign of Alexander III and the first decade of the reign of Nicholas II. The dominant feature of this worldview was the idea of ​​the harmfulness of political and legal institutions, divorced from the historical foundations of society and not corresponding to the life and consciousness of the people. Pobedonostsev considered such institutions for Russia to be the institutions of Western democracy - parliament, the so-called “free” press, jury trials, etc.

In his programmatic article “The Great Lie of Our Time,” he wrote: “What is based on a lie cannot be right. An institution based on false principles cannot be anything other than false. This is the truth, which is justified by the bitter experience of centuries and generations .

One of the most deceitful political principles is the beginning of democracy, that unfortunately established idea since the French Revolution that all power comes from the people and has its basis in the will of the people. This is where the theory of parliamentarism comes from, which still misleads the masses of the so-called intelligentsia - and, unfortunately, has penetrated into the Russian crazy heads. It continues to persist in the minds with the tenacity of narrow fanaticism, although its lies are exposed more and more clearly every day to the whole world. What is the theory of parliamentarism? It is assumed that all the people in national assemblies make laws for themselves, elect officials, therefore, directly expresses his will and puts it into action. This is the perfect performance. Its direct implementation is impossible. Elections in no way express the will of the voters. Representatives of the people are not at all embarrassed by the views and opinions of voters, but are guided by their own arbitrary discretion or calculation, consistent with tactics against the party. Ministers are in reality autocratic; and they rape parliament rather than parliament rape them. They come into power and leave power not because of the will of the people, but because they are put into power or removed from it - powerful personal influence or the influence of a strong party. They dispose of all the forces and wealth of the nation at their own discretion, distribute benefits and favors, support many idle people at the expense of the people - and, moreover, are not afraid of any censure if they have a majority in parliament, and the majority is supported by the distribution of all good things from a rich meal, which the state placed it at their disposal. In reality, ministers are as irresponsible as the people's representatives. Errors, abuses, arbitrary actions are a daily occurrence in ministerial administration, but how often do we hear about the serious responsibility of a minister?" * (357)

Pobedonostsev considered such facts to be the rule rather than the exception. Therefore, he defined parliament as “an institution serving to satisfy the personal ambition and vanity and personal interests of representatives.” On the pediment of the building of parliamentarism there is an inscription: “Everything is for the public good,” but this, he noted, is nothing more than the most deceitful formula: in reality, “parliamentarism is the triumph of egoism, its highest expression. Everything here is designed to serve one’s self.”* (358).

The harm of parliamentarism manifests itself most clearly, Pobedonostsev believed, “where the population state territory does not have an integral composition, but contains heterogeneous nationalities." He drew attention to the fact that the "beginning of nationality" became "a driving and irritating force in the course of events precisely from the time it came into contact with the newest forms of democracy." At the same time they expressed the assumption that in this force lies “the source of a great and complex struggle that still lies ahead in the history of mankind and who knows what outcome it will lead to." Pobedonostsev saw the destructive impact of national movements on the imperial state in the presence of a parliament in it as inevitably appearing in these conditions in each individual tribe of a multi-tribal state there is a feeling of “intolerance towards a state institution that unites it into a common system with other tribes,” and a desire “to have its own independent government with its own, often imaginary, culture.” “And this happens,” he noted, “not with only those tribes that had their own history and, in their past, a separate political life and culture - but also with those that never lived a separate political life". According to Pobedonostsev, "an unlimited monarchy managed to eliminate or reconcile all such demands and impulses - and not only by force, but also by equalizing rights and relations under one authority! But democracy cannot cope with them and the instincts of nationalism serve as a corrosive element for it: each tribe sends out representatives from its area - not of the state and people's ideas, but representatives of tribal instincts, tribal irritation * (359), tribal hatred - towards the dominant tribe and towards other tribes, and to the institution connecting all parts of the state" * (360).

Concern for the public good, under the banner of which politics is carried out under parliamentary rule, is in fact, Pobedonostsev emphasized, just “a cover for motives and instincts that are completely alien to it.” People deceive themselves into thinking that parliamentary government is the guarantee of freedom. “Instead of the unlimited power of the monarch, we get the unlimited power of parliament, with the difference that in the person of the monarch one can imagine the unity of rational will, but in parliament there is none, because here everything depends on chance, since the will of parliament is determined by the majority; but how soon when the majority, formed under the influence of the game of the party, is a minority, the will of the majority is no longer the will of the whole parliament: still less can it be recognized as the will of the people, the healthy mass of whom does not take any part in the game of parties and even evades it" * (361) .

Pobedonostsev also considered a jury trial to be inappropriate for the social conditions of Russia. This institution enhances the randomness of verdicts even in those countries where there is “a strong judicial class, educated for centuries, having gone through a strict school of science and practical discipline,” he wrote. “One can imagine what this popular justice turns into where in a young state there is no and this strong guiding force, but in return there is a quickly formed crowd of lawyers, for whom the interest of pride and self-interest itself helps them to soon achieve significant development in the art of sophistry and logomachiy, in order to act on the masses; where a motley, mixed herd of jurors acts, collected or by chance, or by artificial selection from the masses, in whom neither the consciousness of the judge’s duty nor the ability to master the mass of facts that require analysis and logical analysis are available; finally, a mixed crowd of the public who comes to the court as a spectacle in the midst of an idle and poor content life; and this public in in the minds of idealists should mean the people" * (362).

Pobedonostsev expressed a similar assessment of the jury trial long before the publication of the Moscow Collection. So, in a letter to A.F. Koni, dated October 24, 1879, he wrote: “The institution of juries in Russia, taken with the whole situation - economic, political, everyday, etc., is one of the most false institutions that have ever been introduced in the Russian land by the hand of the German master. Even though its ideal beauty and usefulness seem to be depicted, in reality it does the greatest harm and multiplies beyond measure the general lie with which our entire official institution is wrapped like swaddling clothes" * (363). In a note on the reform of judicial institutions, submitted to Alexander III on November 2, 1885 or a little earlier * (364), Pobedonostsev noted: “The establishment of a jury in a criminal court turned out to be completely false, completely incompatible with the conditions of our life and with the structure of our courts, and, as false in its essence and in its conditions, has served and is serving to disastrously demoralize the public conscience and to distort the essential goals of justice" * (365). He also expressed his negative attitude towards jury trials in letters to the emperor. Thus, on February 11, 1886, he wrote to His Majesty: “Our jury, without any discipline, without strict guidance, randomly assembled, ignorant, remains under the influence of lawyers’ speeches and all kinds of influence of rumors, public chatter, intrigues and interests, and the chairmen, who would have the character, will and experience to lead the debate are a great rarity among us" * (366).

Pobedonostsev subjected “the so-called freedom of the press” to even more harsh criticism. In his opinion, this phenomenon is “one of the ugliest logical contradictions of modern culture, and it is ugliest precisely where the beginnings of modern liberalism have taken root, precisely where every institution requires the sanction of choice, the authority of the people’s will, where government is concentrated in in the hands of persons relying on the opinion of the majority in the assembly of representatives of the people. No sanction is required from the journalist alone, whose power extends to almost everything. No one chooses him and no one approves. The newspaper becomes an authority in the state, and for this sole authority there is no no recognition is required. Anyone who wants, the first person he meets, can become an organ of this power, a representative of this authority - and, moreover, completely irresponsible, like no other power in the world" * (367).

The judge, Pobedonostsev points out, having the power to punish our honor, deprive us of property and freedom, receives it from the state. He “must prepare for his title through long labor and trial. He is bound by a strict law; all his mistakes and hobbies are subject to the control of a higher authority, and his sentence can be changed and corrected. And a journalist has every opportunity to tarnish, disgrace my honor, affect my property rights; may even restrict my freedom, making it difficult with his attacks or making it impossible for me to stay in famous place. But he arrogated this judicial power over me to himself: he did not accept this title from any higher authority, did not prove by any test that he was prepared for it, did not in any way certify his personal qualities of trustworthiness and impartiality, and in his trial over me is not bound by any forms of process, and is not subject to any appeal in its verdict. True, defenders of the press claim that it itself heals the wounds it inflicts; but every reasonable person understands that this is just an idle word. Press attacks on a private person can cause him irreparable harm. All kinds of refutations and explanations cannot give him complete satisfaction. Not every reader who caught the eye of the first defamatory article will read another, exculpatory or explanatory, and with the frivolity of the mass of readers, a disgraceful suggestion or outrage leaves, in any case, poison in the opinion and disposition of the masses. Prosecution for libel, as is known, provides a poor defense, and the process of libel almost always serves as a means not to expose the offender, but to further insults to the offended" * (368).

“So,” Konstantin Petrovich summed up his reasoning about the press, “is it possible to imagine a despotism more violent, more irresponsible than the despotism of the printed word? And isn’t it strange, isn’t it wild and crazy that they are bothering about maintaining and protecting precisely this despotism increasingly fierce champions of freedom, crying out with bitterness against any violence, against any legal restrictions, against any constraining order of the established authority? One involuntarily comes to mind the age-old word about wise men who have gone completely mad because they imagine themselves to be wise" * (369).

Pobedonostsev was terrifying in Russian newspapers and magazines, not only irresponsibility in statements, an abundance of slanderous attacks on certain public and government figures. He was also not satisfied with the low cultural level of publications. “All newspapers are in the hands of industrialists, most of them Jews, and trade in ignorant liberalism, gossip and scandal. Truly, I do not know a single intelligent and cultural editorial board” * (370), he lamented in a letter to S.A. Rachinsky, written in February 1898.

Criticizing such state institutions as elections, parliament, trial by jury, freedom of the press, Pobedonostsev tried to show the detrimental nature of a democratic form of government for society. What is the real advantage of democracy over other forms of government? - he asked. In his answer to this question, he relied not only on the logic of thinking, common sense, but also on historical experience. “Everywhere,” he noted, “whoever turns out to be stronger becomes the master of government: in one case - a happy and decisive general, in another - a monarch or administrator - with skill, dexterity, with a clear plan of action, with an unyielding will. In a democratic In the form of government, the rulers become dexterous vote-getters, with their supporters, mechanics who skillfully wield the behind-the-scenes springs that set the puppets in motion in the arena of democratic elections.

People of this kind make loud speeches about equality, but in essence any despot or military dictator has the same relationship of dominance as they do with the citizens who make up the people. Democracy considers expanding the rights to participate in elections as progress, the achievement of freedom; according to democratic theory, it turns out that the greater the number of people called to participate in political law, the more likely it is that everyone will use this right in the interest of the common good of all and for the establishment of universal freedom. Experience proves the opposite. History testifies that the most significant, fruitful and lasting measures and transformations for the people came from the central will of statesmen or from a minority enlightened by a high idea and deep knowledge; on the contrary, with the expansion of the elective principle, there was a devaluation of state thought and a vulgarization of opinion among the mass of voters; that this expansion - in large states - was either introduced for the secret purposes of concentrating power, or of itself led to dictatorship" * (371).

All these views of K.P. Pobedonostsev was fully supported by Emperor Alexander III. Konstantin Petrovich agreed with his crowned student in their views on the reign of Alexander II, on the reforms of his reign. He condemned the reformer emperor for his inability to maintain order in the state, for his lack of will, and the unreasonableness of many transformative measures. “There is nothing to say about the ruler himself,” Pobedonostsev wrote in January 1879 to Ekaterina Feodorovna Tyutcheva, referring to Alexander II, “he is a pitiful and unhappy person, and there is no turning back for him. God struck him: he does not have the strength to stand up and manage his movements, although he imagines himself alive and active and in power. It is obvious that the will has disappeared in him: he does not want to hear, does not want to see, does not want to act. He only wants the senseless will of the womb" * (372).

Pobedonostsev considered the main sign that the reforms of Alexander II had undermined the state order to be periodically repeated terrorist attempts on the life of the sovereign. After one of these events - the explosion under the royal dining room that occurred on February 5, 1880 - he realized that the persistent efforts of the terrorists to kill could be crowned with success and his student Alexander Alexandrovich would have to ascend the throne. “My God! How will he rule?” Konstantin Petrovich lamented in a letter to E.F. Tyutcheva. “He did not see how men of strength and reason rule. The rule of his father, which he sees, is the absence of reason, strength and will.”* (373).

Opposing any attempts to create elements of public representation in Russia or democratize the system of state power, Pobedonostsev at the same time condemned the bureaucratic mechanism of power that had developed here. He considered the bureaucracy to be as harmful to the country as revolutionaries.

It was in the bureaucracy that he saw the main source of the vices that were corrupting Russian statehood. Characterizing in a letter to Alexander III dated July 10, 1881, its condition that had developed towards the end of the previous reign, Konstantin Petrovich wrote: “All our evil came from above, from the bureaucracy, and not from below. It is necessary to cleanse from above. But even that is true: in that state ", to which we have reached, one must be Hercules in order to cleanse all the impurity and all the depravity of the heart and mind that has accumulated in our bureaucracy. Since 1862, I have seen with deep sorrow how it all gradually became corrupted, how all the principles and traditions of duty and honor were destroyed , how weak, indifferent, insignificant people took the place of the strong and necessary, turned into eunuchs. At the same time... all our institutions were remade in a false way, not corresponding either to the economy of the state, or to the life of the people and their needs. That is why at the critical moment almost "Not one of these institutions is capable of serving the state. At first, people frivolously corrupted the institutions, then the institutions themselves began to corrupt people en masse" * (374).

Concluding the letter, Pobedonostsev complained: “It’s painful to write all this, Your Imperial Majesty, and to collect before you new features of a terrible picture, which is already visible too clearly. The soul, aching from all this, finds solace and hope only in ordinary people who have preserved within themselves simplicity of thought and fervor of heart" * (375). These words reflected his true sentiments. Over the decades of living in St. Petersburg, he was never able to become close to its dignitary world. Moreover, the evil nature of this city began to be felt even more acutely by him. “I don’t see many people,” he wrote on October 10, 1877 to S.D. Sheremetev. “I even try to avoid people, so as not to enter into conversations about what lies like a stone on my heart, and others will still talk, not in "The tone will hit and further irritate the soul. After all, here in St. Petersburg, every person is an official, but how disgusting the local officials, big and small, have now become" * (376). “Bedlam and the center of depravity for all of Russia” * (377) - these were the words Konstantin Petrovich called St. Petersburg in a letter to S.A. Rachinsky, written on June 30, 1882.

V.V. Rozanov, who personally knew Pobedonostsev and well understood his loneliness among the dignitaries of the empire, tried to explain this phenomenon and came to a very original conclusion. “For anyone who had the slightest touch with him,” he wrote shortly after Pobedonostsev’s death, “there can be no doubt that it is impossible to place him and leave him in the ranks of truly dark political people, like the famous Austrian Metternich: they had some kind of an innate uniform, some kind of uniform of soul, which repels humanity from them. “Not ours, not ours!” - there is an exclamation over their coffin, fatal, the most painful if it comes from the lips of humanity. Over Pobedonostsev’s coffin I want to say something different, conciliatory word. I know how everyone who did not know him personally and simply cannot judge by this ignorance will rear up against this word. The uniform he was wearing was just put on, and from the outside, at that.

And although Pobedonostsev nervously hated society and the public and in this regard sometimes uttered words of amazing audacity, but by their temperament and in general by the absence in him of guile, cunning, duplicity, pretense, ingratiation, by this free, beautiful spirit in him, “he was ours.” "... Flesh of the flesh of society, literature, I will say an extraordinary thing - the streets. There are times when a child of the street, a street wolf cub, is transported by a good fairy or an angel of his destiny to the palace, to the aristocracy, to golden and gilded circles; and all his life he stands sullenly among them, bites, despises, fights. I know decisively and definitely that he always and openly despised the gilded environment around him, this bureaucracy of ours. He did not want to have anything to do with some ministers, also very pious, despite all their ingratiation. But the fairy separated the wolf cub early and from the street: seeing her only from afar, like dirt sticking to the wheels of his carriage, he despised her with a distant, uncomprehending, abstract contempt" * (378).

Despising dignitaries and rich people, Konstantin Petrovich tried to evaluate every phenomenon of Russian reality, every state institution and establishment from the point of view of interests ordinary people, from the perspective of the people's good. This good was threatened by the spread of drunkenness among the Russian people - Pobedonostsev declared the liberation of the people from it, from the tavern, as an urgent task of the tsarist government. “The tavern,” he wrote to Alexander III on July 30, 1883, “is our main source of crime and all mental and moral depravity, its effect is unimaginably terrible in the dark peasant and working environment, where nothing can be opposed to its influence, where life is empty and Only the material interests of daily bread dominate. The tavern sucks all the healthy juices out of the people and spreads naked beggary and disease everywhere. In connection with the tavern, the local peasant government or self-government is so upset that truth is drying up everywhere. There is no government that acts rationally, the weak are not find protection from the strong, and the local capitalists, that is, village kulaks-peasants and merchants, innkeepers and rural officials, that is, ignorant and depraved volost clerks, have seized power into their own hands" * (379).

Pobedonostsev considered the development of public education to be another need of the people, in addition to the destruction of taverns. “In order to save and raise the people,” he pointed out, “it is necessary to give them a school that would enlighten and educate them in the true spirit, in simplicity of thought, without separating them from the environment where their life and activities take place” * (380) . In a letter to Alexander III, written on March 28, 1883, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod explained that such educational institution there should be a parochial school. “For the good of the people,” he wrote, “it is necessary that everywhere, close to them and precisely 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. The Orthodox Russian man dreams of this the time when all of Russia in its parishes will be covered with a network of such schools, when each parish will consider such a school to be its own and take care of it through parish trusteeship, and church singing choirs will be formed everywhere in churches.Nowadays all reasonable people realize that it is precisely such a school and not another should be the main and universal means for primary public education in Russia" * (381).

Pobedonostsev associated the third urgent need of the Russian people with a new judicial reform, which would make it possible to correct the defects of the judicial organization that arose as a result of the previous reform. In a letter to Alexander III dated July 30, 1883, he posed this problem as follows: “Finally, the court is such a great and terrible matter - the court, the first instrument of state power, falsely set up by institutions, falsely directed - the court is in disorder and powerlessness. Instead of simplification it has become more complicated and will soon become inaccessible to anyone except the rich and skilled in casuistic formalism" * (382).

Prince V.P. Meshchersky, who was friends with Pobedonostsev, as he admitted, since the 60s, wrote about him as a statesman: “Pobedonostsev represented a very interesting combination of a critical mind strong in light and logic with the helplessness of this great mind in answering questions: what to do, what to do on the way. He irrefutably clearly and correctly proved and said: “you are lost, you have lost your way,” but he could never say how to get on the real path. He aptly criticized measures, and the late Emperor Alexander III often used them for the good his criticism, but never during his reign did Pobedonostsev point out to the Emperor any necessary government measure. Great was the merit of his critical mind in the first days of the reign of Alexander III, when it was necessary to prevent the implementation of the liberal program of the late Count Loris-Melikov, not because that this program was essentially and fundamentally unacceptable, but because he thoroughly realized with his great mind that it was impossible to begin the reign after March 1 with liberal reforms, since they could be interpreted to the detriment of the authority and moral strength of the Tsar’s power, as an action forced by the crime of the first of March. This merit was historical in its importance, but at the same time, not once during the thirteen years of the reign of Alexander III did not only Pobedonostsev give him advice to touch upon the state system, not in the sense of a vulgar liberal routine, but in the sense of weakening bureaucratic oppression and bringing the people closer to Throne, but was always an unforgiving critic of every thought directed towards this goal, no matter who it came from" * (383).

S.Yu. Witte asserted in his memoirs that Pobedonostsev “was a highly talented, highly cultured man, and in the full sense of the word, a learned man.” At the same time, Sergei Yulievich reported that, being a good person, he was “filled with criticism, reasonable and talented criticism, but suffered complete absence positive life creativity; he was critical of everything, but he himself could not create anything" * (384).

The opinion that Pobedonostsev’s mental makeup was entirely critical and not creative was expressed by many of those who knew him * (385); This feature of his statesmanship was also pointed out by many of the authors of biographical essays about him. Meanwhile, Pobedonostsev had very definite ideas about what kind of device should have Russian state. He expressed some of them in the article “Power and Bosses,” published in the Moscow Collection. “The people are looking at the top of power,” he noted, “for protection from untruth and violence, and there they strive to find moral authority in the person of the best people, representatives of truth, reason and morality. It is good for the people when they have such people - among their rulers, judges, spiritual shepherds and teachers of the growing generation. Woe to the people when they do not find in the upper layers of power moral example and leadership: then the people lose heart and are corrupted.

In the social and economic life of former times, history shows us a noble class of people, from generation to generation called upon to be not only bearers of power, but also guardians of the needs of the people and guardians of good traditions and customs. If such a class is destined to be reborn in our century, this is what the foundations of its existence and the essence of its calling should consist of:

Serve the state with your face and property;

To be the custodian of good folk traditions and customs in word and deed;

To be an intercessor and trustee of the people in their needs and a protector from offense and violence;

By advice and example, maintain good morals in the family and society;

Do not get carried away by the passion for acquisition and enrichment that dominates society and shun enterprises that are usual for satisfying this passion" * (386).

We can call the ideal of the ruling elite proposed by Pobedonostsev naive, name it, but let us ask ourselves: is it possible for the existence of a more or less worthy state without a group of managers possessing such qualities? And won’t any government reforms, any measures to restructure state power, turn out to be meaningless if there are no people in the highest positions who meet the requirements formulated by Pobedonostsev? And if the new political system does not contribute to the coming to power of such people, then why is it needed? Why then change the old system to a new one? Is replacing some vices of the state body with others a reform?

Konstantin Petrovich fully understood that his demands for people occupying the highest positions in the state were too high and went against the selfish human race, but at the same time he was aware that without acquiring the qualities he indicated, the rulers would not be able to become a real state elite. "Is the realization of such an ideal possible? Is the burden of such a calling possible?" - he exclaimed and answered himself: “And without this, what should a special class called to power do?” * (387)

Noting that during the reign of Alexander III, Pobedonostsev only criticized the proposed reform projects, but he himself “did not point out to the Emperor any necessary state measure,” Prince Meshchersky meant by the latter one or another plan for reorganizing the state system. Meanwhile, Pobedonostsev believed that all such projects and plans in themselves are insignificant and meaningless: no individual measures will lead to an improvement in public administration if in the highest positions there are not people free from the passion for personal enrichment, capable of effectively acting in the interests of their people . True, regarding the court, in 1885 he nevertheless proposed a plan for correcting judicial institutions, establishing new relationships between the court and the supreme state power, revising the Charter of Criminal Procedure, redistributing jurisdiction, etc. * (388)

Only a person who represented the state exclusively as a set of government institutions and bodies could reproach Pobedonostsev for not offering His Majesty a single “necessary state measure” during the entire reign of Alexander III. Meanwhile, Pobedonostsev saw in the state not only political, but also spiritual education. Moreover, he considered precisely the spiritual content to determine the essence of the state. He was led to this thought by observing how they functioned. government bodies in contemporary Russia, how the preparation and implementation of government reforms is going. He saw that all these movements produced fruitful results only when they were directed by intelligent and energetic people.

Pobedonostsev tried to reveal this pattern to his crowned student. In a letter to Tsarevich Alexander Alexandrovich dated October 12, 1876, he wrote about the reforms of Alexander II: “For too long, it must be said, everyone sat with their hands folded and imagined that everything was being done by itself, as long as the situation was created, new principles were adopted and states were determined No, nowhere, and especially here, in Russia, nothing is done by itself, without ruling hand, without an eye watching, without a master. This has always been my conviction that our first need is a farm and good owners: and we cared less about this. All concern was directed towards transformations on a new basis, towards the publication of new regulations and provisions and organizations. Everyone assured each other and tried to assure the highest authorities that everything would go perfectly, if only such and such a rule was adopted, such and such a regulation was issued - and everyone, under this pretext, relieved themselves of the concern of watching, supervising and ruling. So, little by little, they forgot how to appoint and select people for business, and business fell everywhere into the hands of lazy, incapable people: as long as they seemed to be in the spirit of one or another favorite principle, statutes and regulations. From all this came a lot of empty words and reasoning, but very little sense" * (389).

Criticizing the government, Pobedonostsev pointed out that its main drawback was not rooted in the poor structure of state institutions, but in the lack of a spirit in the government capable of giving its activities meaningfulness and consistency. Instilling this truth in the Tsarevich, he wrote to him on April 8, 1878: “There is no government, as it should be, with a strong will, with a clear concept of what it wants, with determination to defend the basic principles of government, with readiness to act wherever necessary . People are flabby, with a thought split in two, with a split will, with a pitiful idea that everything goes by itself, lazy, indifferent to everything except their peace and interest. There is no middle ground. Either such a government must wake up and stand up, or it he will die. And what will die with him is scary to think about" * (390).

Pobedonostsev revealed similar truths about government officials to the future Emperor Alexander III in a letter dated May 17, 1879: “Unfortunately for me, I see up close and hear all these people who now hold the fate of the state in their hands. I cannot express what a pity and they arouse bitter sadness: no one is visible who would know what he wants, who would desire with an ardent soul, who would decide to act with a strong will, who would see the truth, who would speak the truth a firm word. All are eunuchs, not people - the best of them hesitate, are cowardly, divided in their thoughts, and therefore they only speak, but do not act, and are all apart from each other, and there is no single decisive will that would bind them together and directed. They all live as if the greatness of their power belongs to them, and their work goes on by itself. And it is bitter to hear their empty and loud speeches when you know their pitiful deeds. They think that they have done their job when they listened to the report of their subordinates, who are accustomed to adjusting them in any way, and then carry their own report in the same way. If they understood what it means to be a statesman, they would never have accepted the terrible title: it is terrible everywhere, and especially here, in Russia. After all, this means not to be consoled by your greatness, not to have fun with convenience, but to sacrifice yourself to the cause you serve, to devote yourself to work that burns a person, to give every hour of your life and from morning to night to be in living communication with living people, and not just with papers. Here, in Russia, everything can be done only by people, and every task must be carried on, without giving up for a minute: as soon as you let it go in the thought that it goes by itself, the work goes bankrupt, and people disperse and give up. And this is how we now have everything down and neglected - from edge to edge. It got to such a point that villains and traitors, also invested with power, penetrated into all places of government; and everyone was divided in their thoughts about what constitutes the essence of a good conscience, truth and law" * (391).

The key phrase of the above letter, expressing the essence of the views of K.P. Pobedonostsev’s response to the state consists of the words: “Here in Russia, everything can be done only by people.” They explain in many ways why he appeared, as Prince V.P. noted. Meshcheryakov, “an implacable critic of every thought” aimed at reforming the political system. Konstantin Petrovich pinned his main hope for improving life in Russia not on the system of state institutions and bodies, but on the people filling them *(392).

And he considered his student, Emperor Alexander III, to be the first of these people capable of elevating Russia, putting it on the level of the most economically and culturally developed states. Defending in the most decisive manner the unlimited limit of his supreme power by representative state institutions, Pobedonostsev took care to preserve for him full power and, accordingly, the maximum degree of influence on the course of state affairs. He tried to exclude any possibility of restricting the freedom of state activities of the Russian emperor for the benefit of the Russian people.

Realizing that without the assistance of a group of educated, intelligent and disinterested officials the sovereign would be powerless, Pobedonostsev tried to find such people for him. What criteria he was guided by in this case is shown, for example, by the case of replacing the post of Kyiv, Podolsk and Volyn Governor-General, who was vacated after the death on July 15, 1888 of the infantry general Alexander Romanovich Drenteln who occupied it. The delay in the appointment of a new governor-general gave rise to rumors about the abolition of this post. On September 23, 1888, Konstantin Petrovich addressed a special letter to Alexander III on this matter.

First of all, he tried to confirm the sovereign’s thought about the extreme importance of the post of Kyiv Governor-General: “The question of appointing a successor to Drentelnu continues to be the subject of speculation, concerns and fears. It is so important in all respects and, in particular, for church affairs in the South- Western region, that I decide to bother Your Imperial Majesty with this writing.

According to all the information I receive from the field, the absence of the main leader and the weakening of the central government is already having a very noticeable effect throughout the region. All the overt and secret forces and influences hostile to the Russian cause have raised their heads, become emboldened, and are carrying out, not without success, agitation among the population, especially among the non-Russian population...

Meanwhile, a rumor is spreading more and more here that it is proposed not to appoint a governor-general to the South-Western Territory at all. This rumor worries many.

Allow me, Your Majesty, to express my strong conviction that such a decision, under the present circumstances, would be a political mistake. It is impossible to leave this region without a strong local government - in this case, everything that has been done there so far and begun during your reign for the Russian cause will begin to fall and collapse. The governors are unable to restrain this movement and direct it: their power is all bound by bonds, their orders are dependent on the ministerial offices, their will does not have firmness and unity, unless they are controlled by the firm will of the chief, who has special powers, vested with a special royal trust and giving a report and answer directly to the sovereign" * (393).

Having substantiated the statement about the need for a governor-general in Kyiv, Pobedonostsev further asked himself: who to find in Drenteln’s place, who to choose with complete confidence? Regarding the qualities that the new governor-general should have, his answer was quite definite: “We need a person with a strong will, but also with a firm, clear, unshakable consciousness of Russian interests in this region, with faith in the Russian church, without prejudices and hobbies modern cosmopolitanism, without selfish instincts..." * (394). But when it came to a specific candidacy for the post of governor general, Konstantin Petrovich hesitated. “I am fully aware,” he admitted, “of the difficulty of finding such a person now, when we are so depleted of people; but we must certainly look for him, look for him with all our might, and in this case, is it possible that we will not find him? Is it because of difficulties in choosing, should we abandon the whole matter and rest on the random appointments of governors?” But nevertheless, Pobedonostsev considered it necessary to express his opinion about the person suitable for this position.

“I don’t stop thinking about this, and allow me, Your Majesty, to express my thought with complete frankness,” he began. “I decide to do this in the conviction that I have never given Your Majesty any reason to assume that my appeals to you in anything were caused by personal interest or personal pride. I could, of course, be wrong, but I was and is always guided only by an ardent desire for good and truth for Russia and for Your Majesty" * (395). Pobedonostsev admitted here that he had repeatedly approached the emperor about appointments to certain government positions.

“I confess,” he continued his letter, “that of all the people known to me and standing, so to speak, in sight and in line, I cannot stop at anyone. Of the available governors-general, no one is suitable for Kiev. , maybe Count Ignatiev, but he is necessary for Siberia, where he has just set to work. Orzhevsky, no doubt, would like this appointment, and he is a capable person, but it is scary to appoint him here, especially since he has important material interests in the region. There are people on whom one could rely with confidence, for example, Smekalov, whom I consider to be in the first rank of administrators, but he is necessary for the Caucasus, where all his activities took place and are concentrated.

I can’t see people, maybe I can’t see them because I don’t know enough military generals. But whom I know, I have thought about, and after much thought I allow myself to tell Your Majesty one name on which my thought stops.

This is Lieutenant General Markovich, assistant chief. headquarters at the War Ministry. They say that his abilities in his current rank are highly valued in the War Ministry. But I know that he is a Russian man at heart, firm in his convictions and ardently taking Russian interests to heart. I dare to mention his name to Your Majesty, although, perhaps, no one stopped at him. I tried, first of all, to look for a person who was firm in his convictions, and it seems to me, judging by what I know, that Markovich has the firmness required for this region. Moreover, it may be useful for a person experienced in strategic considerations to be there. No matter how much we may reassure ourselves with the hope of peace, the entire soil on which we stand is dug up by military preparations, and there is no doubt that we are surrounded by unfriendly neighbors. And according to private information, there is no doubt that Austria not only has not suspended military preparations in Galicia, but is even intensifying them. Recently the emperor himself was in Przemysl, was dissatisfied with the fortifications and ordered the work to be carried out again on an increased scale.

These are the considerations that I considered it my duty to present to the attention of Your Majesty" * (396).

Alexander III really took into account the above considerations of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and appointed on August 12, 1889 the first of the generals he named, namely Lieutenant General Alexei Pavlovich Ignatiev, to the post of Kiev, Podolsk and Volyn Governor-General.

Pobedonostsev, all the time that the question of a new governor-general for the South-Western Territory was on the agenda, closely monitored which direction the choice of the emperor was leaning. When rumors circulating in both capitals suddenly suggested that Count V.A. was one of the candidates for this position. Bobrinsky, Konstantin Petrovich became seriously worried and turned to the sovereign:

“Now the attention of all Russian people, who take the good of Russia to heart, is occupied by the question: who will be Drenteln’s successor in Kiev? Everyone feels how important this is - will the system of government in the Russian spirit continue, or will an unfortunate turn take place again, something like that, who was in Vilna and Warsaw? It all depends on the person; and now there are so many people wavering in the direction that one inevitably has to think with fear: someone will be there—whether a person is Russian in spirit and mind, or a person only Russian in name, but a foreign spirit. They name many names, of course, without any reason, for no one can know who is meant.

But recently they have begun to intensively name one name that arouses strong fears. They have already written to me from St. Petersburg that they are talking about Vladimir Bobrinsky, and now I.D. Delyanov writes from Moscow that this rumor is widespread there and arouses fears. I cannot know whether there is anything substantive in this rumor, and whether the name of gr. Bobrinsky in Your Majesty's advice. But I cannot keep silent that, in my opinion and in the opinion of many Russian people, such an appointment would be disastrous for the region.

The Bobrinskys, all of them, I don’t know how many of them, are people of a foreign upbringing, a foreign way of thinking, cosmopolitans in politics and filled with liberal fantasies. And Count Vladimir Bobrinsky (who at one time managed the Ministry of Railways *(397)) is known especially for his activities in the Baltic provinces, when the late sovereign at the beginning of his reign *(398) sent him to investigate the issue of the movement towards Orthodoxy of Estonians and Latvians. Then young Bobrinsky, having fallen completely under the influence of the barons, presented the matter in a distorted form and was one of the main culprits in the triumph of the Germans in this matter" * (399).

In his desire to gather around Alexander III a cohort of talented, strong-willed people who were firm in their convictions and who warmly took Russian interests to heart, Pobedonostsev often went against the opinion of the emperor, making every effort to convince His Majesty that he was right. One of these cases was associated with the name of the Russian patriot, outstanding military leader M.D. Skobeleva (1843-1882).

In the critical first two months of his reign for Alexander III, when a group of influential dignitaries led by the Minister of Internal Affairs M.T. Loris-Melikov made attempts to impose on him a reform of the political system, Mikhail Dmitrievich openly spoke out in their support. Alexander III could not forgive the general for such a position. In addition, Skobelev did not hide his negative attitude towards the young emperor, and reports of his statements probably reached the ears of His Majesty. Knowing about the difficult relationship between General Skobelev and the sovereign, Konstantin Petrovich nevertheless made an attempt to reconcile them with each other. Describing to Alexander III on May 4, 1881, the situation that had developed in the bureaucracy after the publication on April 29 of the highest manifesto on the inviolability of public order, Pobedonostsev added the following lines: “I also have a thought in my soul that I dare to express. I see from the newspapers that Skobelev should be here the other day. I know that Your Majesty didn’t like him; I personally don’t know him, but it seems to me that a lot of things have been said about him to you in vain. Meanwhile, Skobelev is a force in the army and among the people, and, by all accounts, is a very capable person and inspires people. I think that the devoted assistance and service of this person may still be needed in many cases by your Majesty, and therefore it is very important how he is received. I dare say: let this person leave you satisfied, with a feeling not cold, but with a feeling of ardent devotion to you" * (400).

This attempt to bring Alexander III and Skobelev closer together was unsuccessful. But Pobedonostsev showed persistence and addressed the sovereign with a long message specially dedicated to the general:

“Your Imperial Majesty. Again I must ask you for forgiveness for my importunity, for I am returning to the same subject about which I already wrote and bothered you.

I have already dared to write to Your Majesty about a subject that I consider important - about Skobelev’s reception. Now in the city they say that Skobelev was upset and embarrassed that you did not show a desire to know details about the actions of his detachment and about the expedition, which attracted everyone’s attention and which was the last, main military action carried out during the past reign. I consider this subject so important that I risk incurring Your Majesty's displeasure by returning to it. I dare to repeat the words that Your Majesty needs to attract Skobelev to you cordially. The times are such that they require extreme caution in techniques. God knows what events we may still witness and when we will experience calm and confidence. There is no need to deceive yourself: fate has appointed Your Majesty to go through a stormy, very stormy time, and the most dangers and difficulties are still ahead. Now is a critical time for you personally: now or never, you will attract to yourself and to your side the best forces of Russia, people who are able not only to speak, but most importantly, who are able to act in decisive moments. People have become so shredded, their characters have been so weathered, the phrase has taken such a hold of everyone that I can assure you on my honor that you look around you and don’t know who to stop at. All the more precious now is a person who has shown that he has will and reason, and knows how to act: ah, there are so few of these people! Circumstances are shaping up, unfortunately for us, in a way that has never happened before in Russia - I foresee the sad possibility of a state in which some will be for you, others against you. Then, if on Your Majesty’s side there are people, although loyal, but incapable and indecisive, and on the other side there are leaders, then there may be great grief both for you and for Russia. It is necessary to act in such a way that such an accident is impossible. Now, it is as if some, who are not disposed towards Your Majesty and consider themselves offended, whisper to Skobelev: “Look, we said that he does not value his previous merits and merits.” It is necessary to make sure that this crafty word turns out to be a lie not only to Skobelev, but also to everyone who declared themselves to have real ability to conduct business and exploits in the last war. If you have a dislike towards some of these people, Your Majesty, for God’s sake, extinguish it in yourself; Since March 1st, you, with all your impressions and tastes, belong not to yourself, but to Russia and your great service. Dislike can come from impressions; impressions could be inspired by rumors, stories, anecdotes, sometimes frivolous and exaggerated. Let Skobelev, as they say, be an immoral person. Remember, Your Majesty, how many great figures, commanders in history who could be called moral people - and they moved and decided events. You can be personally an immoral person, but at the same time be a bearer of great moral strength. And have a huge moral influence on the masses. Skobelev, I will say again, became a great force and acquired enormous moral influence over the masses; that is, people believe him and follow him. This is terribly important, and now more important than ever.

Every person has his own pride, and it is the more legitimate in a person, the more obvious to everyone the deed he has accomplished. If it were just a matter of petty vanity, it wouldn’t be worth talking about. But Skobelev has the right to expect that everyone is interested in the work that he did, and that the Russian sovereign is interested in him first and foremost. So, if it is true that Your Majesty did not show any interest in this matter in a short conversation with him, a desire to know its details, the position of the detachment, the consequences of the expedition, etc., Skobelev could take a bitter feeling from this reception.

Allow me, Your Majesty, to take a moment to look into your spiritual disposition. I can imagine that you felt awkward and restless with Skobelev, and that you tried to shorten the date. I understand this feeling of awkwardness, coupled with a reluctance to see a person, and the uncertainty that stems from it. But I dare to think, Your Majesty, that now that you are the Russian Sovereign, there is not and cannot be a person with whom you would not feel free, for in your person, Russia itself, the whole earth with its supreme power, stands before everyone and everyone. power"*(401).

The above letter shows that in the person of Pobedonostsev, Alexander III had a man of great moral strength and at the same time a deep and independent state mind. Konstantin Petrovich fully corresponded to the ideal of the statesman needed by Russia, which he formulated in letters to the emperor: he was a man “with a strong will, but also with a firm, clear, unshakable consciousness of Russian interests..., with faith in the Russian Church, without prejudices and hobbies modern cosmopolitanism, without self-interested instincts."

Unexpected and mysterious death M.D. Skobeleva mixed up Pobedonostsev’s plans. On June 25, 1882, Konstantin Petrovich wrote to Alexander III last words about the outstanding Russian military leader: “Today in St. Petersburg I was suddenly struck by the news of Skobelev’s death. Everyone seems stunned and walks hanging their heads. Apparently God is angry with us, that he is taking away from us the best people, one after another, people with a head and a heart. Our enemies they will be glad that Skobelev is gone. It was a military name, it was a guarantee that in case of war there would be someone to command and lead the regiments to victory. In military affairs, in the trust and confidence of the army, the name has great significance. It is very sad. The thought involuntarily turns to To Your Majesty and to the destinies of Russia. God grant,” so all the faithful sons of Russia now pray, “God grant that strong, cheerful people will appear among us to replace the former leaders!” * (402)

Anna Fedorovna Tyutcheva, who was married to I.S. Aksakov, wrote down in her diary on June 26, 1882 her impressions of the death of General Skobelev: “Yesterday my husband returned from the city for dinner; already when he entered, I saw that he had a terribly upset face. I asked him if he was sick he. He answered briefly: “Yesterday Skobelev came to Moscow and let me know what would happen to me today, and at night, in the first hour, he died of a broken heart." I was dumbfounded. Another of such rare glorious people in Russia is broken in the prime of life , full of strength and health, in some mysterious way forcibly torn out of life, which opened up wide and powerful activity for him! As if some kind of curse weighs down on our unfortunate homeland: everyone is somewhat brilliant, somewhat talented, somewhat ideal people are fatally doomed to perish before they bear fruit" (my italics - V.T.).

In the early 90s, Pobedonostsev's influence on Alexander III weakened. Many dignitaries noticed this. S.Yu. Witte, who managed the Ministry of Finance from August 30, 1892, and from January 1, 1893 held the post of minister in it, and therefore often communicated with the sovereign, argued in his memoirs that, having calmed Russia in the last years of his reign, Alexander III, “apparently ", went in the other direction in domestic politics. He began to treat the outskirts and foreigners more and more favorably. Pobedonostsev lost all influence on him." According to Witte, shortly after his appointment as Minister of Finance, the emperor told him during one of his reports: “Keep in mind that K.P. [Pobedonostsev] always criticizes everything, and if you listen to him, you can freeze” * (403).

Correspondence of K.P. Pobedonostsev to Alexander III in the period from the late 80s until the death of His Majesty reflects the decline in the influence of the chief prosecutor on the course of state affairs. Problems of the church, the state of parochial schools, visits to churches and monasteries, the state of health of metropolitans - these topics almost exhaust the content of Pobedonostsev's letters. However, Pobedonostsev himself became less interested in state affairs, but remained, as before, a huge interest in the church * (404).

He looked at the church as more than just an organization for religious worship. The church was for him a saving island in the ocean of a social element gone mad - the last refuge of the Russian people, staying in which allows one to hide from the savagery and cruelty of state life.

Konstantin Petrovich perceived the death of Emperor Alexander III, which happened on October 20, 1894, as a tragedy for himself and for Russia. “Our sorrow and weeping for our beloved sovereign have no measure or limits” * (405) - with these words he began his letter to the heir to the imperial throne, Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich. For His Highness, the death of Alexander III was a double grief: he lost not only his father, but also his former carefree attitude. The next day he was to ascend the throne. It would seem that his mentor should have sought words of consolation in this situation. However, Pobedonostsev remained true to himself on such a tragic day. "But this terrible moment“You need to think about Russia and Your Imperial Majesty,” he instructed the Tsarevich. - All of Russia longs to see your bride Orthodox. She herself longs for it; This is what your deceased parent wished in God. You wanted this with all your heart. In his painful state, it was difficult for him to begin solving this great matter, and it did not have time to take place before his death. Now what a happiness it would be, what a consolation for the people if it were possible to begin it immediately - albeit in the midst of grief, but on the very threshold of a new reign.

Tomorrow is the day of accession to the throne and is considered a non-mourning day. What prevents you from performing a sacred rite tomorrow? It does not require either notification or the presence of numerous official witnesses; it can be accomplished simply and quietly; the whole family is now gathered in Livadia. No preparations are needed.

But on the same day, a manifesto about this would follow in your name, which would raise the spirit throughout all of Russia and for Your Majesty would be a great act of entry, so to speak, into the people’s soul. A manifesto could explain all this perfectly"*(406).

The young emperor did everything as Pobedonostsev advised. On October 21, the highest manifesto “On the reception of Her Grand Ducal Highness, Princess Alice of Hesse” was issued Orthodox faith". Nicholas I reported in it: “Today the Holy Confirmation took place on Our Named Bride. Taking the name Alexandra, she became a Daughter of Our Orthodox Church, to the great consolation of Ours and all of Russia" * (407).

Russia, and with it Pobedonostsev, has entered a new era of its life.

Biography

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 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: “<…>Resignation 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.

He maintained friendly relations with M. N. Katkov and F. M. Dostoevsky. From his letter to the Heir Tsarevich Alexander Alexandrovich on January 29, 1881:

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.

Tombstone at the grave of K. P. Pobedonostsev

In October 1905, he was dismissed from the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Synod and a member of the Committee of Ministers, retaining the positions of a member of the State Council, Secretary of State and Senator.

Knight of numerous orders: St. Alexander Nevsky (1883, diamond signs for the order - 1888), St. Vladimir 1st degree (1896), St. Andrew the First-Called (Highest rescript dated August 16, 1898, on the day of the opening of the monument to Alexander II in Moscow; diamond signs for the order under the Highest Rescript - January 1, 1904) and others. In 1880-1907 he lived in St. Petersburg in the house of the ecclesiastical department at 62 Liteiny Prospekt.

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 (Vadkovsky) 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.

Ideas, ideals. Grade

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 Pypin's name and say that he is in former time was a liberal, but that went away over the years; 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. He told me this himself. He wrote a pamphlet on Count Panin." The mentioned essay 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 insulting if when thinking about “The History of the Church” one arises idea of ​​memorization known facts, arranged in a known order<…>The history of the Church must be imprinted not in just 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 maintained and strengthened among the people and in civil life. 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 is why we see that political parties, the most hostile to the social order, parties radically denying 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 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 before, Moscow testified, and now testifies, that in Russia the Tsar and the people form one unanimous, strong whole.”

According to the anonymous author of an article about him in the Garnet Encyclopedic Dictionary (Volume 32;), “he was rather a herald of the reaction, and its leader was his antagonist, Gr. D. Tolstoy ".

Georgy Florovsky, a researcher of the history of Russian theological thought and culture, wrote about his views and politics (): “There is something ghostly and mysterious in the entire spiritual image of Pobedonostsev.<…>He was very secretive, in words and in actions, and in his “parchment speeches” it was difficult to hear his true voice. He always spoke as if for someone else, hiding in the conventional euphony and beauty of very, very measured words.<…>Pobedonostsev, in his own way, was a populist or a soil activist. This brought him closer to Dostoevsky.<…>But Dostoevsky’s inspiration was spiritually alien to Pobedonostsev. And the image of the prophet soon faded in his cold memory... Pobedonostsev was not a populist in the style of romantics or Slavophiles, but rather in the spirit of Edmus. Burke, and without any metaphysical perspective. Much in his criticism of Western civilization directly resembles Burke's counter-revolutionary apostrophes. Pobedonostsev believed in the strength of patriarchal life, in the plant wisdom of the people's elements, and did not trust personal initiative.<…>There is something of positivism in this irreconcilable rejection of Pobedonostsev from all reasoning. He always contrasts conclusions with “facts.” He avoids generalizations, not without irony, and is afraid of abstract ideas.<…>And here is the main ambiguity of his view. Pobedonostsev’s entire defense of immediate feelings is built on the contrary. He himself was least of all a spontaneous or naive person. He himself lived less by instinct. He himself is completely abstract. He was a man of a sharp and arrogant mind, “nihilistic by nature,” as Witte said about him.<…>And when he talks about faith, he always means the faith of the people, not so much the faith of the Church.<…>IN Orthodox tradition he valued not the fact that it was truly alive and strong, not the boldness of the feat, but only its familiar, ordinary forms. He was sure that faith was strong and strengthened by non-reasoning, and that he could not withstand the temptation of thought and reflection. He values ​​the original and indigenous more than the true.<…>Pobedonostsev absolutely did not like and was afraid of theology, and always spoke of the “search for truth” with an unkind and contemptuous grin. I didn’t understand spiritual life, but I was afraid of its vastness. Hence the whole duality of his church policy. He valued the rural clergy, the simple shepherds of the naive flock, and did not like the real leaders. He was afraid of their boldness and freedom, he was afraid and did not recognize the prophetic spirit.<…>Pobedonostsev did not want the social and cultural influence of the hierarchy and clergy, and imperiously oversaw the selection of bishops, not only for political reasons, not only for the sake of protecting government sovereignty.”

He is credited with a phrase said to Nicholas II in the early 1900s: “I am aware that the extension of the existing system depends on the ability to maintain the country in a frozen state. The slightest warm breath of spring, and everything will collapse.”

Criticism

According to the encyclopedia Britannica Pobedonostsev sought to "defend Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church from all competing religious groups, such as Old Believers, Baptists, Catholics and Jews" and was thus "largely responsible for government policies of suppression of religious and ethnic minorities, as well as Westernizing oriented liberal intelligentsia."

A number of scientific sources ascribe to Pobedonostsev a phrase about the future of Jews living in Russia: “One third will die out, one third will be evicted, one third will disappear without a trace into the surrounding population.” University College London professor John Klier, analyzing the sources of the quote (he cites the English version “A third will be converted, a third will emigrate, and a third will die of hunger”) and Pobedonostsev’s views, comes to the conclusion that the origin of this quote is “very “doubtful” due to the fact that Pobedonostsev repeatedly expressed skepticism about the possibility of converting Jews to Orthodoxy.

The European press of that time assessed the role of Pobedonostsev as a conductor of anti-Jewish policies; The “Concise Jewish Encyclopedia” (-) calls him “the inspirer of the most brutal anti-Jewish measures of Alexander III”; historian V. Engel argued in the early 2000s: “Strengthening the principles of Orthodoxy according to Pobedonostsev meant refusing peaceful coexistence with other religions “hostile” to Orthodoxy. Judaism was recognized as the most hostile religion."

By the beginning of the 20th century, when Pobedonostsev’s real influence began to weaken, in the left-radical and liberal environment his figure turned into a symbol of extreme reaction and an object of hatred, which can be illustrated by the characterization given to him by one of the leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party (Cadet) V.P. Obninsky in his book anonymously published in Berlin: “[Pobedonostsev is] the evil genius of Russia, adviser to the reaction of three emperors, an unprincipled bureaucrat, an unbelieving head of the clergy, a depraved ostrich of morality, a corrupt zealot for honesty. The main culprit of the decay of the Orthodox Church.<…>". In the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Vol. 45,) it was said about him: “[Pobedonostsev] is a reactionary, a fierce champion of autocracy, the inspirer of the blackest noble-serf reaction of the 80-90s, the leader of militant obscurantism and the Black Hundreds, the most evil and the most active enemy of not only socialism, but also bourgeois democracy.<…>pursued a policy of severe persecution of Old Believers and sectarians and oppression of all non-believers.”

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.

Scientific heritage. Bibliography of his works

He also acted as a translator:

A number of works by K. P. Pobedonostsev have been republished these days.

Notes

1. Tomsinov V. A. Russian jurists of the 18th-20th centuries: essays on life and work. M.: Mirror, 2007, Volume 1, p. 368.
2. Glinsky B.B. // “Historical Bulletin”, April 1907, p. 270.
3. Rules on parochial schools.// "Government Gazette". July 25 (August 6), 1884, No. 164, p. 1.
4. Data from: Glinsky B.B. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev. (Materials for biography)// “Historical Bulletin”, April 1907, p. 268.
5. GA RF F.677. Op.1. D.963. L.12-13. Cat.88
6. . M., 1925, T. I, pp. 310-311.
7. “Moscow Church Gazette”, 1901, No. 11, p. 141.
8. From letters of K. P. Pobedonostsev to Nicholas II (1898-1905). / Publ. M. N. Kurova // “Religions of the World: History and Modernity.” Yearbook. 1983. - M., 1983, pp. 184-189.
9. “Government Gazette”, August 16 () 1898, No. 178, p. 1.
10. St. Vladimir's Church and Teachers' School
11. Announcement - Memorial service for K. P. Pobedonostsev
12. D. N. Shilov. St. Petersburg, 2002, p. 580.
13. Unforgotten Graves/ Comp. V. N. Chuvakov. M., 2004. T. 5, p. 497.
14. Voices from Russia. Collections of A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev. Issue four (comments and indexes). Edited by Academician M.V. Nechkina and Doctor of Historical Sciences. E. L. Rudnitskaya. “Science”, 1975. Circulation 81,000 copies. Page 234.
15. "History of the Orthodox Church before the division of churches." Ed. 3rd, St. Petersburg, 1895, p. I (punctuation according to the source).
16. CHURCH AND STATE // Parts IV, V (“Moscow Collection”)
17. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. M., 1925, T. I, p. 349 (draft attached to Pobedonostsev’s letter dated July 16, 1881; emphasis - according to the source).
18. “Government Bulletin”, July 19 () 1881, No. 159, p. 3.
19. “Moscow Gazette”, July 18, 1881, No. 197, p. 3.
20. In memory of Pobedonostsev// “Moskovskie Vedomosti”, 13 () 1907, No. 59, p. 2.
21. The article is signed “M. P."
22. Encyclopedic Dictionary Pomegranate. T. 32, stb. 382.
23. Prot. Georgy Florovsky. VII. Historical school. // Paths of Russian theology. Paris, 1937, pp. 410-412 (edited text based on the original book; italics correspond to the emphasis in the original).
24. N. Berdyaev. The origins and meaning of Russian communism (1937) // Chapter VI, 5
25. Vel. book Alexander Mikhailovich. Book of Memories// Chapter 11 ()
26. Kersnovsky A.A. Chapter XII. "Stagnation" // History of the Russian Army. Belgad, 1938.
27. Encyclopedia Britannica, article about Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev
28. O. V. Budnitsky. "From the Editor"
29. Pobedonostsev Konstantin- article from the Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia
30. Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Polanld, trans. I. Friedlaender, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, 1916-20), Vol 3, p. 10
31. State Policies and the Conversion of Jews in Imperial Russia
32. “Pobedonostsev was very dissatisfied with the role that was assigned to him in the Western press in connection with the anti-Jewish riots.” Growing anti-Jewish riots in the country
33. V. Engel. The period of reaction during the reign of Alexander III. Pogroms. The origins of Jewish national movements.
34. [Obninsky V.P.] The last autocrat. Essay on the life and reign of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia- Eberhard Frowein Verlag, Berlin, p. 12 (caption under photo).
35. TSB, 1st ed., T. 45th, 1940, stb. 732.
36. Alexander Blok .
37. Kolbanova E. A. “The husband of truth, truth and honor...” To the 100th anniversary of the death of K. P. Pobedonostsev
38. The spelling of the name is according to the “Preface” to the publication, November 1898.
39. The spelling of the patronymic is as in the source.
40. Grekhnev M. V., Mirkina M. A. On the question of the literary work of K. P. Pobedonostsev
41. "Letters to Alexander III" (some of those published).

Literature

1. Glinsky B.B. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev. (Materials for biography)// “Historical Bulletin”, April 1907, pp. 247-274.
2. D. N. Shilov. Statesmen of the Russian Empire. St. Petersburg, 2002, pp. 580-591.
3. R.F. Byrnes. Pobedonostsev. His life and thought. Bloomington, London, 1968.
4. E. V. Timoshina. Political and legal ideology of Russian post-reform conservatism: K. P. Pobedonostsev. - St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Publishing House, 2000. - 204 p. - 1000 copies. - ISBN 5-93333-016-7
5. “Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev (1827-1907)” // Tomsinov V. A. Russian jurists of the 18th-20th centuries: Essays on life and work. M.: Zertsalo, 2007. Volume 1, pp. 348-415.
6. Tomsinov V. A. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev (1827-1907): man, statesman and lawyer // Pobedonostsev K. P. Legal works / Edited and with a biographical sketch by V. A. Tomsinov. M.: Zertsalo, 2012. P. 7-216.

• Golubov S. Konstantin Petrovich Day. - M.: “Soviet Writer”, 1941 (satirical story).

Links

Thanks to him, Russia overcame the crisis of autocracy, the church again became an influential institution, and the emperor was nicknamed the peacemaker. For two decades he managed to restrain the revolutionary movement. What you need to know about the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod.

The Makings of an Enlightened Conservative

Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev was born (May 21, 1827) and grew up in an enveloping atmosphere Orthodox family patriarchal Moscow. Judging by his memories of his house in Khlebny Lane, he simply could not help but grow up as a conservative and an opponent of drastic renovations. “This place is dear and dear to me, all my youth passed so quietly and peacefully here... I close my eyes - and I see my native church in front of me and hear the familiar voices of the service,... the ringing of the bell... still echoes in my ears.” As a dignitary, Pobedonostsev spoke of Muscovites like this: “Moscow educated and put into action people of a special kind, with the character of a certain idealism, nourished by history and tradition.” At the same time, Pobedonostsev received his education in one of the most aristocratic, on the one hand, and one of the most advanced, on the other, universities in the Russian Empire - the School of Law. It was a place with Junker ideas about corporatism, with the desire to create a rule of law state in Russia, with an aversion to bureaucracy.

Teacher of kings

The turning point in the career of Pobedonostsev, who would hardly have been able to achieve such heights without an aristocratic origin, was the position of law teacher to Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich in 1861. Along with disappointment in the policy of reforms (“Such a process of decomposition is taking place around us that sometimes fear attacks the soul and I want to say: enough”), he perceived it as a mission. Konstantin Petrovich was able to find a follower of his views in the heir, and was literally crushed when Alexander Nikolaevich died suddenly at the age of 21 from tuberculosis in Nice. Then Pobedonostsev, who was then supported by conservatives, was invited as a teacher and to Alexander, and he was able to seriously influence the views of the future emperor, who agreed with the criticism of his father’s policies and the idea of ​​​​a special path for Russia. Thanks to Pobedonostsev, Alexander read authors revealing the national identity of Russia - from Leskov to Dostoevsky, led not a formal, but a sincere church life, etc. And even when Pobedonostsev’s teaching officially ended, influence continued through correspondence, since the Tsarevich completely trusted the teacher.

Views and ideals

“Russia is completely unfamiliar with an urban community... with municipal institutions, with the privileges of autonomy and self-government, with the habit of self-government, mainly developed among the urban or middle class,” Pobedonostsev believed.

An important view of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod was that he did not consider it possible to evaluate the activities of the authorities from a moral point of view. In his opinion, government measures cannot be considered a priori harmful if they involve violence. “The kingdom of spirit, peace and love is not yet of this world,” he said.

“It will be a sad time... Pobedonostsev asserted, when the new cult of humanity that is now being preached is established. The human personality will mean little in him; those that exist now, the moral barriers to violence and autocracy, will also be removed.”

Pobedonostsev hated the bureaucracy and bureaucracy no less than the liberals, since he believed that the meaningless apparatus does not serve the people and the country, but is only a tool of the one who orders it.

Pobedonostsev considered the basis of the Russian economy Agriculture, and sought to create an ideal economic unit in his opinion - “a type of not wide, but medium ownership, sufficient to meet the needs of the family, so that its members would not be forced to earn their living by latrine work.” Pobedonostsev really did not like the “kulaks, Jews and all sorts of moneylenders” operating in the agricultural market at that time, whose “unfortunate victims” were the peasants.

When Alexander II was killed and Pobedonostsev’s former student ascended the throne, the dignitary first addressed him with a letter in which he asked to disperse the liberals at court, in particular, to dismiss the Minister of Internal Affairs Loris-Melikov, a famous constitutionalist, and the ministers associated with him. Pobedonostsev wrote that it was necessary to “end at once... all talk about freedom of the press, about the willfulness of meetings, about a representative assembly.” Pobedonostsev considered himself entitled to replace the bureaucratic system. “I’m not with him. But when something very ugly happens, I write to him with all sincerity. Then he usually... thanks and calls to him.” Alexander III, apparently, completely trusted Pobedonostsev, and he sought to use his position for the benefit of the state, as he imagined it. At the same time, the chief prosecutor was not what is now commonly called a “gray eminence.” He quite openly demonstrated his views and carried out quite active PR of his policies. Thus, he often gave public speeches in the regions, and greatly valued this instrument. Pobedonostsev also built a powerful conservative press machine, including the publishing structure of the Synod that he created.

All kinds of evil spirits

This is how Pobedonostsev assessed the contemporary development of culture. “Nowadays in every city of any significance,” Pobedonostsev wrote to Alexander III in 1887, “there are theaters to which all the evil spirits of St. Petersburg and Moscow theaters move, corrupting the morals of the idle public. Theaters have opened locally and in villages.” The Chief Prosecutor believed that what kind of culture the people should consume should be treated very strictly. He personally banned many books, for example, Tolstoy’s “Kreutzer Sonata”, Solovyov’s articles, and demanded that action be taken against them. On the contrary, he supported Dostoevsky and even brought him into royal family. He also really disliked zemstvo schools, believing that they only deal with education, but forget about spiritual education. That is why one of his first measures as chief prosecutor was the creation of a network of parochial schools that were not under the control of the Ministry of Education. And although they were laughed at at that time, and are laughed at even in our time, they have become a good alternative to zemstvo schools.

Church and faith

Under Pobedonostsev, the church began to receive more money from the state, priests began to be paid salaries - previously they lived only on needs, but something else is more important: the chief prosecutor used the church system to influence the regions, hierarchs influenced the appointment of governors and many other matters.

Pobedonostsev strove to ensure that Orthodoxy in Russia was freed from dense layers, and published a huge amount of spiritual literature. At the same time, Pobedonostsev was against the restoration of the patriarchate, seeing in this the danger of creating an unnecessary structure of influence.

The Chief Prosecutor was also an enemy of any other religion, considering it an “epidemic contagious disease.” This applied not only to sects that began to develop at that time, but also to traditional religions. In his opinion, the annexed peoples must be dealt with as strictly as possible. He considered it a huge mistake to consolidate the status of other faiths and their hierarchy in Russia.

He treated Catholics even worse. “It is obvious,” he wrote to Alexander III in November 1881, “that a systematic campaign has now been launched from the West against Russia and the Russian cause, led by the Catholic church force in close alliance with the Austrian government and the Polish national party. A whole army of priests, secret and open, has been sent to our western border, acting according to a skillful plan for Catholicization and Polishing and skillfully taking advantage of all the mistakes and blindness of our statesmen, who are ready to assure with a smile that everything is calm.”

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.