M. Mysl'. 1983. 271 p.

The book of Candidate of Historical Sciences, senior researcher at the Institute of History of the USSR of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR E. A. Dudzinskaya is a generalizing concrete historical study of the activities of the Slavophils on the eve of the peasant reform, in 1856-1861. (however, the author often and quite correctly makes excursions into the 40s and even the end of the 30s). The range of questions raised and considered in the book is extensive: the ideological and theoretical positions and views of the Slavophils, their economic and social activities, their participation in the development of the peasant reform of 1861 - in provincial committees and editorial commissions; the relations between Slavophils and Westerners, as representatives of two trends within the same liberal camp; Slavophils and revolutionary democrats as representatives of two trends within the same liberal camp. representatives of various trends of social thought in their class content; in a separate chapter, the question of the community is considered. And on all these issues, the monograph not only summarizes the already known material, but also introduces new ones into scientific circulation. This is especially true of the epistolary heritage of the Slavophils, which has not yet been sufficiently studied by historians. The author poses and solves important problems. For the first time, the theory and practice of the Slavophils, their historical concept and concrete economic and social activities are considered in unity and interrelation, which allows us to reveal the definition of class nature more clearly.

page 131

Slavophilism as "one of the varieties of bourgeois-landlord liberalism" (p.8, 59). An expression of this unity, "the link between the theoretical views of the Slavophils and their practical activity in preparing the solution of the peasant question", was, as E. A. Dudzinskaya proves, the provision formulated by them on the "historical right of the peasants to land" (pp. 53-54). During the preparation of the peasant reform, the recognition-in principle, theoretically - of this right of the peasants was translated (in the handwritten notes of the Slavophiles of the mid-50s of the XIX century, in their activities on the development of legislation) into the requirement to leave the existing allotment to the peasants, first for their eternal use for duties, and then for property (communal or communal). a farmstead) for a ransom. However, there were disagreements on the issue of the size of allotments and the nature of redemption: for example, A. I. Koshelev advocated mandatory immediate redemption of peasant allotment land, but allowed a significant cut in favor of the landowner-in contrast to Yu. F. Samarin and V. A. Cherkassky, who advocated gradual reform and transition to redemption, while retaining the peasants mostly allotments. However, all Slavophiles strongly denied the possibility of landless emancipation of the peasants, this united them and this was the main thing.

Consistently through all the chapters runs the idea that the Slavophils had "a program for the essentially capitalist development of Russia, which they carried out in practice before and especially after the reform of 1861" (p. 8). This program was not limited to solving the peasant question (although it occupied a leading place), but also provided for bourgeois transformations in the sphere of local government (zemstvo), courts, culture, finance, and economics. "The bourgeois element," according to the author, "even broke through into the main bastion of the Slavophils - the doctrine of the community" (p.97). They move from the idea of the inviolability of the community to the recognition of the possibility of leaving it under certain conditions, and even to retaining only administrative functions for it. According to E. A. Dudzinskaya, the projects of the Slavophiles "provided for the interests of the landlords, but also made concessions to the emerging bourgeois class, with which the Slavophiles were associated in their entrepreneurial activities" (p.97). Here it is also appropriate to note another conclusion of the book - about the" social optimism "inherent in Slavophilism," formed at the dawn of the capitalist era " (p. 13). Dudzinskaya shows that the appeal to the idea of nationality, the call for the creation of a national culture, thrown out by the Slavophiles, "was bourgeois in its class content" (p.45).

In addition to a detailed definition of the class nature of Slavophilism, the book also examines the question of its place in the alignment of socio-political forces that developed during the first revolutionary situation in Russia. Noting the differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners on history and philosophy, in their ideas about the ways of further development of Russia, the fate of the community, about nationality in science and culture, and in other issues, E. A. Dudzinskaya sees in these trends "two varieties of social thought", the convergence of which on the eve of the fall of serfdom marked "the process of formation of the Russian liberalism as a bourgeois ideology " (p. 240). This convergence of Slavophiles and Westerners on the main question of the time revealed "such common features as the awareness of the need to abolish serfdom by means of reforms in the allocation of land to the peasants, capitalist transformations in the field of economics, bourgeois reforms in the social and political spheres while maintaining the monarchy, and a sharp hostility to the revolution" (p.241). The position that during the fall of serfdom and in connection with it, the old trends of social thought were replaced by new ideological and political trends, as well as the lesser significance of the differences between Slavophiles and Westerners in comparison with the fact of the formation of the liberal and revolutionary-democratic camps have already been expressed in the literature, but in the book by E. A. Dudzinskaya additional facts and arguments supporting them.

Assessing the place of the Slavophiles in the process of consolidation of the liberal camp, the author, however, also touches on issues that are poorly covered in the literature - the commonality of this trend with the liberal bureaucracy, as well as differences from it. E. A. Dudzinskaya believes that the Slavophiles and Westerners "were joined by a large group of young people

page 132

the nobles who were in the service of state institutions - at that time they were called the "enlightened bureaucracy"... They, no less than the liberal landlords and scientists, understood the urgency of abolishing serfdom and transforming political life" (p. 241). This commonality was especially evident during the joint activity of Yu. F. Samarin and V. A. Cherkassky with N. A. Milyutin, Ya. A. Solovyov, Ya. I. Rostovtsev and other members of the editorial commissions in 1859-1860. The entire history of preparations for the abolition of serfdom in Russia convinces of the validity of this conclusion. Many program documents that reflected the goals and objectives of the peasant reform and defined its class essence were a fusion of ideas and views of representatives of liberal social thought and the liberal bureaucracy, the result of their joint work.

As for the differences in the views and positions of the liberal bureaucracy and liberal public figures (in this context, Slavophiles) E. A. Dudzinskaya writes: "Loyal to the throne and the interests of their class, even the most radical representatives of the bureaucracy did not think of making reforms other than "from above", i.e., by peaceful legislative activity of the autocratic monarch. The latter distinguished them from Westerners and Slavophiles, who considered it necessary to widely involve public forces in the preparation of the reform" (pp. 241-242). In reality, the liberal bureaucracy could not conceive of the possibility of preparing and carrying out the abolition of serfdom and other reforms without broad involvement of liberal social forces, without relying on the liberal part of the nobility and landlords. This was a clearly understood and clearly formulated position; and it does not contradict what was supposed, the elimination of serfdom "from above" (through the legislative activity of the monarchy), which all liberals stood for.

The very creation on the initiative of N. A. Milyutin and Ya. I. Rostovtsev of editorial commissions, more than half of which consisted of expert members (in particular, the invitation of Yu. F. Samarin and V. A. Cherkassky), the close cooperation of N. A. Milyutin with K. D. Kavelin, N. H. Bunge, the development, back in 1860, in the commission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs under the leadership of N. A. Milyutin, the authors of the project of an elected all-orthodox local representation (zemstvo), an appeal to glasnost, although within limited limits, which was started in the great book. Konstantin Nikolaevich in the Ministry of the Sea in 1853-1854 and continued during the preparation of bourgeois reforms-all this indicates the involvement of social forces by the liberal bureaucracy in the preparation of the most important transformations. N. A. Milyutin's first concern after his sudden resignation in April 1861 was the idea of the upcoming role of the "liberal part of the nobility" in the implementation of the"Provisions of February 19" 1 . He wrote anxiously to Cherkassky a few days later, on May 2: "The real struggle will no longer be here, but on the ground." Two years later, on April 23, 1863, Milyutin addressed the same question in a letter to A. V. Golovnin: "Then it remains to seriously learn what is now becoming the great concern of all governments: the ability to handle public opinion."

But the difference between the liberal bureaucracy and liberal public figures, of course, existed. The recognition of the importance of social forces and public opinion in a crucial era for Russia did not exclude a different understanding of their role in solving state affairs. The liberal bureaucracy and its leader, N. A. Milyutin, insisted on the proactive role of the government in all transformations. "There is no greater misfortune for Russia than to let the government take the initiative," N. A. Milyutin wrote to his brother, the Minister of War D. A. Milyutin, on April 23 (May 5), 1863.2

Another equally strict requirement of the liberal bureaucracy was the absolute priority of social reform: it had to precede the political one (but not coincide). Belief in the initiative role of the government extended so far that N. A. Milyutin called on the authorities to unite all liberal forces in the country. On December 18 (30), 1861, he wrote to D. A. Milyutin: "Liberal aspirations have not yet received definite images, all this is too obvious.-

1 TsGIA of the USSR, f. 869, Milyutiny, op. 1, d. 1149, l. 247; d. 1142, l. 208.

2 OR GBL, f. 169, D. A. Milyutin, l. 69, ed. hr. 12, ll. 26ob.

page 133

It is vague, shaky, and full of contradictions... It is necessary to create an opinion, or perhaps a party of the middle (in parliamentary parlance, le centre), which we do not have, but for which there are obviously elements. The government alone can do this, and it will be the best means of strengthening itself. " 3
These are some considerations in connection with the observations and conclusions of E. A. Dudzinskaya. On the whole, the question of the consolidation of liberal forces, the components of the liberal camp, and the correlation of various groups and trends within it still needs to be studied.

The question of the relationship between Slavophiles and revolutionary democrats is not new, and much is already known in the literature, but the author was able to say his word, discover new materials, recall forgotten things, see previously unnoticed shades. For the first time, the relationship between the Slavophils and A. I. Herzen in 1856-1864 is considered specifically and in general (the previous literature brought the story to the departure of Herzen abroad in 1846). Carefully restoring the living thread of these relations, the author does not cease to emphasize the belonging of the Slavophils and Herzen to different camps - liberal and revolutionary - democratic. Touching upon the relationship between the Slavophils and N. G. Chernyshevsky, which is much more fully revealed in the literature, E. A. Dudzinskaya avoided one-sidedness in her presentation and assessments, and managed to show that the opposite ideological and political positions did not exclude Chernyshevsky's positive reviews of the Slavophils. The material presented in the book leaves no doubt that back in 1855 Chernyshevsky saw all the difference between Slavophiles and theorists of the official nationality (this was mentioned in the literature earlier, but in passing, patter).

E. A. Dudzinskaya's book gives an idea not only about the essence of Slavophilism, its ideas, and the program requirements of the historical concept created by it. We see the main figures of Slavophilism-the Aksakovs, Kireevsky, Koshelev, Samarin, Khomyakov, Cherkassky - in their relations with their contemporaries, "friends" and "enemies", in drawing rooms and salons where discussions about the past and future of Russia took place, and in their estates for farming, and in the field of public and state life activities.

E. A. Dudzinskaya's book filled a gap in the historical literature. Being a definite outcome in the study of Slavophilism, it will also contribute to the further development of its history.

3 Ibid., units hr. 11, ll. 9ob. -10.

page 134

Permanent link to this publication: