June 2 marks the 190th anniversary of the birth of Konstantin Pobedonostsev, a famous Russian thinker and statesman, who is rightfully considered one of the key representatives of Russian conservative thought. In Soviet historical literature, the image of Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev was always filled with negative content, since he was always viewed as the main theoretician of "reaction" under Emperor Alexander III.
Most of his life, Konstantin Pobedonostsev was engaged in scientific and teaching activities. His father, Peter Vasilievich, was a professor of literature and literature at the Imperial Moscow University, so the teaching career was not something new and unknown for Konstantin Pobedonostsev. In 1859, 32-year-old Pobedonostsev defended his master's thesis in law, and in 1860 he was elected professor in the department of civil law at Moscow University.
Undoubtedly, the impetus for Pobedonostsev's grandiose career and his real opportunity to influence the policy of the empire was his appointment at the end of 1861 to the position of a teacher of jurisprudence to the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich, the son of Alexander II. This is how Pobedonostsev met the imperial family in detail. The erudite teacher was involved in the work of the commissions preparing the judicial reform, and then in 1868 he was included in the Senate. But the peak appointment of Pobedonostsev was his confirmation in the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod in April 1880. Initially, the appointment of Konstantin Pobedonostsev as Chief Prosecutor of the Synod was positively received by the Russian intelligentsia of the liberal persuasion, since he was considered a more progressive figure than his predecessor, Count Dmitry Andreevich Tolstoy, who held the post of chief prosecutor in 1865-1880. Suffice it to say that after the Synod, Tolstoy was soon appointed to the post of Minister of Internal Affairs and Chief of Gendarmes. Dmitry Tolstoy was considered a man of extremely conservative convictions, an opponent of liberal reforms, and the intelligentsia treated him very coolly.
Konstantin Pobedonostsev, unlike Dmitry Tolstoy, in his youth was a man of not just liberal, but even democratic views. He subscribed to "The Bell" by Alexander Herzen, and as a lawyer defended the independence of the judiciary. By the way, that is why in 1864 he was involved in the judicial reform - the "liberal" Emperor Alexander II needed just such advisors. Therefore, when Pobedonostsev replaced Tolstoy, the liberal community, if not triumphant, at least breathed a sigh of relief. It was believed that the new chief prosecutor of the synod would pursue a more balanced and loyal policy. But this did not happen. Over the years, the worldview of Konstantin Pobedonostsev has changed dramatically.
Almost immediately after his appointment to his new position, Pobedonostsev disappointed Russian liberals. After the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, Pobedonostsev came out with strong support for the autocratic power and became the author of the Imperial Manifesto of April 29, 1881, in which the autocratic system was proclaimed unshakable in the Russian Empire.
Pobedonostsev became the main ideologue of the authorities and exerted a decisive influence on the policy in the field of education, religion, and interethnic relations. In Soviet times, Pobedonostsev's policy was called not otherwise than protective, but it was based not so much on a loyal desire to please the emperor, as on a fairly serious basis from his own theoretical developments. In his convictions, Pobedonostsev was an unconditional opponent of political democracy, which he considered destructive for the state, especially for Russia. Pobedonostsev saw the main mistake of democratic ideology in a mechanistic understanding of socio-political processes and their simplification. Seriously a believer, Pobedonostsev defended the mystical origin of power, endowing it with sacred meaning. The institutions of power, according to Pobedonostsev, have a subtle connection with the very history of the country, its national identity. He considered liberalism and parliamentarism suitable only for those states where there is a serious basis for such a system. For example, Pobedonostsev admitted the possibility of effective existence of the parliamentary system for England, the USA, for small European states like the Netherlands, but did not see its future in the Romanesque, Germanic, Slavic countries of Europe. Of course, from the point of view of Pobedonostsev, parliamentarism was not an effective model for the Russian state either. Moreover, for Russia, parliamentarism was, from the point of view of the chief prosecutor, harmful and could only entail a progressive moral and moral decline associated with the violation of the primordial, sacred political order of the Russian state.
Pobedonostsev considered the monarch's colossal personal responsibility for the people and state ruled by them to be the main advantage of the monarchy over parliamentarism. The elected leadership of the country, realizing its turnover, has much less responsibility. If the power of the monarch is inherited, then the presidents and deputies, having spent several years in their posts, resign and are no longer responsible for the future fate of the country and even for the fate of the laws they have adopted.
Of course, the government needs a certain limiter, and Pobedonostsev also recognized this. But he saw this limiter not in the institutions of representation, like parliament, but in the religious and moral convictions and qualities of the monarch himself. It is his faith, moral and ethical attitudes, spiritual development that can become, according to Pobedonostsev, the main obstacle to the development of despotism and abuse. As a man of conservative convictions, Pobedonostsev paid great attention to religion, and he considered the Orthodox Church to be the only correct Christian church. He saw an urgent need to increase the influence of the church on the social and political life of the country. In particular, the chief prosecutor of the synod advocated the large-scale construction of new churches, the holding of church holidays in the most solemn atmosphere, supported the opening of parish schools. But, at the same time, Pobedonostsev's policy of supporting the Orthodox Church turned into an infringement of the religious rights and freedoms of non-confessional groups of the population. The Old Believers, Molokans, Dukhobors, Baptists and other similar groups suffered most under him. Pobedonostsev initiated a repressive policy against these religious movements, turning the state repressive apparatus into an instrument for asserting the interests of the Orthodox Church. This position of Pobedonostsev stemmed from his personal understanding of Orthodoxy. For him, religion was not only faith, but also the state ideology. Therefore, all heterodox groups, especially if their followers were people of Russian origin, represented, from the point of view of the chief prosecutor of the synod, a danger to the security of the state system.
The policy of Konstantin Pobedonostsev in relation to religious minorities was remembered for very tough actions in relation to the Old Believers, Baptists, Molokans, whom the authorities began to persecute and subject to real police repression. Often the actions of the authorities acquired a simply egregious character. For example, in February 1894, Archimandrite Isidor Kolokolov, with the support of hundreds of Cossacks, seized the Old Believer Nikolsky Monastery in the village of the Caucasian Kuban Region. Monks - Old Believers were expelled from their monastery, while the authorities did not stop before a monstrous act for any Christian - the destruction of the monastery cemetery. The Cossacks destroyed the graves of Bishop Job and Priest Gregory, dug up and burned their bodies, and made latrines in the grave pits. Such cruelty caused misunderstanding in society, and even the majority of the Cossacks of the village, who did not belong to the Old Believers, were outraged. This attack, of course, was not the only example of state interference in the sphere of religion during the years of the chief prosecutor of Konstantin Pobedonostsev.
- Pobedonostsev in his youth
Many preachers of sectarian groups were placed in the Suzdal monastery prison. It is noteworthy that Orthodox clergymen were also sent there, who allowed themselves to criticize the overly authoritarian and cruel policies of the Holy Synod. It is known that Konstantin Pobedonostsev also considered the possibility of placing Leo Tolstoy, whom he considered a heretic, in the monastery prison. But here the sovereign emperor himself intervened, who did not give the chief prosecutor his consent to repressions against the great writer.
No less hatred on the part of Pobedonostsev than the representatives of Russian religious minorities was aroused by the large Jewish community. It was Konstantin Pobedonostsev who was behind a serious anti-Semitic turn in the internal policy of the Russian Empire, and the anti-Semitism of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod was not understood and recognized by many prominent statesmen and, more importantly, religious figures. The anti-Semitic policy of the state authorities in those years pursued not only the goal of protecting Russia from an alien, as Pobedonostsev believed, ethno-confessional community, but also directing popular discontent against the Jews. Pobedonostsev himself, in numerous letters and speeches, did not hide his anti-Semitic views, but at the same time emphasized the intellectual potential of the Jews, which inspired him with apprehension. Therefore, the chief prosecutor of the synod hoped to evict most of the Jews from the Russian Empire, and a smaller part - to dissolve in the surrounding population. Pobedonostsev, in particular, initiated the eviction of Jews from Moscow in 1891-1892, during which Jewish pogroms began to take place, against which many prominent religious figures, including bishops of the Orthodox Church, opposed.
However, the repressive policy of Konstantin Pobedonostsev did not lead to the desired results. It was at the time when he headed the synod that the rapid spread of revolutionary ideas began in the Russian Empire, revolutionary organizations of social democrats, socialist revolutionaries, and anarchists were created. Did Pobedonostsev bring the revolutionary events of 1905-1907 closer with his reactionary policy? This is unlikely, since the growth of revolutionary sentiments in society was caused by a number of socio-economic and political factors, but still one should not exclude a certain influence of the policy of the chief prosecutor of the synod. In an effort to prohibit any dissent, to suppress non-confessional communities, to censor literature and the press, Pobedonostsev "dug a hole" for the autocracy.the level of economic and social development of the world at the turn of the XIX - XX centuries. already demanded certain political and cultural reforms. Konstantin Pobedonostsev, perhaps, understood this, but did not want to admit it. Nikolai Berdyaev believed that Pobedonostsev was no less a nihilist than the revolutionaries he criticized. Only the object of Pobedonostsev's nihilistic attitude was not the state system and social order, but man. Pobedonostsev did not believe in man, he considered human nature "bad" and sinful, and accordingly - in need of "iron grip" censorship and repression.
Another famous Russian philosopher and theologian, Georgy Florovsky, spoke about Pobedonostsev's misunderstanding of spiritual life and theology. In the church, Pobedonostsev saw a state institution that would sacralize the existing political system. Therefore, he tried not to allow discussions on religious topics, ruthlessly sent to the monastery prison priests who allowed themselves a critical assessment of the religious and national policy pursued by the synod.
At the same time, many contemporaries also noted the intelligence and giftedness of Pobedonostsev. Among them were Vasily Rozanov, Sergei Witte, and the same Nikolai Berdyaev - different people with different positions, but agreed that Pobedonostsev was really an extraordinary person, despite all the controversy of his political position. It is difficult to doubt that Konstantin Pobedonostsev sincerely loved Russia and wished her well, only he understood this good in his own way. The way parents and grandfathers protect their children and grandchildren, sometimes trying to protect the younger generation from mistakes and "bumps", but at the same time not realizing that this is the law of development of both man and society - to go forward, to master the new and unknown.
Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev left the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Synod in 1905 - just in the year of the beginning of the First Russian Revolution. By this time he was already a very elderly 78-year-old man. He failed to prevent the appearance of a parliament in Russia - the State Duma, even though it had much less powers than the parliaments of European states. Konstantin Pobedonostsev witnessed revolutionary events and died in the year of the suppression of the First Revolution - in 1907, at the age of 80. A man from the 19th century, who had absorbed the value of the old, autocratic Russia, had no place in the new country, which it certainly became after the adoption of the Manifesto. Pobedonostsev grew old along with old Russia and died only ten years before the Russian autocracy itself ceased to exist.
