Military Review

Pobedonostsev - an evil genius or a patriot?

4
Pobedonostsev Konstantin Petrovich - statesman, lawyer, talented publicist, chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod. The attitude of historians to this controversial person is very contradictory. Make your own conclusion about whether Pobedonostsev was a villain and a black genius in the era of the autocracy’s decline, or whether he was the faithful son of his fatherland, let's try in the text of this article.

Pobedonostsev was born in an enlightened and believing family of a professor of literature, an admirer of literature and Orthodoxy. Intelligent atmosphere made him a diligent student and fostered a love of knowledge. Young Konstantin Petrovich is described by an intelligent and modest man with a romantic kind and passionate disposition. That he owns the scandalous work "Sovereign of the Little Voices". However, the liberal youth quite quickly changed to consistent conservatism, and the character gained strength. Youthful fervor was replaced by prudence, perseverance and steadfastness.

A successful career as a politician began with the protection of a master's degree in jurisprudence on the problems of civil justice and its reform. After a successful defense, an invitation to enter the service in the imperial house as an educator of royal persons, including the heirs to the state throne, followed. This honor confirms once again that the level of education of Pobedonostsev was one of the highest in the capital and in Russia. After serving with the emperor, Konstantin Petrovich held important posts and actively participated in political life. By the time of his entry into the path of public administration, he was already an established person with strong convictions and ideology.

In Soviet times, Pobedonostsev was portrayed as a fierce reactionary, intolerant of any free-thinking, inert and dry, opposing everything new and liberal. The attitude towards Konstantin Petrovich Blok was most clearly reflected in the poetic lines “Retribution”:
"... Pobedonostsev over Russia
Stretched owl wings ... ".

Historians of the Soviet period consider Pobedonostsev a symbol of a conservative era, the destroyer of the free-thinking intelligentsia of Russia. Indeed, the famous manifesto dedicated to autocracy and its inviolability, prepared for the emperor on the occasion of his arrival in Moscow in the summer of 1881, belongs to Konstantin Petrovich. He is the author of many literary works describing the pochsennichestvo and commitment to the unlimited power of the monarch. As a member of the State Council, as well as occupying high positions in the administrative apparatus, Pobedonostsev fiercely defended the position of reaction to any manifestation of democratic ideas. Most of the work devoted to public administration is aimed at promoting autocracy and harsh criticism of democracy, election and parliamentarism. The policy pursued by Pobedonostsev, being the chief procurator of the Holy Synod, is strongly condemned by the Jewish community, since it was the Jews who were persecuted and deported.

The forcible imposition of Orthodoxy to nations with a different religious culture was a specific method of strengthening morality and faith in God. Old Believers and sectarians also suffered from the decisions of Konstantin Petrovich. There are numerous accusations against the head of the ecclesiastical bureaucracy that this man did not have any true faith, but only advocated the preservation of external forms and ritualism, avoiding theology and the search for truth. In support of the position, historians cite the results of Pobedonostsev, who actively opposed the implementation of liberal laws, which were bloody revolutions and the complete collapse of the monarchy. Konstantin Petrovich is also blamed for his short-sightedness and stubbornness, which he showed when discussing bills, jealously ensuring that they did not contain norms that limit the power of the monarch in any way.

On the other hand, modern historians argue that Pobedonostsev is a true servant of the fatherland, postponing the fall of the Russian Empire by a quarter century. Historical Konstantin Petrovich’s merit is seen in the fact that he opposed and did not allow the sovereign to sign Melikov’s bill. In their opinion, the document would have fermented the already tense masses, at the head of which revolutionaries would immediately have risen.

The restriction of the monarchy could not save the state, since the changes required a completely different character and scale. Arguments about Pobedonostsev’s hostility towards cultural and enlightened representatives of the Russian intelligentsia are also refuted. Reliable facts are friendly relations with Dostoevsky, Soloviev, Nesterov, Vasnetsov, Mussorgsky and other brilliant people of literature and art. The closest relationship was with Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. With the great Russian writer Pobedonostsev was brought together by common views on the path of the state, opinions on the only sure salvation from death in faith, Narodism and autocracy. The leader of the "militant obscurantists," as Soviet history calls Konstantin Petrovich, could not be a friend and like-minded person of such a genius as Dostoevsky. The arguments that the head of the Holy Synod avoided discussing the truth and was not interested in theology do not need a refutation. This really took place, but by no means because Konstantin Petrovich did not have faith, but because of his nature. Pobedonostsev preferred to rely on facts, rather than vague reasoning and abstract truths, and therefore had no inclination to go into lengthy conversations. It was enough for a dignitary to simply believe in the existence of God, as well as in the inseparability of autocracy from the state. The proponent of tough measures against liberals was convinced that they were right and useful for the future of Russia.

Thus, it cannot be said that Pobedonostsev was the embodiment of reactionary evil, who consciously brought the states to a critical moment. This patriotic and undoubtedly intelligent man served his fatherland and remained faithful to convictions to the end. It was both positive and negative, so Konstantin Petrovich is best viewed as a man of his time, who was worthy of the conservatives' position.
Author:
4 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ascetic
    Ascetic 27 January 2012 08: 28
    +7
    “For too quarter of a century, his name has attracted the attention of contemporaries, it did not leave the columns of our press, some hated and cursed him, others glorified him, bowed down to him and blessed him: some saw in him the angel-savior of Russia, others - her evil genius. Nobody was indifferent to him. ”This is how the Historical Bulletin responded to Pobedonostsev’s death. However, in our time, few know about his position, activities for the good of Russia, the majority are content with the untruth that revolutionaries and liberals of all stripes have branded Konstantin Petrovich - "retrograde", "obscurantist" and so on. Pobedonostsev was one of the few seers of the last century who understood what was happening in the world and what threatened Russia if it changed God's path and imitated the West. Here is a small excerpt from his famous article "The Great Lies of Our Time" (1896) about the consequences of parliamentarism for a multinational state.

    “... These deplorable results are most clearly found where the population of the state territory does not have an integral composition, but embodies diverse nationalities. Nationalism in our time can be called a touchstone, which reveals the deceit and impracticality of parliamentary rule. It is noteworthy that the beginning of nationality came forward and became a driving and annoying force in the course of events precisely from the time when it came into contact with the latest forms of democracy.

    It is rather difficult to determine the essence of this new force and the goals to which it aspires; but it is undoubtedly that in it is the source of a great and complex struggle, which still lies in the history of mankind and is not aware of what the outcome will be. We now see that each individual tribe belonging to the composition of a diverse tribal state is possessed by a passionate feeling of intolerance towards the state institution connecting it into a common system with other tribes, and the desire to have its own control, with its own, often imaginary, culture. And this happens not only with those tribes that had their own history and, in the past, a separate political life and culture, but with those that never lived a special political life.

    The unlimited monarchy managed to eliminate or reconcile all such demands and impulses - and not only by force, but also by the equation of rights and relations under one power. But democracy cannot cope with them, and the instincts of nationalism serve as a corrosive element for it: each tribe from its locality sends representatives - not state and popular ideas, but representatives of tribal instincts, tribal irritation, tribal hatred - both to the ruling tribe and to others tribes, and to an institution connecting all parts of the state. What a disconcerting appearance in such a composition is popular representation and parliamentary rule - the Austrian parliament today is an obvious example.

    Providence has saved our Russia from such a disaster, with its diverse composition. It is terrible to think what would have happened when fate sent us the fateful gift of the All-Russian Parliament! Yes it will not be. "


    http://hrono.ru/biograf/bio_p/pobedonoscev.php
    1. skullcap
      skullcap 27 January 2012 09: 56
      +1
      Ascetic, first put a plus, and only then began to read. and, as always, was not mistaken.
      Well done, you always express a sensible point of view, which is so necessary in our difficult time, stuffed with unhealthy, sick ideas. Stuffed especially for us, so that we get confused in them and go astray.
      And since the enemies of the Russian people, the Democrats, have always destroyed Pobedonostsev, this is a sure sign that he was a decent person.
      It is necessary to get acquainted with his works.
    2. Lech e-mine
      Lech e-mine 27 January 2012 12: 17
      +2
      When I look at the consequences of revolutions, I always say that the road to HELL is well-intentioned. People trying to stop the revolution have always been perceived negatively, but when I saw the death of Gaddafi, I understand that they are right.
  2. go_by
    go_by 27 January 2012 21: 26
    0
    By the way. I read here at my leisure Akunin (Chkhartishvili). At first, he was struck by the specific interpretation of Christianity ... And Pobedonostsev has the personification of evil ... And Akunin himself is an ardent democrat ... And there is nothing new under the sun ...