Military Review

Gray Cardinal Alexander III. Konstantin Pobedonostsev

20
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 the Soviet historical literature, the image of Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev was always filled with negative content, since he was always considered as the main theorist of the “reaction” under Emperor Alexander III.


For most of his life Konstantin Pobedonostsev was engaged in research and teaching activities. His father, Peter Vasilyevich, was a professor of literature and literature at the Imperial Moscow University; therefore, his teaching career was not something new and unexplored for Konstantin Pobedonostsev. In 1859, 32-year-old Pobedonostsev defended his master's thesis in law, and in 1860, he was elected professor in civil law at Moscow University.

Certainly, the impetus for Pobedonostsev’s grand career and getting him a real opportunity to influence the policy of the empire was his appointment at the end of 1861 to become a teacher of jurisprudence to the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich - son of Alexander II. That was how Pobedonostsev had a thorough acquaintance with the imperial family. An erudite teacher was involved in the work of the commissions that prepared the judicial reform, and then in the 1868 year they were included in the Senate. But Pobedonostsev's peak appointment was his approval in the position of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod in April 1880. Initially, the appointment of Konstantin Pobedonostsev as the chief procurator of the Synod was favorably received by liberal Russian intellectuals, since he was considered a more progressive figure than his predecessor, Count Dmitry Andreyevich Tolstoy, who held the prosecutor's office in 1865-1880. Suffice it to say that after the Synod, Tolstoy soon received an appointment to the post of Minister of the Interior and the 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, in contrast to Dmitry Tolstoy, in his youth was a man of not just liberal, but even democratic views. He wrote out the “Bell” of Alexander Herzen, and as a lawyer he defended the independence of the judiciary. By the way, that is why in 1864, he was attracted to the judicial reform - the “liberal” emperor Alexander II needed precisely such advisers. Therefore, when Pobedonostsev replaced Tolstoy, the liberal public, if not triumphant, then at least, sighed with relief. It was believed that the new Ober 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 changed dramatically.

Almost immediately after his appointment to the new post, Pobedonostsev disappointed the Russian liberals. After the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, Pobedonostsev came out with the decisive support of the autocratic power and became the author of the Highest manifesto of 29 in April of 1881, in which the autocratic system was proclaimed unshakable in the Russian Empire.

Pobedonostsev became the main ideologist of power and had a decisive influence on politics in the field of education, religion, and interethnic relations. In Soviet times, Pobedonostsev’s policy was called nothing more than protective, but its basis was not so much a loyal desire to please the emperor as a rather serious basis from his own theoretical developments. According to his convictions, Pobedonostsev was an unconditional opponent of political democracy, which he considered destructive for the state, especially for Russia. The main mistake of democratic ideology Pobedonostsev saw a mechanistic understanding of socio-political processes, their simplification. Being a serious believer, Pobedonostsev defended the mystical origin of power, endowed it with a sacred meaning. The institutions of power, according to Pobedonostsev, have a subtle connection with the history of the country, its national identity. He considered liberalism and parliamentarism suitable only for those states where there is serious ground for such a system. For example, the possibility of the effective existence of the parliamentary system of Pobedonostsev allowed for England, the United States, for small European states like the Netherlands, but did not see its future in the Roman, German, Slavic countries of Europe. Of course, from the point of view of Pobedonostsev, he was not an effective model of parliamentarism for the Russian state either. Moreover, for Russia, parliamentarism was, from the point of view of the chief prosecutor, harmful and could entail only a progressing moral and moral decline associated with the violation of the original, sacred political order of the Russian state.

The main advantage of the monarchy over parliamentarism Pobedonostsev considered the enormous personal responsibility of the monarch for the people and the state managed by them. The elected leadership of the country, realizing its turnover, has far 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 further fate of the country and even for the fate of the laws they passed.

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 moral attitudes, spiritual development that can become, according to Pobedonostsev, the main obstacle to the development of despotism and abuse. As a person of conservative convictions, Pobedonostsev paid a lot of 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 public and political life of the country. In particular, the chief procurator 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 parochial schools. But, at the same time, Pobedonostsev’s policy of supporting the Orthodox Church turned around and infringing upon the religious rights and freedoms of religious groups of the population. Old Believers, Molokans, Dukhobors, Baptists and other similar groups suffered most of all under him. Pobedonostsev initiated a repressive policy against these religious movements, turning the state repressive apparatus into a tool for asserting the interests of the Orthodox Church. Such a position Pobedonostseva stemmed from his personal understanding of Orthodoxy. For him, religion was not only faith, but also a state ideology. Therefore, all non-faith groups, especially if their followers were Russians by birth, represented, from the point of view of the synod ober prosecutor, a danger to the security of the state system.

Konstantin Pobedonostsev’s policy regarding religious minorities was remembered by very tough actions against Old Believers, Baptists, Molokans, whom the authorities began to persecute and subject to real police repression. Often the actions of the authorities acquired simply blatant nature. For example, in February 1894, the archimandrite Isidor Kolokolov, with the support of the Cossack hundreds, captured the old believer Nikolsky monastery in the village of the Caucasian Kuban region. Old Believer monks were expelled from their monastery, while the authorities did not stop at the 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 stanitsa, who did not belong to the Old Believers, were indignant. This attack, of course, was not the only example of state intervention in the sphere of religion in the years of Constantine Pobedonostsev ober-prosecutors.

Gray Cardinal Alexander III. Konstantin Pobedonostsev
- Pobedonostsev in his youth

Many preachers of sectarian groups were placed in the Suzdal monastery prison. It is noteworthy that they also sent Orthodox priests to it, who allowed themselves to criticize the overly authoritarian and cruel policy of the Holy Synod. It is known that Konstantin Pobedonostsev was considering the possibility of placing Lev Tolstoy in the monastery prison, whom he considered a heretic. But here already the emperor himself intervened, who did not give the ober-prosecutor his consent to repressions against the great writer.

Pobedonostsev’s no less hatred than representatives of Russian religious minorities was aroused by a large Jewish community. It was Konstantin Pobedonostsev who was behind the serious anti-Semitic turnaround in the domestic policy of the Russian Empire, and the anti-Semitism of the synod ober-prosecutor was not understood and recognized by many prominent state and, more importantly, religious figures. The anti-Semitic policy of state power in those years pursued not only the goal of protecting Russia from the alien, as Pobedonostsev, ethnoconfessional community, but also to direct popular discontent against the Jews. Pobedonostsev himself, in numerous letters and speeches, did not conceal his anti-Semitic views, but at the same time emphasized the intellectual potential of the Jews, who also inspired fear in him. Therefore, the chief procurator of the synod hoped to evict a large part 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 occur, which were opposed by many prominent religious figures, including the bishops of the Orthodox Church.

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 Russian Empire began the rapid spread of revolutionary ideas, the revolutionary organizations of social democrats, socialist revolutionaries, anarchists were created. Did the Pobedonostsevs bring the revolutionary events of 1905-1907 to their reactionary politics? This is unlikely, since the growth of revolutionary sentiment in society was caused by a number of socio-economic and political factors, but still it is not necessary to exclude a certain influence of the policy of the Procurator-General of the Synod. In an effort to ban any dissent, suppress religious communities, censor literature and the press, Pobedonostsev "dug a hole" for the autocracy, because 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. Nikolai Berdyaev believed that Pobedonostsev was no less a nihilist than the revolutionaries he criticized. Only the object of the nihilistic attitude of Pobedonostsev was not the state system and the social system, but man. Pobedonostsev did not believe in man, considered the human nature to be “bad” and sinful, and accordingly - in need of “curiosity” of repression and censorship.

Another well-known Russian philosopher and theologian, George Florovsky, spoke about Pobedonostsev’s lack of understanding of the spiritual life, theology. In the church, Pobedonostsev saw a state institution that allowed him to sacrifice the existing political system. Therefore, he sought to prevent discussions on religious topics, mercilessly sent clerics to a monastery prison, who allowed themselves a critical assessment of the religious and national policies pursued by the synod.

At the same time, many contemporaries also noted the intelligence and talent of Pobedonostsev. Among them were Vasily Rozanov, and Sergey Vitte, and the same Nikolay Berdyaev - different people with different positions, but agreed that Pobedonostsev was indeed an extraordinary person, with all the controversy of his political position. It is difficult to doubt that Konstantin Pobedonostsev sincerely loved Russia and wished her well, only understood this good in his own way. So, as parents and grandfathers protect their children and grandchildren, sometimes trying to protect the younger generation from mistakes and "bigwigs", but at the same time not realizing that such is the law of development of a person and society - go ahead, learn new and unexplored.

Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev left the post of Ober-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 old 78-year-old. He did not manage to prevent the appearance of a parliament in Russia - the State Duma, even if it possessed far less powers than the parliaments of European states. Konstantin Pobedonostsev witnessed the revolutionary events and died in the year of the suppression of the First Revolution - in 1907, the eightieth year of his life. A man from the XIX century, who absorbed the value of the old, autocratic Russia, in the new country, which it certainly became after the adoption of the Manifesto, no longer had a place. Pobedonostsev grew old with old Russia and died only ten years before the Russian autocracy itself ceased to exist.
Author:
20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. populist
    populist 5 June 2017 06: 24 New
    +1
    Being a serious believer, Pobedonostsev defended the mystical origin of power, endowed it with a sacred meaning.

    Kings are "the anointed of God." Hochma, and nothing more. laughing
    How can one choose anointed ones? lol
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Finches
      Finches 5 June 2017 07: 36 New
      +3
      A little lower, comrade, quoted Blok, but I recall the poet Trefilov with the characteristics of this character!

      "Who is the Pobedonostsev? -
      For the priests - Obedonostsev,
      For the people - Bedonostsev,
      For the stomach - Edonostsev ...
      For the king - he is an evil scammers ...

      He will come to the king with a report,
      He’ll leave the king with a salary,
      Awarded with gold treasure
      Saying quietly in harmony:
      "Life doesn’t seem like hell to me, -
      Bring "mite" to the house! .. "

      Oh my god my god! ..
      Why, why
      I don’t have a bit of homework?
      Life is like hell in Russia
      You can’t live together in it, okay,
      With freedom, a wonderful treasure:

      The officers in it are with a salary,
      And the police officers - with a report,
      Many, many "scammers" in it,
      Konstantin Pobedonostsev ... "
      laughing

      And in general, I do not understand why they extracted it from the naphthalene of History? In the tsarist period there were more gifted personalities! However, I read it with interest! hi
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 5 June 2017 08: 13 New
        +3
        Excuse me, I’ll correct you, the surname of this poet-bordographer is not Trefilov , Trefolev
        1. Finches
          Finches 5 June 2017 08: 19 New
          +4
          Thank you! hi
          I noticed that I was mistaken, but late! Of course Trefolev! I’ll leave your remark about the boroscript on your conscience ...
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 5 June 2017 08: 28 New
            +2
            Trefolev’s poems are also left to his conscience.
    3. rJIiOK
      rJIiOK 5 June 2017 21: 37 New
      +1
      Monarchs do not choose
  3. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 5 June 2017 06: 34 New
    +7
    interesting article, but somehow too much ... one-sided black. after reading, one gets the feeling that the person was only engaged in the fact that he persecuted religious minorities and Jews.
    it is surprising that he did this for 25 years.
    1. Curious
      Curious 5 June 2017 15: 38 New
      +3
      You correctly noticed that only one side is represented. Sometimes it seems that there is no objective assessment of the state activity of Pobedonostsev.
      There are two opposite points of view characterizing the activities of K.P. Pobedonostsev. On the one hand, this is a "black legend", the basis of which was laid down by negative assessments by contemporaries, opponents of KP Pobedonostsev. The heyday of this "critical" historiography falls on the Soviet period. On the other hand, these are attempts to justify and rethink the activities of K.P. Pobedonostsev - an apologetic historiography that has been developed since the 90s. XX century Both of these traditions are not without a certain tendentiousness.
      The epithets awarded to Konstantin P. Pobedonostsev by his contemporaries: “fanatic, quencher, genius of darkness”, “Grand Inquisitor”, “Prince of Darkness, hatred and unbelief”, “ridiculous hallucination, wild nightmare of Russian history”, “tyrant and monster” , “State vampire”, “the first Russian bully - a bully in the moral sense”, “the greatest deicide in all of Russian history”, “ferret, trained in dialectics”, “Black Papa”, etc.
      However, even the same people gave him completely different ratings.
      For example, S.Yu. Witte: "Pobedonostsev was the most educated and cultured Russian statesman." But, on the other hand, he is “the enemy of creative flight”, “fan of police influence” and “nihilist”. By the way, the opinion of Pobedonostsev about his student Nikolai Aleksandrovich, which they like to bring, is known precisely from the handwritten version of Witte's diaries.
      If we try to formulate briefly the creed of Pobedonostsev as a statesman, it will turn out like this.
      Philosophy and science have the status of probabilistic assumptions that cannot contain absolute, unconditional and whole knowledge. Only the Orthodox faith, which the Russian people “smells with their souls”, is capable of giving holistic truth.
      From the position of Orthodoxy, Pobedonostsev convincingly criticized materialism and positivism. He consistently upheld the ideal of a monarchical state system, calling modern Western democracy “the great lie of our time”.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 5 June 2017 07: 14 New
    +7
    In those years distant, deaf,
    In the hearts reigned sleep and darkness:
    Pobedonostsev over Russia
    Outstretched owl wings
    And there was neither day nor night
    But only - the shadow of huge wings;
    He outlined a wonderful circle
    Russia, looking into her eyes
    Glass eyes of the sorcerer.
    A.A. Block
  5. Barcid
    Barcid 5 June 2017 07: 54 New
    18
    It’s a good article, it’s a pity that little place is devoted to the human qualities of Pobedonostsev. Also, in my opinion, the thesis that the activities of Pobedonostsev did not lead to the revolution of 1905-1907 is also controversial. Maybe it didn’t lead, but it acted as one of the catalysts.
    1. avva2012
      avva2012 5 June 2017 08: 22 New
      +3
      In my opinion, the basic human qualities are visible. Unemotional, pedantic. She is an obvious idealist in her youth, because, precisely from such people, misanthropes are obtained in mature years. A man of extreme judgment, either love or hate, there is no middle ground.
      I liked the whole article, and especially the last paragraph about the fact that Pobedonostsev has grown old .... Creepy, but believable.
  6. baudolino
    baudolino 5 June 2017 10: 21 New
    +2
    But the assessment of parliamentarism Pobedonostsevym justified itself. That in the 17th, and in the dashing 90s in the Duma the most harmful slag gathered, which destroyed the empire and could have completely destroyed the Russian Federation.
    The absence of a whip over parliament makes this institution inadequate. You can look at the European Parliament.
    1. borov
      borov 5 June 2017 12: 37 New
      0
      Quote: baudolino
      But the assessment of parliamentarism Pobedonostsevym justified itself. That in the 17th, and in the dashing 90s in the Duma the most harmful slag gathered, which destroyed the empire and could have completely destroyed the Russian Federation.

      Forum participants - who intentionally, who do not want to see this.
      Already 90 and 2000 and now - everything is the same as then:

      http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/pobedonoscev1/main
      . Htm
    2. ALEA IACTA EST
      ALEA IACTA EST 5 June 2017 22: 07 New
      +1
      The absence of the sword of Damocles over any authority, from the tsar to the village council, ultimately leads to decay, usurpation and collapse.
  7. BAI
    BAI 5 June 2017 11: 18 New
    +3
    Predictably missed the role of Pobedonostsev in the education of Nikolai and his assessment of his "pupil".
  8. samarin1969
    samarin1969 5 June 2017 18: 34 New
    +1
    Thanks to the author for the historical excursus, for the facts ... But the assessment of the facts is strange. Religious persecution, the criminal act of the Cossacks, the lack of reform and persecution of Jews are trying to hang on Pobedonostsev ... Well, the passage "during Pobedonostsev began Jewish pogroms ..." Who is he? King? Minister of Internal Affairs? Gendarme chief? ...
    Pobedonostsev was a patriot, influenced the minds of the word. You can argue about his views, but this is not the person who determined the life and fate of the Empire.
  9. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 5 June 2017 21: 33 New
    +3
    Soon, in a conversation, a friend compared him with Mikhail Suslov. One ruined the Empire, and the other Union ...
  10. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 5 June 2017 21: 54 New
    0
    For what he fought, he ran into something ...
  11. populist
    populist 6 June 2017 00: 00 New
    0
    Interesting article. Parallels with modernity beg.
  12. Koshnitsa
    Koshnitsa 7 June 2017 17: 50 New
    -1
    The no less hatred on the part of Pobedonostsev than representatives of Russian religious minorities was caused by the large Jewish community
    Which of the then Russians she did not call?
    Seven million is such a “gift” Russia received after the Catherine’s sections.
    It was clear that this was a source of trouble for Russia, especially in connection with the departure of Jewish youth from the towns.