Miliukov essays on the history of Russian culture. Alternative science “essays on the history of Russian culture” p.n.
Literary notes. Book 1 ("Latest News": 1928-1931) Adamovich Georgy Viktorovich
“ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF RUSSIAN CULTURE” P.N. MILYUKOVA: LITERATURE
“ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF RUSSIAN CULTURE” P.N. MILYUKOVA: LITERATURE
There is a very common type of people... When they pronounce words such as religion or art, literature or politics, in their imagination they see several different, clearly demarcated areas or even a series of separately hung shelves: on this one there are literary questions and topics, on the other you can look religious development, and so on. If you ask them what life is or what culture is, they will probably answer that it is politics, religion, and art taken together, but in fact they are - implied in the very concept of "culture" - the penetration of one in another, this connection between one and the other is not recognized or felt. Given the system of shelves they created, what would this mutual penetration really be for? Literature has its own “problems,” and other areas have their own; there is no connection and it is not needed.
As far as observation allows us to assert, this type of people is a born type: neither education nor scholarship changes anything here - on the contrary, on this natural basis they contribute to the development of specialists. And only the most outstanding among specialists remember and understand that in reality there are no departments, corners and shelves, but there is only life, that is, personal or national consciousness, in which everything is intertwined and intertwined and which, with all the diversity of its development, - still united.
“Essays on the history of Russian culture” P.N. Miliukov were written as if with an educational purpose - to show the internal unity of cultural development. No matter what part of this work one takes, the spirit of community is immediately revealed everywhere... This impression can be illustrated by comparison. They say: “the future statue is hidden in a block of marble.” Here the author of “Essays” in various parts of his book seems to show us those statues that are hidden in the “block”: they are masterfully carved by his hand, they live an independent life, but in each of them we recognize the same material, that As for marble, we see the same thing in different forms. In this case, the “block” is Russia and its history. Talking about Russian literature, P. N. Milyukov does not forget for a minute that literature was created not by some “verbal workshops,” but by people who thought about religion, and about politics, and about everything else - and, highlighting In these chapters of the book he needed the features of culture, he did not lose sight of its general background. Therefore, in a condensed presentation of his “Essays”, many literary facts turn out to be much clearer - and sometimes presented much more naturally - than in other lengthy, special literary reviews.
The general views that give, so to speak, “ideological direction” to the literary chapters of the Essays are, of course, the same as those found in other sections of this work. There was a lot of talk and controversy about them thirty years ago, when the “Essays” were published - there is no need to return to their characteristics. Recently P. Bicilli quite correctly pointed out that these views, which at one time surprised many in Russia, now dominate science. One could add to this that in present-day Russia, in present-day Moscow, with its simplified Marxist dogmatism, the scientific views of P. N. Milyukov should have caused no less surprise: any “rabbek faculty member” with ardor and passion would have begun to refute them, not suspecting that the “worldview” taught to him with the approval of the government is just a dilapidated, emasculated, lifeless scheme, and that only the complete absence of criticism allows it to hold on and even pass for the “last word of science”... But a conversation about all this would take us far away and to the side for a long time. The question is very interesting, but it is directly related to the “Essays” as a whole, and not just to their literary part.
The main news in the just-released edition of the second volume of “Essays” is a story about the development of culture in Russia over the past decades. Some changes were made to the previous text, but new chapters, in which the presentation reaches up to 1930, could only now, of course, be written. As a “new product”, you should pay special attention to them. P.N. Miliukov probably foresaw exactly what the difficulty of such an addition to his book would be - he hints at this in the preface, speaking about the conditions that allow one to create the impression of “continuity of the historical process.” Indeed, to isolate from the shapeless, confused flow of life the skeleton of the literary development of the nation - “to carve a statue from a block,” to repeat the comparison - was a task familiar to the historian, and time itself helped him in solving this task, emphasizing what is essential, pushing into the shadows what should and can be forgotten. But to add a new part to such an organism and not only does not violate the internal logic of its growth, but even, on the contrary, reveals this logic with greater clarity - i.e. to recognize in the present those features that will remain characteristic of it when it becomes the past, or, in other words, to completely erase the line between history and life - this was a bold and risky attempt.
It must be said right away that in the literary part of the “Essays” the author was extremely successful. You don’t always and don’t completely agree with P.N. Milyukov in individual assessments and characteristics when reading these chapters, but the continuity of the process is shown in them with exceptional convincingness. And when you close the book on its last words - that even now “in extremely difficult circumstances, Russian literature has not lost its vitality and inner strength of resistance” - these words seem to be an indisputable truth. How could it be otherwise? - you ask yourself. Is it possible that after so many years of such a powerful, continuous life, Russian literature suddenly “died” “in the grip of censorship” or from other external reasons. History speaks of the past and teaches us to understand the future: such a lesson is given in “Essays”.
According to P. Miliukov, Russian literature throughout its entire path has been moving towards life and rapprochement with it. She slowly and gradually “found herself,” freed herself from influences alien to her, overcame them, until, finally, Pushkin and Gogol appeared. The author of the Essays calls this period and the next three or four decades classical, not in the school theoretical sense of the word, but immediately explaining that “classical can be called in the history of all literature those periods when national creativity reached independent and its fullest manifestation." P. Milyukov believes that it is precisely the features of artistic realism, truthfulness, “vitality” that are the features characteristic of Russian literature in its “full manifestation” (however, hardly only Russian; the author of “Essays”, as is known, is quite skeptical about the widespread and various theories about the spiritual exclusivity and special “mission” of the Russian people; wittily and, we must admit, not without reason, he argued that in our country “national pride has monopolized universal human traits”!).
The classical period is over. It was replaced in the nineties of the last century by a movement, to define which P. Milyukov uses the word “decadence” - a word from which at that time none of the representatives of the movement renounced, but which is dangerous for the history of literature because it contains an assessment : Whom we call “decadent,” we characterize him, and we characterize him negatively. The decadents understood this, and they soon changed the inconvenient nickname to another - “Symbolists”. From their point of view, there were also internal reasons for this... But P. Miliukov is inclined to equate decadence with symbolism. There is no doubt that for the author of the Essays, in his general concept, the negative characteristic contained in the word “decadence” is the only acceptable one. For him, decadents in a sense are traitors, or rather, apostates: not only did they prefer the dubious and short-lived quirks of European literary fashion to all the Pushkin-Gogol-Tolstoy wisdom, but they also began to dream about the unprecedented and unrealizable, i.e. they broke away from life . P. N. Milyukov does not deny the historical pattern in the fact of their appearance, but he absolutely does not sympathize with them. In the preface, he notes that he would like to judge them “sine ira et studio,” stipulating, however, that “he cannot share their own assessment of the contribution they made to culture.”
Forty years have passed since the appearance of the first decadents. The next generation, on whose behalf I now dare to speak, has no reason to have increased tenderness for them: there was a lot of nonsense in their thoughts, a lot of falsehood in their feelings... And the eternal discord of “fathers and sons” makes itself felt. And yet it seems to me that P. Milyukov, an older contemporary of the decadents - almost their peer - is unfair to them. It's not so much about accomplishments as it is about aspirations. The author of the “Essays” will probably not deny that Russian literature by the end of the century ceased and finally ceased to be “classical” in itself, regardless of the emergence of decadence, that it turned gray and became completely dull - that in general, what was left of “classicism” only a shell, but his spirit flew away irrevocably. Leo Tolstoy doesn’t count, but by that time he had already left literature, while the rest of the undeniably “great” ones had all died: Dostoevsky, Tyutchev, Nekrasov, Turgenev... The level had dropped terribly, and even now if you open any magazine of those years, then the literary provinciality amazes him, which cannot be said about the magazines of previous decades. Merezhkovsky “and his comrades” rushed out of the backwoods, and if they turned out to be decadents, then this is a secondary sign for their characterization: such was the literary “elite” of Europe at that time.
In the discord between Zola and Verlaine, which P. Milyukov recalls, cultural correctness was on Verlaine’s side - the decadents were not mistaken in their diagnosis. By the way, about the sources of decadence. P. Milyukov points to Baudelaire’s work as one of the most important... Just recently, the other day, one might say, the author of “Essays” met at a literary debate with the “founder” of Russian decadence, Merezhkovsky, - and again the conversation turned to Baudelaire. “It was our dirty diapers!” - exclaimed D. Merezhkovsky, to the great, I will even say - to the woeful amazement of some listeners. P. Milyukov playfully interrupted him: “But it was you who brought Baudelaire into the public eye!” I don’t know if Miliukov just wanted to joke - there was another meaning in his words: “How,” one could object to Merezhkovsky, “you disown the best of all that was “discovered” by you, the most profound and tragic poet new Europe? If - “dirty diapers”, then it means that you still haven’t found anything in Baudelaire except aestheticism, Satanism, and dandyism? Really, all this was not worth “discovering.”
That’s why I remember now this episode - more significant for the history of literature than it seems at first glance - because P. Milyukov, as a witness and contemporary, may, in his own way, be right in relation to the decadents. But history and time saw their “discovery” better than they themselves, made a selection in it and, I think, found arguments in favor of their historical cause that would justify them.
To put an end to the question of the sources of decadence, I will only note the indication of the author of the Essays regarding the role of Nietzsche. Undoubtedly, the name Nietzsche, as P. Milyukov emphasizes in the note to the corresponding chapter, was often pronounced by the decadents “in vain,” due to a misunderstanding. And of course, this period owes its entire aesthetics much more to Nietzsche’s enemy and antipode - Wagner, this “King of Mists,” as one of the symbolists called him.
Among the writers of the symbolic-decadent period, P. Milyukov singles out Blok. He places a high value on “suffering poetry”; he even recognizes it as genius. In addition to the traits of conscientiousness and honor, which in Blok are charming to any unprejudiced person, P. Milyukov was probably captivated by the fact that with Blok our literature “returned to life” - at least he wanted to return to it. In the newest phase of literature, this is precisely what is significant for Miliukov - and if he is so attentive to Soviet “literary production”, it is precisely because this product is realistic and alien to all kinds of fog.
An outline of the literature of revolutionary times in Miliukov's presentation occupies more than a third of all pages devoted to literature in general. P. Milyukov went to such an obvious discrepancy with the historical significance and value of things deliberately, wanting to convince his contemporaries that “the cultural fabric is not torn” and that “the beginnings of new creative processes are heading towards destruction.” The essay is complete enough to achieve the author's goal, and is extremely clear.
It’s only a pity that P. Milyukov did not explain his views on the issue of censorship - this would probably be necessary to “convince” many of today’s readers. Nowadays they often reason like this: “there is no freedom in Russia, which means there can be no literature,” forgetting that the flowering of literature in our country did not coincide with the flowering of freedom: it is enough to name Pushkin. What can I say, Benckendorff’s censorship was child’s play compared to Stalin’s, but Pushkin’s example still proves that the thesis about literary freedom in its primitive schematism is false. Literature suffers from government tutelage, it is immensely burdened by it, but it “dodges”, it does not die.
According to P. Milyukov - if only I understood his thought correctly between the lines - censorship is maintained by literature in any rules, as long as this censorship is negative (i.e., don’t write about this, don’t touch that); it becomes a real threat to the existence of literature, turning into a positive “order”, and even an order (i.e., be sure to write only about this and that)... Now in Russia this threat is stronger than ever. The anxiety felt in the final part of the chapter on Soviet literature is partly inspired by this situation, it seems to me.
From Voronsky, Soviet literature has now reached Bezymensky. For anyone who is even more or less familiar with her, these are insignificant names. The first insisted on the need for “a certain minimum of freedom,” the second is proud of the title of “literary security officer.” Evolution becomes even more monstrous if we remember the entire past of our literature. P. Milyukov in his “Essays,” and especially in their last part, mainly follows the hidden, resisting, struggling spiritual energy, accumulated over centuries and now escaping here and there like steam from a valve. It is precisely in attention to the eternally living and constant through the temporary and accidental that the value of P. Milyukov’s work lies - work of enormous size and significance.
From the book Gogol in Russian criticism author Dobrolyubov Nikolay AlexandrovichEssays on the Gogol period of Russian literature (Works of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. Four volumes. Second edition. Moscow. 1855. Works of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol, found after his death. The Adventures of Chichikov or Dead Souls. Volume two (five chapters). Moscow.
From the book World Art Culture. XX century Literature author Olesina EThe Silver Age as a unique Russian phenomenon
From the book Nabokov and otherworldliness author Nabokov VladimirConclusion Nabokov and the Silver Age of Russian Culture Were the emigrant critics right when they denied Nabokov’s art “Russianness”? Didn’t Nabokov really have predecessors in Russian literature and culture? In interviews, lectures, prefaces to Nabokov’s books
From the book Volume 3. Literary criticism author Chernyshevsky Nikolai GavrilovichEssays on the Gogol period of Russian literature (Works of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. Four volumes. Second edition. Moscow. 1855; Works of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol, found after his death. The Adventures of Chichikov or Dead Souls. Volume two (five chapters). Moscow, 1855)In
From the book In the Labyrinths of a Detective author Razin VladimirEssays on the Gogol period of Russian literature First published in Sovremennik: the first article in No. 12 for 1855, the second - ninth article in No. 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 for 1856. This edition includes the first article, containing a description of Gogol’s work, articles
From the book Works of the Russian period. Prose. Literary criticism. Volume 3 author Gomolitsky Lev NikolaevichEssays on the history of Soviet and Russian detective literature of the twentieth century The author of this book, Vladimir Mikhailovich Razin, was one of the most famous Saratov journalists. Long-term editor-in-chief of “Zheleznodorozhnik Povolzhye”, head of the “Saratov News” department,
From the book History of Russian Literature of the 18th Century author Lebedeva O. B.To the Day of Russian Culture. A crown of thorns, entwined with laurels (About Russian art) The art of each nation has its own basic tone, namely the faith by which the people live, if only it is true that art is a reflection of the people's soul. At least for Russian
From the book History of Russian Literature of the 19th Century. Part 1. 1800-1830s author Lebedev Yuri VladimirovichAbout the foundations of Russian culture I dedicate this work to the people of Carpathian Rus'. It is not the quantity of knowledge that is important, but its quality. You can know a lot without knowing what you really need. Leo Tolstoy Culture is not a Russian word, and the concept that this word expresses is also not Russian. When
From the book Andrei Bely: Research and Studies author Lavrov Alexander VasilievichIV. Literary studies (articles on the history of Russian literature of the 18th century): 1. Stennik Yu. V. The problem of periodization of Russian literature of the 18th century. // XVIII century. Sat. 16. L., 1989.2. Kuzmina V.D. Tales of Peter’s time // History of Russian literature: In 14 vols. M.; L., 1941. T. 3.3. Kochetkova N. D. Oratorskaya
From the book Rope Ladder author Berg Mikhail YurievichKoltsov in the history of Russian culture. Contemporaries saw something prophetic in Koltsov's poetry. V. Maikov wrote: “He was more a poet of the possible and future than a poet of the actual and present.” And Nekrasov called Koltsov’s songs “prophetic.” Indeed, although Koltsov
From the book IN SEARCH OF PERSONALITY: the experience of Russian classics author Kantor Vladimir Karlovich From the book Theatrical Views by Vasily Rozanov author Rozanov Vasily VasilievichMerab Mamardashvili and the vicious circle of Russian history Russia is at a turning point. How many times has this already happened? How many times has it seemed that the totalitarian past is behind us and the democratic future is irrevocable. However, time passed, and the tempting image of “enlightened authoritarianism”
From the book History of Foreign Literature of the late XIX - early XX centuries author Zhuk Maxim Ivanovich From the book Essays on the History of English Poetry. Poets of the Renaissance. [Volume 1] author Kruzhkov Grigory MikhailovichComedy of Russian history Umberto Eco argued that the only version of the detective story that has not yet been written is the one where the reader would be the criminal. The eminent postmodernist most likely did not read Vasily Rozanov’s latest book, “The Apocalypse of Our Time,” where
From the author's bookWalter Pater From the book “Essays on the History of the Renaissance” PREFACE<… >Beauty, like almost all human sensory experience, is something relative; therefore, its definition has less meaning and interest, the more abstract it is. The task of a true aesthetician
From the author's bookPreface Essays on the History of English Poetry Two volumes of Essays on the History of English Poetry offer the reader a whole gallery of poets and their creative destinies of poetry - over the course of almost five centuries. Only the eighteenth century - the Age of Enlightenment - barely
Now let us turn to the concept of the history of Russian culture, set out in Miliukov’s fundamental work “Essays on the History of Russian Culture.” The first issues of "Essays" began to be published in 1895-1896. in the magazine “World of God” (published by A. A. Davydov), later renamed “Modern World, a magazine for self-education.” This determined the literary style of the Essays. It was also important that work on them was preceded by a course of lectures. This set the logic for constructing chapters and final conclusions for each section. They contain a lot of illustrative material, statistical tables, diagrams, which give the study reasoning and historical and sociological significance. Each section ends with a thorough bibliography, testifying to the author's enormous historical erudition. In the “Essays” there are many debatable and acute, controversial problems in the study of the history of Russian culture. But the polemics are always carried out in calm intonations. The “Essays” are written in the best tradition of Russian scientific-historical literature. Readers can use the new edition of “Essays”1 (5 parts in 3 volumes), published in Russia in 1993-1995. While in exile in Paris, Miliukov significantly updated the content of the “Essays” and used the rich material of modern science in order to present a more informed view of the course of the Russian historical process. The first volume was completely revised by the author and published in Paris in 1937, and the second in 1964 in The Hague after the death of P. N. Milyukov. In the preface, P. N. Milyukov writes that in the new historical material he did not find a refutation of his previous positions, but found in it a very good illustration of the main provisions and general concept of his work. Events confirm that there is a process of gradual erasing of random ideological zigzags and a return to the “general lines” of historical laws, concludes P. N. Milyukov. Summing up the many years of debate between “Westerners” and “Slavophiles,” Miliukov considered it necessary to take advantage of what was positive in the works of both directions, to achieve their synthesis in understanding the history of Russian culture. To do this, he turns to the analysis of the “prehistory” of Russia based on a description of data on the geographical environment, anthropological substrate and archaeological features of the life of the Slavs. An idea that unites the features of its own Miliukov P. N. Essays on the history of Russian culture: In 3 volumes. M, 1993-1995. razii and similarities is the concept of “place of development of Russian culture”1. He considers this term the most successful, because it combines both elements of Asian originality and undoubted elements of similarity with the European environment. In modern cultural studies, this term turns out to be close to the concept of “cultural space”, widely used in scientific literature and journalism. Miliukov was familiar with the positions of the “Eurasians” (N. Trubetskoy, P. Suvchinsky, etc.), and although in many ways he did not share their views, from a scientific point of view he noted the importance of solving the problem of Russia’s geopolitical position. The term “place development” was widely used by C. Montesquieu in “The Spirit of Laws”, Voltaire in “Essay on the Morals and Spirit of Nations”, I. Herder in “Ideas for the Philosophy of Human History”, F. Ratzel in “Anthropogeography”. One could add to this list L.N. Gumilyov, in whose works the concept of “place development” acquired key significance for the genesis of an ethnos. Miliukov notes that this term makes it possible to scientifically substantiate the causal relationship between the nature of a given territory and human settlements. Moreover, it would be more correct to talk not about one locality, but about the many territories occupied by an ethnic group and about the cultural processes that developed in them and only gradually merged into one organic whole. Using a large amount of ethnographic, archaeological, linguistic, and anthropological material, Miliukov proves the manifestation of the law of “lag of historical development”, characteristic of the history of Russian culture. This is especially noticeable when analyzing the differences between the countries of Western Europe and the European part of Russia. Even more significant differences in the level of civilizational development can be found in the territories of Siberia and the Far East. “The application of this method to the study of the “beginning of culture” made it possible for the first time to formulate, although a very general, but nevertheless coherent idea of the course of this process on Russian territory,” concludes Milyukov2. The general concept of the “Essays” is interesting. As Miliukov writes, they should provide not a narrative, but an explanatory history, not a chronological retelling of past events, but an explanation of historical processes in each individual area of life, in their consistent development, preserving their internal tendencies. 1 Ibid. T. 1. P. 66. 2 Ibid. P. 32. Events and dates in history become only milestones of those deep processes that occur in the spiritual culture of Russia. They are reflected in the history of the organization of social life and in the history of ideas. i The history of Russian culture is presented not as a narrative, but as an explanatory history, revealing the inner meaning of the era, moods, beliefs, worldview of people, their unique mentality. This approach contributed to the fact that in the “Essays” the pulse of historical time was always felt, connecting the past with the present. The history of Russian culture allows us to understand the peculiarities of national self-awareness and national character, the drama of internal contradictions, the intensity of spiritual quests, the inertia of social habits, and the difficulty of accepting innovations. He calls on historians not to confine themselves to merely listing the “crystallized” products of culture, its fossilized forms created by the process of cultural evolution, but to strive to understand the internal impulses of spiritual change. This requires the development of culture in a broad historical context, where demographic and ethnic processes, economic and government changes, mental preferences and moral norms, artistic tastes and the aesthetics of everyday life are organically combined. 4 The basis of the spirituality of Russian culture is religion: first - paganism, and then Orthodoxy, but always closely intertwined with each other. The active spirit of culture is revealed in the free initiative of the human personality, destroying outdated forms that have lost their historical meaning and creating new ones. The first part of the “Essays” presents the historical framework of the building of Russian culture, the House in which the Russian people spend their lives. A unique examination of this House is offered: territorial dimensions, composition and qualitative characteristics of the population, features of its architectural style. Such a description can well be called a spatial model of culture. Based on statistical data on demographic growth from the era of Peter I, when 13 million lived in Russia, to 1897, when the population increased to 129 million, Milyukov concludes that the Russian population is in a period of free growth. Characterizing the ethnic portrait of the Russian population, he convincingly shows its heterogeneous composition, which is in constant historical dynamics. If Europe “settled in place” by the 8th-9th centuries, then in Russia the movement of tribes and peoples at that time was just beginning: The diversity of the tribal composition still turns Russia into a living ethnographic museum of all kinds of nationalities1. The centuries-long process of merging various ethnic elements and the formation of the Russian people is still far from being completed. Miliukov presents a detailed map of the settlement of various peoples on the territory of Russia, explaining the historical routes of migration, the assignment of the population to certain regions, and their development of the natural resources of the Russian land. The mixed national-ethnic composition determined the territorial and administrative division of Russia into provinces, introduced by Peter I in 1708-1712. Analyzing trends in the development of economic life in Russia, Miliukov draws attention to the relatively slow and extensive nature of changes, low agricultural culture, determined by the vastness of territories, the possibility of developing new spaces. The disunity of different parts of Russia was caused by the poor condition of roads, and this led to difficulties in organizing the internal market, where trade was of a caravan and fair nature. Industry was predominantly “home-made”, although in the 2nd half of the 19th century. The rapid growth of capitalism began, and every year Russia became more and more strengthened at a new stage of economic life, and industrialism was a necessary product of internal development. In Russia, a process is intensively taking place that has been going on in the West for almost a thousand years. Miliukov draws attention to the high exchange rate of money, the accumulation of precious metals, and the gradual but steady development of the credit system. He attaches particular importance to the formation of the third estate and the development of cities. But due to special economic conditions, the city is developing primarily as an administrative and military center. It was always “fenced” with fortress walls, power and the army were concentrated inside, and artisans and traders settled around. They made up the second - posad - and third - settlement - city “rings”, serving the needs of the city. 1 Milyukov P. N. Essays on the history of Russian culture. T. 1.4. 2. P. 37. Public administration acquired a centralized character with insufficient development of civil liberties and political popular representation. All this had an undoubted influence on the formation and specificity of the political culture of Russia. Of interest is the study of the class system of Russia, its evolution, and the positive and negative changes that have taken place. Miliukov analyzes four periods in the history of the Russian nobility, changes in its relations with the authorities, the possibility of accumulating wealth and the processes of ruin, the spread of education and culture. He notes the difficulty of survival of the class, the repeated interruption of cultural continuity. Ivan IV fought against the titled nobility, ruined many noble families, and destroyed them. Over the course of half a century, most of the princely boyar families disappeared and their estates were liquidated. An example of this is the history of the existence of such ancient aristocratic families as the Golitsyns, Odoevskys, Kurakins, Trubetskoys, Mstislavskys, Kurbskys. Large fortunes in Rus' were acquired extremely quickly, but they were also lived out quickly. The value of estates was determined not so much by the size of the territory as by the number of souls. (Remember “Dead Souls” by N.V. Gogol.) Land and its ownership were not considered of particular value, and a careless attitude towards farming was a tradition of the “service” class. The spread of credits and loans against collateral and the sale of estates for debt led to the ruin of the nobility. At the end of the 19th century. only 1/3 of the nobility owned land. Noting the peculiarities of the development of estates in Russia, Milyukov writes: ... In our historical life there were no conditions for the formation of tightly knit estates; a sense of estate unity was not created in our nobility. In the absence of this corporate spirit, never and nowhere have the privileges of the noble class arisen so quickly, existed so briefly, and been destroyed so completely as in ours1. This position of the upper class, the most proactive and educated, influenced the nature of the development of culture in Russia. It combined traditionalism and innovation, inertia and progressiveness, philanthropy and militancy, democracy and localism, class isolation and humanistic openness. These contradictory trends led to the emergence of two rather polar views on the process of historical development of Russia. Miliukov P. N. Essays on the history of Russian culture. T. 1. Part 2. P. 292. The first view is expressed in the position of Slavophilism. It boils down to the fact that “the historical development of the Russian people was, is and will be completely original, unique and unlike any other national history”1. Slavophiles believed that every nation is called to realize its national idea, which is connected with the internal properties of the national spirit. The unity of the national idea must be expressed in the unity of national history, and any borrowing from outside is a distortion of the national idea, a betrayal of the behests of our ancestors. Miliukov disagrees with this approach and believes that its revival is a theoretical justification for the impending political reaction. What historical connection exists between subsistence economy, serfdom and the period of development of the new economy and civil equality? Between the historical past of the Russian north and the unusually rapid development of the south, which contributed to the movement of the center of economic life in just one century? “Our nationalists,” writes Miliukov, “complained about Peter the Great that he wanted to dress Russia, which had just emerged from its infancy, in? the costume of an adult: but insisting on maintaining the historical tradition, don’t they themselves want to keep children’s diapers on the young man at all costs? A different view in assessing the historical process is based on the affirmation of the commonality of the historical development of all countries and peoples. The only difference is what level of this ladder this or that country/people is on, and what is the distance between them. In the future, Russia will continue its evolution and go through the same steps that the West has already gone through. P. Ya. Chaadaev and partly B. S. Solovyov advised Russia to first go through all the stages of European life in order to arrive at the same level of development of civilization. This position periodically arises in discussions about the historical path of Russia. Echoes of those disputes can be heard in our time. Which of these two approaches is correct? Does Russia represent a completely special type of national development or is it only at one of the stages that Europe has long passed through? Miliukov believes that both views in their pure form reveal extremes, 1 Ibid. P. 238. 2 Ibid. P. 296. when truth is mixed with error, whereas in everything, measure and a “golden mean” are necessary. There is no doubt that the history and culture of each country are unique, inimitable, original, which is their indisputable advantage. But at the same time, in all areas of life, historical development takes place in Russia in the same direction as in Europe. This, of course, does not mean absolute coincidence and identity. As, indeed, in the West, where each state is distinguished by its originality and bringing all countries into a common category has a very conditional and relative meaning. This makes it possible not only to categorically reject any form of borrowing, but to accept the most suitable and technically convenient ones in order to fulfill the urgent need of a given moment in people’s life. At the same time, the similarity of Russia with Europe is not a deliberate goal, but only a natural consequence of the search for opportunities to solve emerging problems. So, Miliukov concludes, we should not frighten ourselves and others with fear of an imaginary betrayal of our national tradition. If our past is connected with the present, then it is connected not in the same way as an idea is connected with its gradual implementation, but only as ballast, preventing the idea from being realized and pulling us down, although every day it gets weaker and weaker1. In addition to the natural course of social evolution, human activity, inspired by ideals, values and based on traditions, is of particular importance. Education passes the baton from generation to generation, creating cultural norms, habits, daily routine, style and way of life. But in the event of sudden social changes, traditions are interrupted, lose their vital support, and become an obstacle to development. Continuing his study of the history of Russian culture, Milyukov notes that in the development of culture, both the demographic and ethnic composition of the population, territorial space, economic structure, state and class system are just the “walls” of a huge building. There is no doubt that if the foundation is rotten, then the entire frame of the house is in danger of collapsing, and everyone will die under the rubble. Therefore, the external environment is not just a “pathetic husk” that has no relation to culture, but it does not exhaust the entire volume of cultural life. The separation of material and spiritual culture leads only to tra- 1 Milyukov P. N. Essays on the history of Russian culture. T. 1.4. 2. P. 297. logical misconceptions in theory and practice. Moreover, the material nature of the economic factor is only apparent, because it always expresses a certain level of consciousness of people, their interests, needs, desires and assessments. But it would also be wrong to ignore this factor, explaining the development of culture only by the peculiarities of the national character and the Russian folk spirit. And although the debate about what is primary and what is secondary has seemingly become obsolete, old concepts are tenacious and have the ability to be reborn in new forms. When exploring the peculiarities of the development of Russian culture, one can pose the following questions: how did its inhabitants live in this historical “building”? What did they believe in, what did they want, what did they strive for, how did the conscience and thought of the Russian people develop? The evolution of the spirit has its own internal pattern. In its essence, it reproduces the same features that characterize this process in other countries and at other times in history. But along with the general characteristics, there is also a national peculiarity, which is so important for understanding Russian culture. Miliukov identifies the most significant values that, in his opinion, determine the feelings and thoughts of Russian society. He devotes the entire II volume of “Essays” to this: “Faith. Creation. Education". In accordance with the logic of the study, we can say that we are talking about religion, enlightenment, their evolution in the history of Russian culture, their influence on artistic creativity and the education system, the state of public opinion, and the national self-awareness of Russians. ** The cultural influence of the church and religion was predominant in the historical life of the Russian people, but not unambiguous. Miliukov considers it unlawful to either exaggerate or underestimate the role of Christianity in Russian culture. t But at the same time it is necessary to know the degree of acceptance of faith in society, its prevalence in various social strata. Orthodoxy had its sincere followers. This is evidenced by the chronicles and lives of saints, who have preserved to this day a living memory of the spiritual upsurge that gripped Ancient Rus'. “The Pechersk Patericon” remained a favorite book of popular reading for a long time. But in the world, behind the monastery fence, Orthodoxy only gradually replaced paganism. According to A. Khomyakov, Ancient Rus' in the period before the Mongol invasion still remained pagan, having adopted religious rituals only externally. >> The process of Christianization of the people proceeded very slowly, only gradually did Russia become a country of numerous churches, bell ringing, church services and rituals, strict fasting and fervent prayers. Religion turned into an internal state of the soul, and faith acquired a national character and became the basis of the national spirit. * The strengthening of the influence of the Church on Russian society is largely associated with the fall of Constantinople, when responsibility for the fate of Orthodoxy was entrusted to Russia. This is how the legend about Moscow - the Third Rome - developed. The national exaltation of the Russian Church and its independence were not only a spiritual matter, but also a political one. The Church recognized the supremacy of state power and its protection over itself. Despite the schism, sectarianism and other movements, Orthodoxy acquired the features of the national religious faith of the Russian people. The history of artistic creativity was closely connected with the development of religiosity in society. Miliukov divided the history of Russian literature and art into four periods. The first period is characterized by the reproduction and involuntary distortion of examples of temple architecture, icon painting, and versification received from Byzantium. It corresponded to the external)" perception of religious forms. Only in architecture it ends quite early, and in other areas of artistic creativity it continues until the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. The second period begins in the 16th - 17th centuries; it can be called the period of unconscious folk art. He expressed himself in the veneration of local national characteristics, accepted as genuine Christian antiquity. This led to the development of original art, when the Christian legend inspired the artist and influenced religious painting, and architecture experienced the heyday of the national style. However, the Church, which approved religious canons and dogmas in name of the formalism of faith, begins intensified persecution and strictly condemns the fruits of independent religious creativity. The official faith sets too narrow a framework for this art, and the created situation turns out to be fatal for the future fate of Russian art. At the end of the 17th century. Russian religious formalism was still too strong to give freedom to new trends, but also too weak to evoke sympathy in wide circles of society. The Russian soul was still too superficially affected by religious influence. And these circumstances marked the beginning of a new stage. The third period begins in the 18th century. and is characterized by the strengthening of Western secular influence, which finds fertile soil in Russia. In the shortest possible time, the entire worldview of high Russian society was secularized. Detached from its national principles, condemned by the Church, devoid of a religious impulse, rejected by society, Russian art turned out to be receptive to Western models. Everything nationally original was called common and became the property of the lower strata of society. The purpose of high art was largely determined by the need to decorate the environment with exact copies of works of Western art. The fourth period (from the end of the 18th to the beginning of the 19th century) is determined by a turn in art towards its own national forms, towards the expression of the new spiritual needs of Russian society. For literature, the rapprochement with life began earlier, but after it architecture, painting and music were involved in this flow. As soon as attempts at independence were discovered in our art, service to society immediately became the goal of this aspiration, and the broadest realism became the means. The histories of Orthodoxy and Russian enlightenment are closely interconnected. This connection at different times was quite strong, then weakened. There is no doubt that monasteries, church parishes, and subsequently seminaries and theological academies played a huge role in the history of education. The educational activities of the church were the initial impulse in the dissemination of knowledge. But the limited capabilities of the church and the growing need for educated people led to the fact that the development of the school was concentrated under the authority of state authorities. There are different points of view regarding the role of education in Ancient Rus'. Some admit that literacy was very rare at this time. Others hold a different opinion, believing that the spread of literacy was almost universal, the lives of saints were available in every home, and pre-Petrine Rus' was familiar with the medieval encyclopedia of “free knowledge.” Reliable sources are needed to resolve these disputes. Already in the 16th century. Along with literacy, knowledge of the alphabet and the ability to read, grammar began to be introduced in order to gain “power in writing.” Dialectics and rhetoric followed, and all these “verbal subjects” formed the basis of the elementary school, which imparted trivial knowledge. The concept of triviality, but in a different sense - simplicity, commonality, banality - is still used in Russian speech. Then philosophy and theology were added to these subjects. The Kiev Theological Academy had such a program of “free knowledge”. But the new program met resistance from the clergy, who believed that the development of reason would become the basis of weakening and even a betrayal of faith, would develop exorbitant pride, and therefore it was proposed to exclude the “filthy sciences” of Plato and Aristotle from education. This position supported an attitude of suspicion towards knowledge and scholarship and was retained in the public consciousness for quite a long time. However, already in the second half of the 18th century. Resistance to ignorance and a persistent desire to develop enlightenment began to grow. Private schools, home education, and training from specialist masters became widespread. Despite various prohibitions, it was not possible to keep education within the given boundaries. Contacts expanded, new knowledge penetrated, displacing primitive ideas. In 1703, the first arithmetic textbook was published, written by Leonty Magnitsky, a graduate of the Moscow Academy. Many generations of young people in Russia studied from this textbook. Other mathematical knowledge also became widespread: geometry (or land surveying), algebra and trigonometry. This expressed the public need for applied knowledge. Simeon of Polotsk in his work “The Crown of Faith” developed medieval astronomy and astrology, sharing the opinion that the stars influence the destinies of people. Already in the time of Peter I, telescopes and other instruments for observing celestial bodies were known in Russia. The telescope is still kept in the Kunstkamera in St. Petersburg. In 1719, the first scientific calendar was published, compiled by Alexei Izvolov. The famous collection of “monsters and rarities” brought by Peter I laid the foundation for museum collecting and aroused interest in natural history. Created in 1715, the Kunstkamera had rich mineralogical, botanical, and paleontological collections. All this aroused in Russian society an interest in studying nature, the life of peoples of different countries, and organizing scientific expeditions. In Russian manuscripts of the XV-XVI centuries. The anthropological knowledge of our ancestors is passed on. Man is structured on the model of the “macrocosm” and, like the big world, depends on the four elements that manifest themselves in the characters of people. Concepts about the world and man served as the basis for medical and everyday prescriptions: when and what to eat, what to avoid, what things to do. At the end of the 16th century. The first pharmacy opened in Moscow, and Vesalius’s famous book on human anatomy was translated into Russian in 1650. Various historical knowledge was widespread: chronicles, lives of saints, tales, legends, epics from the lives of heroes, Byzantine world chronicles, Greek mythology. A systematic presentation of historical events appeared in the form of a “Chronograph”. In 1727, the famous diplomat Prince Kurakin wrote “History”, imbued with subtle observations of the life and everyday life of the Russian people. Literature textbooks, primers, educational books of hours, educational psalms and other publications are becoming widespread. The circulations were also very large for those times: 25-40 thousand for the period from 1678 to 1689 for the 16 million population of Russia. Of particular interest are the “Azbukovniki”, known in manuscripts from the 13th-15th centuries. These are ancient encyclopedias that provide explanations of foreign words and concepts from different fields of knowledge. In the 2nd half of the 17th century. they contain information about various “free wisdom” - dialectics as a doctrine of the universe; rhetoric - the ability to speak, express thoughts; arithmetic, geometry, astronomy. A review of the most important stages in the history of Russian education in the pre-Petrine era allows us to conclude that society since ancient times has experienced a deep need for education and the dissemination of knowledge. Ideas about dense ignorance or widespread illiteracy of the people are not only unfair, but also distort historical reality. ** Russian society was open to Western influences, had its own traditions of enlightenment and prepared the ground for rapid changes that began during the period of Peter the Great's reforms and were subsequently further developed. The “Essays” present a broad panorama of the development of education in Russia, the formation of the intelligentsia, and the influence of education on changing national identity and public opinion. . In the modern situation, when the problem of the revival and development of the culture of the peoples of Russia has acquired particular relevance, Miliukov’s works on the history of Russian culture make a significant contribution to the formation of ideals and self-awareness of the people. The search for spiritual values, symbols of faith and hope shared by society, provides a guideline that allows us to find a way out of the crisis, overcome the collapse of society, and unite the vital forces of the peoples of Russia.
The second volume of “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” by P.N. Milyukov is devoted to the development of the “spiritual” side of Russian culture.
An essay on the study of the history of religion highlights the position and role of the Russian Church in the life of society.
In the first centuries of its existence, the church was still too weak to have much influence on society. The consequence of this was that pagan Russian antiquity remained untouched for a long time and for centuries coexisted peacefully alongside the official forms of the new faith. One of the features of Russian religion is the presence of dual faith.
The new faith began to influence society only at the end of the 15th century. At the same time, representatives of the Russian church believed that national religious thought was in clear contradiction with universal tradition.
But already in the 17th century, the fruits of religious work caused such a revival of religious feeling among the masses that had never before occurred in Rus'.
At the same time, even then there was a national gap in the religious environment. The majority of the flock, interested in the living work of religious thought, left the church fence completely.
Thus, the church deprived itself of real inner strength. Left with its claims face to face with powerful state power and finding little support from its flock, the Russian Church was forced to come under the influence of the state and became part of its institutions. The then leaders of the church accepted these changes not only voluntarily, but also willingly: it ensured that they preserved the exclusively protective nature of the church and freed them from the burden of leading the spiritual life of the country.
Studying the development of the history of Russian sectarianism, it becomes clear that popular thought was looking for the spiritualization of faith, and popular feeling settled on primitive forms of mysticism. For its part, the church acted as a government oversight body in relation to the popular faith.
The moral level of the pastors, the stationary state of the teachings of the faith were clearly at a low level, the remnants of the tsarship became part of its institutions. With support from the flock, the Russian Church was forced to come under the influence of which they remained until the 19th century.
The change in beliefs also caused a change in views on the tasks of art. The first significant successes of faith in the sixteenth century were accompanied by the creative work of imagination. The Christian legend began to compete with the products of old folk art. For example, signs of a desire for “living” appeared in iconography. At the same time, the church subjected the fruits of national creativity to strict condemnation. The further development of creativity on religious grounds, as well as the development of the national faith, was carried out only by smuggling - mainly among the oppositional currents of popular religious thought. “Christian poetry has turned into schismatic verse.”
Russian life was too little imbued with the principles of faith.
All constructions based on the assumption of the development of free forms of faith within the Orthodox teaching belonged to intellectuals, whose own attitude to the church tradition at least remained unclear, and for official representatives of the church - suspicious.
Finally, the history of the pre-reform Russian school is closely dependent on the history of Russian religion. The development of the Russian school will be discussed in the next essay.
The fourth essay Miliukov devoted to the study of the formation of school and education, starting from the era of Ancient Rus'. The turning point in the position of school and education in the era of Peter the Great is examined in detail. In the section on the struggle in Russian society for school and education throughout the 19th century, the desire for democratization of education is highlighted. A systematic analysis of the situation in schools and education in the USSR is also given.
The first chapter is devoted to the Orthodox school of Ancient Rus'.
On no issue of our internal history is there such a difference of opinion as on the issue of the role of school and education in Ancient Rus'. At the same time, the existence of a correct school in Ancient Rus' cannot be proven with the help of indirect evidence, which is selected by defenders of the opinion that pre-Petrine Rus' was already at a high degree of enlightenment.
The church of that time could not provide proper school education even to its own members, much less could it influence secular society through the school.
The first theological faculty in Russia, the Kiev Theological Academy, established at the end of the first quarter of the 17th century, adopted a full program of “free knowledge,” but soon the academy was forced to increase the dose of Latin at the expense of the Greek language.
Gradually, the “liberal sciences” became the subject of official school teaching for the first time. But the monopoly on all free thought and higher knowledge turned out to be completely impossible at the end of the seventeenth century. It stood in contradiction with the usual worldview of antiquity.
The second chapter contains an analysis of the state of knowledge before Peter.
The absence of a proper school in pre-Petrine Rus' did not at all mean a lack of scientific knowledge. The need for education significantly outstripped the school.
Mathematical knowledge was the least widespread in ancient Rus'; it was acquired as needed.
Natural historical knowledge penetrated into Russia through Kyiv scientists, through medieval encyclopedias. This information had important practical significance; The therapeutic goal was the main one in this area.
As for the state of humanitarian knowledge, from the end of the 15th century there has been a revival in the field of historical knowledge, expressed primarily in the processing and assimilation of foreign material, South Slavic and Polish, and then in independent attempts at historical storytelling.
In the same spirit that caused the appearance of the “Chronograph” in 1617, its further development took place on Russian soil.
The oldest textbook of Russian history, Synopsis, was published in 1674, created with a touch of religious exaltation of subsequent national history.
Of interest are “Azbukovniki”, lists of foreign or Slavic words with their explanation. In the 17th century, the content of “Azbukovnik” was updated; it began to promote liberal sciences among the public, taking the form of a school reading anthology.
The third chapter is devoted to the secular school of Peter and the empresses.
The first Russian secular school appeared with a rather random program. It was the “school of mathematical and navigational sciences” in 1701. Later, “digital” schools appeared.
At the same time, Peter’s secular school turned out to be short-lived. Its remnants survived only through a merger with a military school, which partly borrowed its program. The theological school stood stronger than the secular one.
A characteristic feature of the Russian school of that time is that it does not set the task of education and general education, but has in mind technical training for professional purposes.
A new period began when the narrow professional and class school of the first half of the 17th century was replaced by a general education and non-class school, which pursued purely pedagogical goals.
Under Catherine, matters were limited to isolated efforts by individuals to improve education. Lower school in Russia remained a thing of the future. The eighteenth century was barely able to put a secondary school on its feet.
The next chapter describes the struggle for school and education under the old regime.
The first of the significant changes in educational affairs dates back to the first years of the reign of Alexander I. In accordance with the “Preliminary Rules of Public Education” of 1803, it was determined that “public education in the Russian Empire constitutes a special state part.”
The educational part in the gymnasiums of 1804 was much higher, and the educational part was much lower, than was required for the nobility and for the wealthy classes of that time.
Thus, the idea of the reform of 1828 was that the school should not only teach, but also educate, and that this education should be entirely in the hands of the state. The university charter of 1835 also underwent changes. The government considered it necessary to subject universities to even stronger control.
The turning point year was 1855, the beginning of a new reign. All restrictions for students were abolished, and the autonomy of the professorial corporation was introduced. At the same time, the charter of 1884 again strengthened inspectorate control over students.
As for the elementary school, to the detriment of the zemstvo school, a parish school was established, the task of which was: “to establish among the people the Orthodox teaching of Christian faith and morals and to impart initial useful knowledge.”
The most important changes of the pre-revolutionary period occurred in the field of public education, both primary and out-of-school. It is here that the pressure of new trends is felt, against which the old government turns out to be powerless.
Data from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries show a significant improvement in the literacy of the entire population. During the period between the two revolutions of 1905 and 1917. there was a struggle with the government school. In the area of the school, complete arbitrariness reigned and, as a consequence of the destruction created by the war, the material decline of the school went far.
The fifth chapter characterizes the position of the school in the service of politics in the USSR.
Marxist pedagogy replaced the idea of “public education” with the idea of “social education.” The main task of public education in the Soviet republic was determined by party resolutions. The concepts of “polytechnic” education and the idea of “comprehensive development” were borrowed in the party program directly from Marx and Engels. The Soviet government seriously thought about extending the experiments of new education throughout Russia. At the same time, her calculations encountered insurmountable obstacles. The first of these was the lack of a corps of teachers ready to serve the new regime. The second was the impossibility of this government to maintain the level that the school reached in the pre-war period. Only the NEP made it possible to change the mood of the teaching community towards “neutrality.”
Primary education was the focus because it prepared the younger generation. The universities were put in proper order. Professionalization covered all levels of education.
The new system of public education was approved by the People's Commissariat for Education in 1929. The new direction of educational policy, consistent with the policy of super-industrialization and collectivization, was finally determined.
Among the positive aspects, one can note the general elimination of illiteracy, the organization and activities of a self-governing “children's collective” at school.
In the field of school and education, due to the artificial acceleration of the pace to achieve unattainable results, an extremely unstable situation has developed.
The sixth chapter covers the issue of the position of education in the service of politics in the USSR.
It is emphasized that a lot of enthusiasm and local, often personal initiative was shown in the matter of eliminating illiteracy.
The transition to book and newspaper products of the Soviet period was marked primarily by the confiscation of printed media and stocks of the old period. The departments of textbooks and publications for the people grew rapidly. There was a need to bring the book closer to the reader. Networks of libraries and reading rooms expanded.
The paths of out-of-school education, the gradual rise in the cultural level of the masses, the expansion of the circle of consumers of high-class creativity, the emergence of their own creativity that satisfied the taste of the masses, and finally, the separation of their own intelligentsia from the masses - all these phenomena of democratization of culture received their coverage in this publication.
P. N. Milyukov
Biography
The fate of a famous historian, publicist, public figure P. N. Milyukova (1859-1943) was complex and contradictory. It is in many ways similar to the fate of those who, due to certain political circumstances, found themselves in exile, and therefore his name for many decades was either not mentioned at all, or was accompanied by angry denunciations as the leader of the Cadet Party, the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Provisional Government.
Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov was born in Moscow on January 27, 1859 in the family of an architect, teacher at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. The ancient Miliukov family was known in Russia since the 17th century, came from the Tver province, and had great services to the fatherland. The mother belonged to the noble family of the Sultanovs and owned an estate in the Yaroslavl province. Pavel and his younger brother Alexei had mutual friends.
A large home library influenced the interests of the future historian. Miliukov studied at the 1st Moscow gymnasium on Volkhonka, was fond of reading ancient literature, studied European and Russian classics well, wrote poetry, and acted in the school theater.
In 1877, he entered Moscow University at the Faculty of Philology and became interested in a new science - comparative linguistics. This marked the beginning of his research into the history of world and domestic culture, which he pursued throughout his life. The history of the language was presented in close connection with folklore, mythology, rituals and rites of folk culture.
During these years, Miliukov studied the history of philosophy, read the works of I. Kant, G. Spencer, O. Comte, which subsequently influenced his theoretical views when studying the history of Russian culture. In his third year, he gives preference to history classes. This was facilitated by lectures by remarkable historians: the famous professor S. Solovyov, the young associate professor P. G. Vinogradov, who presented a new view of history. But the historian V. O. Klyuchevsky had a special influence on him. He had amazing historical intuition, read the meaning of Russian history, and taught people to experience the psychology of people. V. O. Klyuchevsky held seminaries at his home, introduced students to the library and archaeological excavations. All this determined Miliukov’s choice - to devote himself to studying the history of Russia.
After graduating in 1882, he was retained at the department of history and began preparing his master's thesis.
During these years, along with his scientific work, he taught history at a girls' gymnasium (1883-1891), gave lessons at a private school and at the Agricultural School. The family's financial situation deteriorated significantly after the death of their father, and they had to give private lessons - money was desperately needed. In 1885, he married Anna Sergeevna Smirnova, the daughter of the rector of the Trinity-Sergius Theological Academy, a student at the Higher Women's Courses. She shared Miliukov's liberal views and was a devoted and loving friend. They lived together for fifty years. Contemporaries recalled that their apartment on Zubovsky Boulevard resembled a second-hand bookstore: it had a huge number of books. Miliukov became famous for his book collections.
In 1886, he successfully defended his master's thesis on the topic “The state economy of Russia in the 1st quarter of the 18th century. and the reforms of Peter the Great." Miliukov argued that the Europeanization of Russia was not a product of borrowing, but became the inevitable result of the internal evolution of the country, moving in line with world history, but delayed by the unfavorable conditions of Russian life. The conclusions were based on extensive archival material. It was during these years that the scientist’s professional erudition and colossal ability to work were developed.
In 1886, he became a private assistant professor in the department of history at Moscow University and taught special courses in historical geography and historiography. It should be noted Miliukov’s amazing oratorical talent, broad education and historical erudition, and ability to captivate a student audience.
But his influence on students, freethinking and liberal views, and the demand to limit autocracy by adopting a constitution caused a negative reaction from his superiors. In 1895, the police department ordered the removal of Miliukov from any teaching activity due to extreme political unreliability and the exile of the disgraced historian to Ryazan. There he spent two years.
In 1895-1896, Miliukov prepared for publication “Essays on the History of Russian Culture,” in which he sets out his historical concept. (This work will be discussed in the following sections.)
In 1897, Miliukov received an invitation from Bulgaria with an offer to head the department of general history at Sofia University. The commission in the Miliukov case offered him a choice: a one-year prison term in Ufa or deportation abroad for two years. Miliukov chose to leave and accepted the invitation from Bulgaria.
He lectured very successfully, studied Bulgarian, Modern Greek and Turkish, and became an expert on Serbian-Bulgarian relations.
In 1899, he returned to Russia, settled near St. Petersburg and immediately found himself in a tense political atmosphere. In 1901, he was arrested for participating in an illegal meeting dedicated to the memory of the famous theorist of revolutionary populism P. L. Lavrov (1823-1900).
During these years, Miliukov gained fame as a historian and received an invitation from the University of Chicago in the USA to lecture on Russian history. In 1903-1904 he successfully lectures in Chicago and Boston, and then in London. In 1905 he returned to Moscow, met with many political figures, collaborated with the editors of magazines, participated in the activities of the Liberation Union, and developed a draft constitution.
In the fall of 1905, a constitutional democratic party (Cadets) was created, whose leader was Miliukov. Then he was elected to the State Duma from Petrograd. He became the leader of the People's Freedom faction and a popular speaker.
Political temperament and the ability to analyze the situation broadly and responsibly created Miliukov’s authority in the Russian parliament. He had exceptional efficiency, wrote articles, was the editor-in-chief of the newspaper Rech, and gave lectures in cities of Russia and other countries. He was still interested in playing the violin, loved to improve his dacha, and enjoyed spending his free time with his children.
In 1916, as part of a parliamentary delegation, he traveled to Sweden, Norway, England, France, Italy, and met with the political leaders of these countries.
During the February Revolution of 1917, Miliukov joined the Provisional Government and was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs. These historical events were described by him in the book “The History of the Second Russian Revolution” (1918). He perceived the October Revolution of 1917 with hostility and left Petrograd for Rostov, and then for Novocherkassk; participated in the creation of the Volunteer Army on the Don. He was the author of a number of important documents that defined the goals and principles of the White movement, and supported the rebellion of General Kornilov against the Bolsheviks. These events determined his future life. He first went to London, and then in January 1921 he moved to Paris, where he lived until his death.
In 1926, he published the book “Russia at the Turning Point,” in which he analyzed the results of the Civil War. He assessed the revolution as a tragic experiment, in the fire of which entire classes were destroyed and centuries-old cultural traditions were broken. But he was opposed to armed intervention and violation of Russia’s legal right to build a new society. During the years of Nazism, he sympathized with the Soviet army, rejoiced at the victory over fascism, and was a supporter of the Resistance. He believed that the social system of Russia, which replaced the autocracy, must become obsolete from the inside.
In Paris, from March 1921, for 20 years, he was the editor-in-chief of the newspaper Latest News, published in Russian. He united the Russian emigration around her: the future Nobel Prize laureate I. Bunin, M. Tsvetaeva, V. Nabokov (Sirin), M. Aldanov, Sasha Cherny, V. Khodasevich, N. Berberova, K. Balmont published their works on the pages of the newspaper , A. Remizov, N. Teffi, B. Zaitsev, G. Ivanov, I. Odoevtseva, A. Benois, S. Volkonsky and many other writers, poets, philosophers, historians.
A big event was the celebration of Miliukov's 70th birthday. More than four hundred people gathered in the hall of the Oceanographic Institute, among them were ambassadors of Slavic states, French senators, members of parliament, academicians, Russian friends and colleagues. Funds were raised for a new edition of the Essays.
Throughout his life, Miliukov kept a diary and preserved archives. In 1991, his Memoirs, first published in Paris in 1955, were published.
P. N. Milyukov died on March 31, 1943 in the small resort town of Aix-les-Bains near the border with Switzerland. After the war, the coffin was transported to Paris to the Batignolles cemetery and buried next to his wife.
"Essays on the history of Russian culture"Volume 1. Essay 1.
Part I. The population of every country tends to increase by itself, spontaneously, automatically, such an increase is the main impetus forcing people to increase the amount of labor necessary to maintain life and change its form.
The degree of economic development of a given country depends on the number of people in a country. The more densely populated a certain area is, the more labor the population can show, the better it can distribute this labor among itself, the more savings it can accumulate necessary to create or improve tools and with their help extract the greatest benefit from the least amount of labor. .
If population growth forces people to seek new forms of economic activity, then, conversely, new forms of economic life can cause increased population growth. Where there is hope among the mass of the population for an increase in well-being and for the development of individuality, where the means of subsistence are obtained relatively easily, where the reserves of nature are comparatively less used up, where untapped sources of subsistence exist or are newly discovered (for example, in the form of unoccupied land), there is an increase population will be most significant.
On the contrary, where a relatively high degree of well-being has already been achieved, where the individual with his needs has conquered a vast field of activity, where labor productivity can further be increased only by artificial means, population growth will slow down.
The situation of Russia in its present and past corresponds to the first of these characteristics.
Only regarding the last two centuries (at the time of writing the book 1895-1896) can conclusions be drawn, because Before this, there was very incomplete information about population movements. By the time of the death of Peter I (1725), Russia had only 13 million inhabitants. Now (19th century) there are up to 121 million in it. Thus, since the time of Peter I, the population has increased more than 9 times. The Russian population tripled every century. During the time of Peter I, the Russian population accounted for 1/8 of the population of all Europe, by the end of the 19th century it accounted for a full third of the population of Europe.
There is, obviously, for each country and for each time some natural limit to the saturation of the country with population. The population grows freely until this limit is reached, but after it is reached, the elasticity of resistance to new growth quickly increases and population growth slows down.
Part II. Russia was the last European country to pass from the hands of nature to the hands of man. While man lived in Western Europe, there were no traces of human existence in European Russia. Most of Russia was covered by a glacier. The historical life of peoples, like prehistoric life, begins in Russia later than in the rest of Europe. Only around the time of the Nativity of Christ - several centuries earlier or later - do we begin to receive positive or probable news about the population of Russia. Among these news, the earliest concerns the Black Sea region. 3 centuries BC the Sarmatians - the same Alans - began to be mentioned here; in our chronicles they are mentioned as Yas. The remnants of this people still live on the slope of the Caucasus Range and are called Ossetians. They belong to the same Aryan or Indo-European group of peoples as the Slavs, Germans, Greeks and Romans. In historical times, the Turkic tribe moved to the place of this population in the south of Russia. During the 1000 years after the Russian Empire, political upheavals took place in Asia, accompanied by ethnographic upheavals. Each of these coups from 3 to 13 centuries threw a new crowd of Turkic nomads from Asia to Europe. The Huns (4th century) were followed by the Bulgars, Avars (6th century), then dominion in the South of Russia passed in turn to the Khazars (7th-10th century), Pechenegs (9th-11th century), and Polovtsians (11th-13th century). Then came the Mongol invasion represented by the Tatars.
Two other ethnographic elements from which the Russian nationality was mainly formed are the Finns and the Slavs. The meeting of the Slavs with the Western Finns took place approximately in the 5th-7th centuries.
Part III. In Russia, as in Europe, the process of tribal mixing and settlement begins in the prehistoric era. But the beginning of the prehistoric era, coinciding with the appearance of man, belongs to a later time for Russia than for the European West. Likewise, we must look for the end of these ethnographic movements and mergers in Russia much later.
In the west, movement had generally calmed down by the 8th-9th centuries, so Europe had settled down by the time our history had just begun. The movement and mixing of tribes in Russia continues throughout history. From the prehistoric era to the present day and to this day cannot be considered completely complete. The diversity of the tribal composition turns Russia into a living ethnographic museum of all kinds of nationalities. We find the nonresident population here at all possible stages of Russification.
Throughout our history, a red thread runs through the process of resettlement of residents in empty spaces that do not belong to anyone. This process of colonization of the Russian land is just as far from over at the present moment as the process of merging various ethnographic elements of the Russian population. Due to raids from the steppe, the Moscow government sent troops to the borders of states. Troop camps became fortresses. Thus, small settlements began to form there. Colonization was closely related to government measures for defense.
Conclusion: we have examined in the most general terms the size, composition and distribution of the Russian population. In all these respects, the historical process running through all of Russian history remains unfinished. In the composition of the population, the centuries-long process of merging various ethnographic elements and the formation of new varieties of the Russian tribe is far from completed.
In the distribution of the population, the effect of historical reasons that pushed the Russian population to the north and kept it in this position for a whole 1000 years ceased. In 200-300 years, the result of these causes, of course, could not be completely erased, and the population had not yet had time to spread throughout Russia in accordance with the natural richness of its various localities. But every year the process of destruction of the consequences created by history moves forward rapidly. The present is increasingly striving to break away from the past, and at the same time the “testaments of history” are increasingly losing their fatal power over us.
