Pogodin, Mikhail Petrovich
Philologist, historian, archaeologist and collector, journalist and publicist, novelist and playwright, translator from various languages into Russian and publisher of many books, born in Moscow on November 11, 1800, died there on December 8, 1875. The son of a serf Count I. P. Saltykov, his “house ruler”, and the grandson of the serf peasant Count Chernyshev, P. belongs to the category of “Russian nuggets”, being the bearer of the natural properties of the Great Russian tribe, diverse and opposite to one another: the expanse of nature was combined in him with hoarding and thin monetary calculation, generosity put up with stinginess, "on your own mind" went hand in hand with cordiality, sincerity and frankness, good nature - with cunning, rudeness of temper and habits - with delicacy of feeling, carelessness in processing scientific issues - with petty pedantry in detailed and bibliographic searches; consciousness of his scientific merits coexisted with his admiration for the powers that be, P. was religious, but his religiosity was also in the Great Russian-Moscow way, approaching "ancient piety" and consisting in devotion to a ritual ritual that was not inspired by a broad and deep understanding Christianity. Pogodin's political convictions were just as typically Great Russian. He cannot be considered either a conservative, or a reactionary, or a legitimist, or a nationalist - all these Western European political definitions do not fit him; he was a supporter of the Russian political system in the form in which this system was formed by life, history, and professed the triune principles of Russian identity: Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. Therefore, he gravitated towards the Slavic tribes of the same blood and partly of the same faith to us and studied their language, life and history; but P. was not a Slavophil: his mind was a practical mind, purely Great Russian, alien to theoretical constructions, which, on the contrary, was especially distinguished by the Slavophiles. - Most of all and most fruitfully, P. was engaged in Russian history, to which he devoted all his many years of scientific activity; but in Russian history, as in life, he was not a theoretical thinker. P. knew and loved the Russian people, like flesh from his flesh, bone from his bones. He saw in it the remnants of antiquity and was carried away by these remnants: he lived in the past of his native country, instinctively striving for this past: this is where the key to its worship before Russian history, which for him was a world of miracles and exceptional features.
Until the age of ten, P. studied at home, and already at this early time of life, a passion for learning began to develop in him; At that time he knew only Russian literacy and eagerly read Moskovskie Vedomosti, the magazines of the time: Vestnik Evropy and Russkiy Vestnik, and translated novels. From 1810 to 1814, P. was brought up by a friend of his father, the Moscow printer A. G. Reshetnikov; here the teaching went more systematically and more successfully, but in these four years a general historical event occurred that, along with all the inhabitants of Moscow, upset the whole life of the Pogodin family and made a deep impression on the boy. Consider the ill-fated 1812, when Pogodin's father's house perished in the flames of a Moscow fire, and the Pogodin family had to seek salvation, along with other residents of the blazing capital, in one of the provincial cities of central Russia. The Pogodins moved to Suzdal. From 1814 to 1818, Mr.. P. studied at the Moscow, then the only, provincial gymnasium, and from 1818 to 1821 at Moscow University, in the verbal department, which at that time corresponded to the current Faculty of History and Philology. In the gymnasium and at the university, P. became even more addicted to reading and began to diligently study Russian history, mainly under the influence of the first eight volumes of Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" that appeared in the year of his admission to the university and nine years before the published beginning of the Russian translation of Shletserovsky "Nestor". These two works were of decisive importance in the scientific works and views of Pogodin: he became a convinced, but not blind, admirer of the Russian historiographer and the first and most ardent Russian natural historian to follow the historical criticism of Schlozer and his "Norman theory" of the origin of Russia. At the University, P. was strongly influenced by their readings Professor Merzlyakov and Timkovsky. The first one instilled in P. respect for the Russian classical writers of the 18th century. and contributed to the development in his speech, oral and written, of enthusiasm and pomposity; the second, a connoisseur of Roman literature, who possessed the learned methods of philological criticism, developed philological exegesis in Pogodin, which he later applied to the study of Russian historical monuments of writing.
At the end of the course at the University, the young candidate P. was appointed teacher of geography at the Moscow Noble boarding school and held this position until 1825, while giving private lessons in the family of Prince N. P. Trubetskoy and preparing for a master of Russian history. In 1823, he passed this exam, and in 1824 he published his master's thesis "On the Origin of Russia", dedicating it to Karamzin and defending it publicly in Moscow, in January 1825. After the defense, P. went to St. Petersburg and personally "introduced himself" to Karamzin, and , in his own words, "received, as it were, his blessing." P.'s dissertation constitutes a set of all opinions on the origin of Russia, starting with Bayer, and, on the basis of large and small criticism of Schletser, proves the immutability of the Norman theory of the origin of Russia. The master's degree opened the doors of a university teacher for Pogodin, but he did not immediately manage to get a chair in his favorite subject - national history. From 1825 to 1828 he taught general history only in the first year of the verbal department, and in 1828 he received an adjunct position, but not in the verbal, but in the ethical and political department, to teach new history of the 16th - 18th centuries, the history of Russian . Pogodin took an adjuncture at a department that was foreign to him (currently the Faculty of Law) until 1833, and only this year, after the dismissal of the professor of general history Ulrichs, he was entrusted with the temporary teaching of general history at the higher courses of the verbal department, which he conducts within six years until the return from abroad in 1839 of the candidate T. N. Granovsky, who was scheduled for this department by the Minister of Public Education, S. S. Uvarov, later a well-known professor at Moscow University, who had a beneficial educational influence on a number of Russians generations. Only in 1835 did Pogodin manage to finally take the chair of Russian history with the rank of ordinary professor, but this professorship lasted only nine years. In 1844, P. left the service at Moscow University, retaining only the title of academician in the Department of the Russian Language and Literature, which he was elected in 1841. From 1844 until his death, P. indulges in cabinet studies and partly journalistic work, as the editor of the Moskvityanin magazine founded by him in 1841 and other periodicals and the author of individual political brochures.
Since Russian history is the main branch of Pogodin's scientific and literary studies, we will begin our review with this branch. First of all, we present a list of the most important monographs and publications of Pogodin on Russian history.
A) Research. 1) On the origin of Russia, M. 1824 2) Historian-critical passages 2 vols. city (articles 1846-1866). The more remarkable of the fifteen articles placed in 1 volume are: A look at Russian history and an Outline of Russian history. - A parallel of Russian history with the history of Western European states, regarding the beginning. - For Russian antiquity. - About Moscow and increments of Moscow. - About localism. - About the character of Ivan the Terrible. - On the participation of Godunov in the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri. - Peter the Great. From the articles of the 2nd volume we will name: The most ancient Russian aristocracy. - Was Boris Godunov the founder of serfdom? - Two articles about Tsarevich Alexei Petrovichi. 3) Studies, remarks and lectures, M. 1846-1854. Volume 7 (from 862, the beginning of Russia to the Mongol conquest inclusive, i.e. until 1240). 4) Andrey Bogolyubsky, dep. ed. 1850 5) Biography of N. M. Karamzin, M. 1866 (2 hours), on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Karamzin. 6) Ancient Russian history before the Mongol yoke, with an atlas, 2 volumes in 4° (revision, in the popular presentation of the work No. 3), M. 1872. 7) The first seven years from the life of Peter the Great, M. 1872. (On the occasion of the bicentenary of the birth of Peter the Great). 8) The fight against new historical heresies, M. 1874 (Collection of polemical articles against the historical views of R. I. Ilovaisky on the origin of Russia and N. I. Kostomarov on some Russian historical figures, mainly from the era of troubled times).
B) Textbooks and guides. 9) Inscription of Russian history for schools, M. 1835. 10) The same for gymnasiums, 1st ed. M. 1837, 2nd ed., ibid.1838 (they were textbooks before the appearance of new ones compiled by Ustryalov).
AT) historical sources. Many sources on Russian history were first found by Pogodin and partly published by him, partly submitted to various academic institutions. These include: 11) Ancient Russian teachings, of which the most important are: the first word of Hilarion, Metropolitan of Kyiv, and the word on the day of St. Boris and Gleb (placed in the publications of the Academy of Sciences). 12) Miscellaneous historical materials placed by P. in his magazine Moskvityanin. 13) Little Russian chronicle, comp. Velichkom and published by the Kyiv Archaeographic Commission. 14) Works of Iv. Pososhkov, published by M. Pogodin himself, 1842 and 1863, 2 parts. 15) IV-th part of the "History of Russia" B. H. Tatishchev. 16) Notes of the teacher of Emperor Peter III, Shtelin (15 and 16 published by the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities, in 1848 and 1866). In addition, P. published either himself or with the help of Moscow. Society of History and Antiquities Russian sources on Russian history and not open to him, but before him were either in manuscripts or in poor editions. These include: 17) Kirillov's book: "The flourishing state of the Russian state" (under Peter V.), ed. in 1831 18) Pskov Chronicle, ed. in 1837 19) and 20) two publications, very important for Slavic-Russian paleography: Russian historical album, or handwriting of famous Russians (up to 300), ed. 1837 and Samples of Slavic ancient writing, ed. 1840 21) Embassy metrics c. book. Lithuanian, part I, (the reign of Sigismund II - Augustus), ed. 1843
G) Translations, with a preface and critical notes: 22) Studies by Gustav Evers, 1826 and 23) Neumann, on the dwellings of ancient Russians, also 1826 (Evers published at the expense of the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities, Neumann - at the expense of the late Count N. P. Rumyantseva).
The above list is far from exhausting P.'s published works in the field of Russian history. Many articles, notes, critical analyzes and reviews on Russian history and auxiliary knowledge in its study, especially on Russian antiquities so evoked, were published by P. for more than half a century, from 1821 to 1875, in almost all Russian periodicals publications published during this period. In addition, for the benefit of Russian history, Pogodin also worked in the following areas: 1) in editing periodicals, which will be discussed in more detail below; 2) participation in the work of learned societies. (P. was, in addition to the Academy of Sciences, a member and editor of publications of the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities, from 1822 and mainly in the 1830s, and a member of the following scientists of historical and archaeological societies: Copenhagen Northern Antiquaries, Odessa History and Antiquities South Russia, St. Petersburg and Moscow Archaeological, Imperial Russian Geographic and the first two Russian archaeological congresses organized by A. S. Uvarov: Moscow 1869 and St. Petersburg 1871); 3) in the publication of other people's original works on Russian history and the history of Russian literature; such, for example, are the publications published under his editorship or at his expense: "The experience of narrating about Russia" by Ya. S. Artsybashev, 3 vols., M. 1838-1843, ed. at the expense of the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities, "Slavic Antiquities" by Shafarik, translated by O. M. Bodyansky, M. 1837, in 3 hours, "Dictionary of Russian Secular Writers" by Metropolitan Evgeny Bolkhovitinov, M. 1845 .2 hours, and friend; 4) in scientific travels in Russia and abroad, where Pogodin everywhere stopped his attention on ancient monuments and historical remnants in relation to Russia, and, finally, 5) in the famous "Pogodinsky Ancient Storage".
On Pogodin's travels and on the just mentioned, collected with a rare energy and knowledge of his private museum, we should dwell in more detail.
P.'s trips around Russia began from the time he completed his course at the University and ended shortly before his death. Almost all of European Russia, all of its historically remarkable cities and localities were visited by Pogodin, and many more than once. Only in the far north, in the White Sea, if we are not mistaken, he never had a chance to visit. Traveling in Western Europe began with P. much later: the protective policy of the Russian government at the end of the reign of Alexander I and Nicholas I did not want to let young scientists go to the West. Despite repeated presentations of Pogodin by the Moscow University authorities for a business trip abroad, he was not allowed to do so. For the first time, Pogodin managed to get abroad in 1835, when he was already an ordinary professor, and then with a therapeutic purpose, "on the waters." On this trip, P. visited Germany, Switzerland and the Czech Republic and listened to lectures by some prominent professors of history, geography, philosophy and law in Berlin and Leipzig (Ritter, Beck, Ranke, Savigny, Waxmuth and others). Secondly, Pogodin was abroad in 1838, visiting the lands of the Austrian Slavs, Italy, France, England, Holland and Belgium. On this trip, P. personally met the then famous French scientists and writers (including Foriel, Villemain, Guizot). Then P. was abroad in 1842, 1846 and 1847. and several times during the reign of Alexander P. In 1842, he became especially close to Shafarik, a famous Slavic scientist.
In his repeated trips across Russia, P. struck up a lot of relations with local lovers of domestic antiquity and acquired, mostly by purchase, monuments of this antiquity: manuscripts, early printed books, antiques, portraits, etc. In this way, from the thirties of the XIX century. little by little, very interesting written and material monuments of the past of his native land began to accumulate in him, and from the second half of the forties, P. could already directly consider his ever-growing collection as a whole collection of homeland studies. It was in the full sense of the word a Russian, national ancient repository, which P. himself calls a museum and in 1849 puts a brief review of it in Moskovskie Vedomosti. It can be seen from the survey that Pogodin's ancient storage at that time was placed in more than fifty cabinets and several cardboard boxes, breaking up into the following seventeen departments: 1) a collection of manuscripts, which included not only those belonging to P. himself, but entire manuscript libraries of experts and lovers bought by him ancient Russian writing: Laptev, Stroev, Kalaidovich, Filatov and others; 2) early printed books, up to 400; 3) books printed under Peter the Great; 4) ancient charters and ancient judicial acts; 5) autographs; 6) coins (until 2000); 7) icons; 8) salaries; 9) crosses (up to 500); 10) ancient seals (up to 30); 11) earrings, rings, buttons, dishes; 12) weapons; 13) things from the Chud mines; 14) letters and papers of sovereigns, starting with Peter the Great, generals and writers; 15) popular prints; 16) first engraving experiments; 17) portraits of Russian people. Back in the late forties, these extensive historical collections of Pogodin became known not only in Moscow and Russia, but also abroad, and in the fifties, most of them, namely manuscripts and books, were acquired by purchase in the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg. The already presented enumeration of P.'s works on Russian history and his other activities in this area clearly indicate to everyone, even non-specialists, P.'s merits in the study of Russian history. But the significance of P., as a Russian historian, will be expressed more fully when we acquaint the reader with Pogodin's general historical views, with his views on the entire course of Russian history, with the methods of his scientific work, and with his characteristic resolution of some particular Russian historical questions.
The scheme for studying Russian history was presented to Pogodin in the following general terms: the history of the Russian people, which is the complete opposite of the history of the peoples of Western Europe in terms of the difference between our social and cultural foundations and that of Western Europe, should be studied together with the history of the Slavic peoples of the same tribe. The history of Russia is as diverse in its content as the Russian people are diverse in their spiritual properties, the foundations of the original life of which are Orthodoxy, the autocratic power of its sovereigns and the peculiarities of its nationality, and because the course of Russian history cannot be summed up under any theory, in its originality, because in this move there are many supernatural,miraculous. Russian history cannot be understood from the point of view of general historical and philosophical constructions, but it is necessary, first of all, quite scientifically, on the basis of the principles developed by Western European historical criticism, study the sources of Russian history, extract from them the largest number of reliable, critically cleaned facts, and then study these facts, explore all particular phenomena in the historical life of Russia, because only from a correct representation of particulars can an exact concept of the whole be obtained.
Proceeding from these provisions, P. most of all devoted his studies to the critical study of the sources of Russian history and the particular facts extracted from them, as a result of which his opponents had every reason to consider him not a historian-thinker, but exegetical historian. Pogodin's desire for the inevitable study of all particulars before any of them came to a conclusion led him to the following, very large mistakes:
1) he managed to scientifically investigate only a very small number of phenomena of Russian historical life, mainly from the time from the 9th century. according to P. Chr. before the Mongol conquest and then from the history of the Muscovite state of the 16th and 17th centuries. and from the era of Peter the Great; 2) could not create for himself a clear idea about the general course of Russian history, because those general views on Russian historical development that he expressed did not follow from critically verified facts, but were suggestions of a patriotic mood that did not differ in depth and did not exceed anything the general kazovsky patriotism of the Muscovites of the era of Emperor Nicholas I (such, for example, are his articles: "A look at Russian history" and "Essay on Russian history", "For Russian antiquity" and "The historical significance of Peter V. and his reforms"); 3) he did not understand the new, scientific and philosophical trends in the development of Russian history and became hostile towards them. But P. himself not only did not recognize these errors in himself, but, on the contrary, considered them to be special virtues and raised his exegetical methods in historical studies to the height of a special method, which he quite arbitrarily and incorrectly named mathematical. He called it that because the basis of his historical studies was a simple enumeration of facts. This is how P. himself defines his method. “Before all reasoning, interpretation and higher views,” he says, “one must collect all the passages from the annals, letters and other sources about a well-known subject and then, having them before one’s eyes, draw conclusions about its meaning and the relation in which it is to other related subjects and in general to the whole history, checking their conclusions with other information; ... collect evidence, compare, explain, and then deduce, how can,mathematically". In vain did his opponents prove to Pogodin the inapplicability of such a method, especially to the ancient eras of Russian history he loved, for the simple reason that not all the facts were paid attention to in the sources, that many were not registered by them at all, and that not all sources from such eras survived. before us, - he did not want to hear anything and, as if in reproach to himself, by his method he proved the exact opposite of what he wanted to prove. So, for example, listing domestic written works that have come down to our time from the pre-Mongolian period of Russian history, P. assured that it has come down to us lots of of these works, admired the richness and diversity of their content and deduced from this the conclusion about the high development of Russian education in the 11th - 12th centuries, which, of course, disagrees with reality. Persistent in his mathematical method, P. staunchly defended him, and therefore from the very beginning of his academic career and until the last days he waged a fierce debate with everyone who only dared to disagree with him.
First of all, he argued over the Varangian question with representatives of two opposite trends in Russian historiography of the thirties and forties: with the so-called Slavs, recognizing the Slavs of Russia (Venelin, Moroshkin and others, later M. A. Maksimovich joined them), and with M. T. Kachenovsky and his followers, known as skeptical school, seeking to seek Russia from the Khazars. With this last school, P. waged a long-term feud on another, really scientifically serious issue, the issue of forgery of the initial Russian chronicle, known at that time under the name of Nestorova, and other ancient Russian written sources: Russian Pravda, treaties Oleg and Igor with the Greeks and others. "Skeptics" rejected authenticity written evidence of the initial centuries of Russian history on the basis that the oldest lists of chronicles and Russian Truth date back to the 13th and 14th centuries; as a result, Kachenovsky and his followers, wanting to see a historical presentation based on reliable written evidence, considered the time of Russian history before the introduction of Christianity "fabulous", and from the introduction of Christianity to the XIII century. "unreliable".
In the forties, P. led a heated debate with scientists of the so-called school tribal life, K. D. Kavelin, S. M. Solovyov and their followers, who presented the main element of our social development for almost all the time, from the beginning of history to Peter the Great, the beginning of blood-patriarchal, family-tribal. Based on the teachings of the Derpt professor Gustav Evers about the initial blood-patriarchal life of the Slavs, this school explained the entire subsequent public of the Russian people by the gradual evolution of blood-patriarchal, tribal life into the beginning of the state, political, which in the person of Peter V. reached its highest development and ensured our further social success. Peter V., according to the teachings of this school, introduced with his reform into the exclusively national patriarchal-tribal life of ancient Russia the universal principles developed by the Western European peoples, and, above all, the principle of personality, completely alien to our patriarchal-tribal life. Scientists of the school of tribal life put the theoretical construction of history in the foreground, and therefore recognized the need to study historical facts only insofar as these facts serve to clarify common principles,developing in the historical life of the Russian people, of which the main one is the beginning of blood-generic; the study of details, particulars only for a more complete, factual accumulation of historical exposition, they did not attach primary importance and condemned historians who strive only for this external factual completeness. Thus, both the methodological requirements of the school of tribal life, and the central importance in Russian life that they attach to the blood-patriarchal principle - all this contradicted Pogodin's "mathematical" method; only the same vocation of the importance for Russian life of the reform of Peter V. brought him closer to this school, but this rapprochement was external, because scientists from the school of tribal life evaluated the reform of Peter V. also from the point of view common principles, and Pogodin understood it in a completely external way, from its practical side, as the starting point of those beneficent cares of the supreme autocratic power for the needs of the Russian people, which, after Peter V., following his example, the Russian autocrats steadily showed. Justice obliges us to declare that in polemics with "skeptics" about the authenticity of the original chronicle and other ancient monuments of Russian literature and with scientists from the school of tribal life, Pogodin in many cases emerged victorious. In the denial of the authenticity of Russian history before the XIII century. "skeptics" went to extremes, and P. very convincingly proved it to them. As for the school of tribal life, in a polemic with her, P. pointed out the a priori nature of its initial foundations, the one-sidedness and excessive theoreticalness of subsequent conclusions. Scientists of this school studied the phenomena of Russian historical life of a predominantly socio-legal nature, not enough, to say the least, affecting phenomena of a different, higher order, such as, for example, phenomena in the field of moral-religious, intellectual, literary, artistic - and Pogodin was right, noting these gaps to them and addressing them with his characteristic laconic question: "Where will you put St. Sergius of Radonezh?" The school of tribal life, therefore, like any new theoretical doctrine in historical science, sought to bring a whole series of historical phenomena under one main principle, from which many phenomena cannot be explained, and this school fell into error; but the school of tribal life cannot be blamed for demanding theoretical views in history. Any historical theory, or, more correctly, a theoretical problem or a historical hypothesis, is a natural conclusion of a generalizing thought from several groups of historical phenomena, newly noticed or newly explained; these conclusions provide material for further critical and generalizing methods of thought and contribute to the further progressive development of historical science.
In 1860, P. again returned to the question of the origin of Russia and had a public competition on this issue in St. Petersburg with the then very popular Russian historian N. I. Kostomarov, who produced Rurik and the brethren and Rus from Lithuania. In the seventies, P. again argues because of the Varangians with D. I. Ilovaisky and with N. I. Kostomarov - because of his misunderstanding of Russian historical figures. D. I. Ilovaisky takes, as you know, the Russes for the original Slavic tribe, and considers the legend about the calling of Rurik, Sineus and Truvor a legend; Kostomarov, on the other hand, brings down from the pedestal the famous "heroes" of Russian history - Dimitri Donskoy, Prokopy Lyapunov, Prince. Skopin-Shuisky, Prince. Pozharsky and Minin, and recognizes the feat of Ivan Susanin as fiction. P. is simply irritated by these "new historical heresies," as he puts it, and writes "curious messages" to Ilovaisky and Kostomarov, in which he fights them, in his own words, "not to the stomach, but to death."
These are, in the most general terms, P.'s attitude to Russian history, his historical views and critical and polemical techniques.
To what can the results of Pogodin's historical-collective, historical-exegetical and historical-polemical activities be reduced, what are the results of this activity? They are the following:
1) P. collected a huge mass of historical material, historical sources, mainly written, of which some were not known at all before him, and only partly prepared this material for subsequent historical studies, publishing many sources, partly for the first time, partly more accurately than before.
2) He dealt mainly with the most ancient eras of Russian history, from 862 to R. Chr. until 1240. the conquest of Russia by the Mongols, and on the history of these eras presented many very important private studies and notes.
3) From such studies and notes, his proofs have hitherto been of scientific importance. authenticity"The Tale of Bygone Years" (called in his time the chronicle of Nestor), treaties with the Greeks of Oleg and Igor and Russkaya Pravda.
4) His monographs on the Varangian question represent a summary of everything that was known on it until the 40s. XIX century, and in this respect are hitherto a necessary reference book in the study of the question of the Varangians and the beginning of Russia. But P.'s own judgments on this issue at the present time can no longer have a place in science. P. is too stubbornly convinced of the Norman, Scandinavian origin of the first princes and Russia to be completely impartial. He considers this question to be the fundamental question of all Russian history and attaches too much importance to the influence of the Normans on our primitive society. In this regard, he goes even further than Schletser, naming the entire space of time from the calling of the three brothers to the death of Yaroslav, i.e. from 862 to 1054 Varangian or Norman period and seeing the Norman influence during this time on the Eastern Slavs in the following respects: 1) in the board and management; 2) in laws; 3) in a military setting; 4) in the development of trade and industry (economic phenomena); 5) in language; 6) in mores, customs, and partly even in religious beliefs.
5) P.'s research for the next period, specific, from the death of Yaroslav to the invasion of the Mongols (1054-1240), are of scientific importance as a code authentic places from a number of written sources, and therefore greatly facilitate the work of the historical researcher of this period. This is the meaning of IV, V, VI and VII vols. his Researches, Remarks and Lectures.
6) Some of P.'s remarks on the history of the Moscow principality and the tsarist period of Muscovite Russia are of scientific value today. Such, for example, are remarks about the most ancient Moscow aristocracy, about the rise of Moscow, about parochialism, about the degree of participation of Boris Godunov in the murder of Dimitry Uglichsky, about the beginning of attaching peasants to the land.
7) P.'s works on modern Russian history are expressed by the publication of very important, open, sources and the initial, critical-bibliographic processing of previously known sources. In this last respect, his book "The First Seventeen Years in the Life of Peter the Great", M. 1872, is of great importance.
8) As a professor, P. was of great benefit to his students, teaching them to practically, independently work on historical primary sources, showing them the tools for such work in a number of auxiliary historical disciplines and instilling in them a love for Russia and its history.
In connection with the works on Russian history, there are Pogodin's translations on Slavic studies, on general history and on geography. In 1825, his translation of Dobrovsky's famous study of Cyril and Methodius was published, and in 1833 P.'s translation from Latin appeared, made by him together with S. P. Shevyrev, of the grammar of the ancient Church Slavonic language of the same Dobrovsky, in 3- x parts. In 1829, Mr.. P. published his translation into Russian "Introduction to World History for Children", op. A. L. Shletser. Unfortunately, this exemplary textbook is almost unknown to us; when reading, he strikes with the extraordinary clarity of the historical concept of his author, conciseness and pedagogical presentation. In 1835 and 1836 Pogodin's university lectures on Guerin on the politics, communications and trade of the noblest peoples of the ancient world appeared in print in 2 hours, and after that - a translation from German by one of Pogodin's students (Mr. Koyander) of the ancient history of the same Guerin. At the end of 1839, Mr.. P. published a translation edited by him from French, also performed by his listeners, of the history of the Middle Ages of De Michel, in 2 volumes. Since 1837, under the editorship of Pogodin, the "Universal Historical Library" was published, containing the history of European states, translated from German, in 20 books. In 1840 Pogodin published "Three Comparative Maps of Mountains and Rivers of the Globe".
After Russian history, the most prominent field in Pogodin's scientific and literary activities is the field of a journalist, in which he converges with representatives of the then Russian literature of several generations. P. becomes a journalist at the age of 25. In January 1825, he defended his master's thesis and in the same year he had the idea to publish an almanac, a fashionable form of a collection of literary works at that time. This idea is carried out in the following, 1826: P. publishes the almanac "Urania", as a result of which he draws closer to the luminaries of the then Russian literature and, at their head, with Pushkin. This rapprochement gives P. the idea to found a magazine with blessing, as he puts it, Pushkin; the magazine appeared in 1827 under the name of "Moscow Bulletin" and published in Moscow, two books a month, until 1830 inclusive. Then comes a ten-year break in the magazine activities of P.; he is busy at this time with university lectures, scholarly works, writing and publishing his literary works, traveling and collecting historical collections. In 1841, a new magazine, edited by Pogodin, "Moskvityanin", appeared in Moscow in books, sometimes twice a month, sometimes once, until 1855 inclusive (the last books of this year were issued in 1856). This longest fifteen-year editorship of Pogodin first introduced him to the Russian large public, and Pogodin's reputation in Russian literary circles was built up on the basis of "Moskvityanin". Since the late fifties, P. is again in the magazine field. In 1859, he recalled his debut as a journalist with the almanac "Urania" and published the scientific and literary collection "Morning", two books of which were then published back in 1866 and 1868. In the late sixties came out in Moscow under the editorship of P. newspaper "Russian".
Let us dwell in more detail on two periodicals of Pogodin: "Moskovsky Vestnik" and "Moskvityanin".
Pushkin considered Moskovsky Vestnik to be "his" journal (he was its main contributor and main contributor to income), while Pogodin was only a "literate," that is, a knowledgeable editor. But Pushkin was not quite right. The main core of the "Moscow Bulletin" was a circle of young writers, headed by D. V. Venevitinov and Prince V. F. Odoevsky, supporters of the Schellingian philosophy, to which Pushkin was completely alien. This literary circle, to which Pogodin and Shevyrev joined, later a literary and social associate of Pogodin, is an interesting phenomenon in the history of Russian culture. The Venevitinov circle applied the views of the German natural philosopher to the national self-consciousness of Russia and to the struggle against external, external, official Europeanism, inspired by the reform of Peter the Great, and was thus the forerunner of the later Moscow Slavophiles. The views of this circle were carried out in the "Moscow Bulletin" in verse and prose. Then this magazine was filled with serious articles, mainly on Russian history, which the mass of the public could not appreciate, and the Moskovsky Vestnik began to acquire a reputation as a boring magazine and, having met with a strong rebuff from the Moscow Telegraph, a magazine published by N. A. Polevoy and a former representative of Western views, - was to soon cease, having existed for only four years.
"Moskvityanin" is in its direction a characteristic exponent of the official political teaching and the era of Emperor Nicholas I about Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. Articles by the editor himself about Peter the Great, about Moscow, "For Russian antiquity", and his closest collaborators: Shevyreva, Davydov and M. A. Dmitriev and friend. - proved the validity of this doctrine in historical, critical, philosophical, moral-religious, journalistic and fiction articles.
At the beginning of The Moskvityanin, the official spheres were very pleased with him, but neither the Slavophiles nor the Westerners were satisfied. Nevertheless, the fifteen-year existence of the "Moskvityanin" did not go unnoticed in the history of our education, due to the abundant material it contains to study the social views of a whole group of Moscow scholars and writers of the first half of the 19th century, headed by Pogodin. This group was considered at that time by our progressives as a group of backward views, allegedly hostile to Western Europe. The specified material can be summed up under the following main headings: 1) articles and notes on the history, archeology, history of Russian literature and ethnography of Russia, with the aim of clarifying its culture and public in the forties and early fifties of the XIX century .; 2) provincial correspondence from various regions of Russia; 3) depiction of the life of the Russian peasant, as far as it was possible under the then censorship conditions; 4) a presentation of the past and present life of the Slavic peoples, southern and western.
Three books "Morning" are a continuation of "Moskvityanin" and have the same meaning with it.
Pogodin's journalistic activity is not limited, however, to his editorship. Both during the publication of Moskvityanin and after it, he deals with various contemporary social issues both in the columns of other periodicals and in separate brochures. During the publication of "Moskvityanin" under Emperor Nicholas I, even such an "orthodox" Russian person as P. was, it was impossible to speak out in print on public issues quite frankly, and therefore P. often resorted to a written presentation of his thoughts, in the form of letters and special notes. These journalistic works of his were distributed to the public in a variety of lists and created great popularity for him; some of them were printed abroad, translated into French. All these letters and notes of Pogodin were distinguished not by the depth of understanding and seriousness, but by sincere faith in the power and strength of the Russian people and an unusually frank and simple presentation. Of these, the notes written before the beginning of the Crimean War and during its course, and devoted to the Eastern question and Russia's relations with the Western European states, are of particular importance. With the accession of Emperor Alexander II, when Russian public thought got the opportunity to speak out, Pogodin sets out in print his thoughts on the most important issues of domestic policy: on peasant and related financial and economic issues, on educational reform, Zemstvo, on the Polish question - everywhere being a supporter of reforms and a defender of the interests of the Russian people. On the same topics, he makes speeches in the Moscow City Duma, in which he is a vowel. And these articles and speeches are distinguished by the same properties as Pogodin's handwritten journalistic works. Here, by the way, it is appropriate to note that P. was impartial to the Poles in the forties and sixties of the last century, when the majority of Russian society, under the influence of the Polish uprisings of 1830 and 1863, was unjustly hostile to Poland. P. because of the political antagonism of Russia with Poland, in which he completely stood on the side of Russia, was able to look out for the Poles, as in the Slavs of the same tribe to us, the undoubted inherent virtues of them. Many of Pogodin's journalistic articles are included in the three books of the Morning collection mentioned above. A collection of his articles on the Polish question was published in Moscow, in 1866, and a collection of speeches (including from 1830 to 1872) also in Moscow, in 1872.
It was noted above that journalism brought P. closer to Russian writers of several generations. Indeed, if you make a list all employees of Pogodin's periodicals, starting with "Urania" and ending with "Russian", i.e. for over forty years, yes, add to this list another list - scientists and writers with whom P. was in correspondence, in polemics and in general in relations, friendly or hostile - then we would, without exaggeration, receive the cash of all Russian writers and scientists from the 20s to 70 years of the last century inclusive. Proof of this is the long-term work on Pogodin, written, but still far from finished, by N. P. Barsukov. The curious are referred to two indexes of names contained in this work, compiled by VV Maikov. However, Pogodin had writers closest to him; he notes them himself in his autobiography. Here are Pogodin's "friends": S. P. Shevyrev, A. Kh. Vostokov, P. I. Keppen, D. V. Venevitinov, Pushkin, Gogol and the Aksakov family. Such an abundance of scholarly and literary connections, which is rare in general, is especially rare in Russia, and is explained both by P.'s long life and the diversity of his aspirations and his sociability, which is the distinctive character of Pogodin's peculiar spiritual nature.
This diversity of Pogodin's aspirations naturally led him to the fact that he could not be satisfied only with historical works and journalistic activities. He also performed in other fields of national literature. Without going into a detailed examination of them, we note only the most important of Pogodin's literary experiments, adhering to his own classification and evaluation of them. These experiences arise in Pogodin's student years. Some of them appeared for the first time in 1821, in the "Bulletin of Europe" - humorous "Letters to the Luzhnitsky Elder"; in the same journal, Pogodin published an analysis of Pushkin's Prisoner of the Caucasus. From 1822 to 1825 inclusive, translations from the "ancient", that is, Greek and Roman classics, and several original stories, some of which are printed in the almanac "Urania" for 1826, follow. Then, in chronological order, the following literary works of Pogodin appeared in print: 1828, translation of Goethe's tragedy "Getz von Berlichingen", in 1830 - tragedy "Martha Posadnitsa"; in 1831, the tragedy "Peter I" was written, printed later, in the 60s; in 1833 - novels, ed. in 3 parts; in 1835 - "History in faces about Dimitri the Pretender" (dedicated to Pushkin); in 1836 - "Black sickness", pov., dep. ed. 1837 and "The Bride at the Fair", op. ed.; in 1844, - "A year in foreign lands", opis. foreign travel, 4 parts. In 1832, the "History in Persons about Boris Godunov" was written, but was not published. Pogodin, as a novelist, playwright, feuilletonist, literary critic and translator of fine literary works, no one has yet considered in detail. In the listed types of literature, P. did not rise, however, above the level of ordinary writers of his day; his tragedies from Russian history, written mainly under the influence of Pushkin's "Boris Godunov", are rhetorical, rich and devoid of any poetic merit. At one time, they rightly aroused the censure of serious literary criticism and ridicule from even Pogodin's friends.
In 1871, the fiftieth anniversary of Pogodin's scientific and literary activity was solemnly celebrated in Moscow. At this anniversary, speeches were made in his honor by both Russian scientists and deputies who came from the Slavic lands. The value of Pogodin was adequately understood and appreciated.
Pogodin's autobiography (until 1855) - in the Biographical Dictionary of Professors and Teachers of Moscow University, ed. to the day of his centenary. M. 1855, part II, pp. 230-274. (A list of all the works and publications of Pogodin, up to 1855, is also placed here); Pogodin's fiftieth anniversary, - "Moscow. Universitetskie Izv." 1872, No. 1; The same, dep. ed. M. 1872, 143 pages (with portrait); Pogodin's obituaries and memoirs about him, in magazines and newspapers in 1875 and 1876; for an indication of them, see o. Mezhova, "Russ. istor. bibliogr." 1865-1876 incl., ed. Imp. Acad. Sciences, St. Petersburg. 1882, vol. II, pp. 326-328, nos. 22, 592 - 22, 631. Mezhov's list is not entirely complete. Of those indicated here, they deserve special attention: a) In memory of Pogodin, - "Russk. Vestn." 1875, book. 12; b) An obituary written by M. M. Stasyulevich - "Vestn. Evr." 1876, book. one; c) Pogodin, as a professor, F. I. Buslaeva - "Gatsuka Newspaper" 1876, Nos. 16, 17 and 18; e) Characteristics of Pogodin, K. Ή. Bestuzhev-Ryumin (portrait) - Ancient. and Hov. Russia, 1876, book. 2 (reprinted in the book Best.-Rum.: "Biographies and Characteristics", St. Petersburg. 1882 - Biogr. och. Pogodin and an assessment of its significance by P. N. Milyukov, in the "Historical. Note of the Imperial Moscow. Archaeological. Society for the first XXV years of its existence ". M. 1890 - The most important work for studying not only the biography of Pogodin, but also his time, is the work of N. P. Barsukov: "The Life and Works of M. P. Pogodin", St. Petersburg . 1888-1902, 16 volumes in 8 °. This work was twice crowned by the Academy of Sciences with full Uvarov awards. In the volume that came out in the current 1902, a review of events was brought to the end of 1859. - Analysis of Pogodin's writings and various notes on his scientists and literary works can make up a whole literature, which is partly indicated by V.I. Mezhov in the Systematic catalog of the bookstore A.F. Glazunov ". St. Petersburg. 1869-1873, 2 volumes (index of names to this book, under the word: "Pogodin").
D. Korsakov.
(Polovtsov)
Pogodin, Mikhail Petrovich
Historian, archaeologist and journalist (1800-1875). His father was a serf "housekeeper" of Count Stroganov. The atmosphere of the manor's court, the search for a father among the noble and rich, did not remain without influence on the character of P.: he was distinguished by great practicality, combined in him with a considerable amount of sentimentality, on the one hand, and a critical mind, on the other. In the 11th year, he was sent to be brought up by the typographer A. G. Reshetnikov, but soon entered the 1st Moscow gymnasium. His sentimental-patriotic mood found support in his passion for the then theater, where Ozerov's tragedies reigned, as well as in his acquaintance with Karamzin's "History of the Russian State", which he acquired with his last money. In Moscow. Univ., where P. entered in 1818, he fell under the influence of the professor of theory of poetry Merzlyakov (see), a belated admirer of Lomonosov, Sumarokov and Derzhavin. Summer stay on the teacher's condition at the book. Trubetskoy was for P. some counterbalance to this influence: here he got acquainted with the works of Rousseau, Ms. Stahl (on Germany) and Chateaubriand. Pogodin's scholarly tastes also began to take shape at the university; he became interested in the original Russian chronicle, the question of the origin of the princes, as well as questions of common Slavic history (he translated Dobrovsky's work "On Cyril and Methodius"). In almost all of his views, he found an opponent in the person of the then professor of Russian history Kachenovsky, with whom he had a strong polemic and later, already being his fellow professor. After graduating from the course in 1823, P. a year later defended his master's thesis "On the Origin of Russia", where he was a defender of the Norman school and a merciless critic of the theory of the Khazar origin of Russian princes, for which Kachenovsky stood. This dissertation was welcomed by Karamzin, on the one hand, and by specialist historians Schleper and Acad. Around - on the other. In his dissertation, P. discovered remarkable critical ability. His plans for the future at this time have not yet been decided; he dreams of journalism, teaching, or an administrative career. His request to travel abroad was not respected. The committee of ministers decided that it was not "useful to send this master to foreign lands to complete the course of sciences under current circumstances, but it would be more convenient to give an education at the university that would be convenient for the government." Since 1826, Mr.. P. was instructed to read a general history for first-year students. The professorial activity of P. continued until 1844. In 1835 he was transferred to the department of Russian history; in 1841 he was elected a member of the Second Division of the Academy of Sciences (in Russian and literature); was also the secretary of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities and was in charge of publishing the Russian Historical Collection, where he placed an important article "On localism." By the end of the professorial activity of P. is the beginning of the publication of his "Research, lectures and remarks", on which is based, mainly, the value of P. as a historian; here he most of all revealed his critical talent and least of all the negative side of his mind - an excessive predilection for fantastic constructions. "Studies" (7 volumes), brought to the Tatar period of Russian history, and now serve as one of the necessary manuals for those who are specially engaged in ancient Russian history. At the same time, P. began collecting his "Ancient Repository", which included a lot of monuments, both written and material, of Russian antiquity. The handwritten part of this collection, bought later by the imp. Nicholas I, is currently stored in St. Petersburg in the Imp. publ. library and is of great interest to historians. P. has been abroad several times; Of his travels abroad, the first one (1835) is of the greatest importance, when he established close relations in Prague with prominent representatives of science among the Slavic peoples: Shafarik, Ganka and Padatsky. This journey undoubtedly contributed to the rapprochement of the Russian scientific world with the Slavic one. Since 1844, the special-scientific activity of P. freezes and increases only towards the end of his life. By 1860, he had a public dispute with Kostomarov on the issue of the origin of the Russian princes. P. was more likely to be right in this dispute, which was not noticed by the public, which was interested in opponents as representatives of well-known social parties, and not as scientific researchers. At the end of his life, P. led a debate on the same issue with D. I. Ilovaisky. In 1872 he published Ancient Russian History before the Mongol Yoke, which added nothing to his fame. The scientific works of P. did not reflect the philosophical mood that swept the Moscow University in the 30s and 40s: strong as a specialist researcher, II. was weak as a thinker. Combining his passion for Schelding with the patriarchal Moscow leaven, P. in his views kept the so-called theory of official nationality and adjoined along with prof. Shevyrev to the party that defended this theory with the arguments of German philosophy. He carried out his views in two journals published by him: "Moscow Bulletin" (1827-30) and "Moskvityanin" (1841-56). The former had to contend with the colossus of Russian journalism in the early 1930s, the Moscow Telegraph. Almost exclusively literary in content, Moskovsky Vestnik was often too learned in tone and therefore, despite Pushkin's participation, was not a complete success. Another magazine P., "Moskvityanin", had a program of a more political nature. Here the Slavophil trend, which at that time began to separate itself from the general Hegelian hobbies, found refuge. The Slavophiles had to work here together with the defenders of the theory of official nationality. with the aspirations of which they had only a purely external affinity, putting a completely different meaning into the formula and defending it by other means. In the history of science, the name "Moskvityanin" is associated with a controversy against the theory of tribal life, representatives of which were Solovyov and Kavelin. Criticism of the extremes of this theory succeeded P. more than an assessment of its positive aspects. "Moskvityanin" put forward all-Slavic questions and defended the right of the Western Slavic peoples to national freedom, while, according to K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, "the opinion was fashionable belief that the Austrian gendarme is a civilizing principle in the Slavic lands" . The lack of philosophical education and external adverse conditions did not allow Pogodin to develop into a thinker and public figure, for the role of which he claimed. Love for knowledge and natural mind made him a prominent research historian, with undoubted importance in Russian historiography. See "Biographical Dictionary of Professor. Moscow University" (Moscow, 1855; complete set of factual data up to 1855); "Historical note of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society for the first 25 years of its existence" (M., 1890; P.'s biography belongs here to the pen of P. N. Milyukov); Bestuzhev-Ryumin in "Biographies and Characteristics" (a very lively characterization full of apt remarks); N. P. Barsukov, "The Life and Works of M. P. Pogodin" is the most complete collection of everything related to Pogodin himself, containing a lot of interesting data in general for the history of that time (the work is far from finished).
M. Polievktov.
(Brockhaus)
Pogodin, Mikhail Petrovich
professor Moscow. univ., writer and translator; ord. academician I. A. Nauk, publisher of the journal. "Moskvityanin"; genus. 1 November 1800, † 8 Dec. 1875
(Polovtsov)
Pogodin, Mikhail Petrovich
Historian, publicist, novelist, publisher, professor at Moscow University. The son of a serf, P. is a representative of that layer of commoners who served the noble monarchy. At the beginning of his social and literary activity (during the publication of the Moskovsky Vestnik, 1827-1830), P. heard some motives of protest against the oppressed position of wide social strata; in the story "The Beggar" he even speaks out against the serf-owners. By this time, P.'s activity as a novelist is predominantly related. Of greatest interest are P.'s everyday stories from the life of a peasant (except for the named one - "The Killer"), raznochinstvo ("Blonde Spit"), merchant ("Black Sickness", "Criminal"), noble ("The Bride at the Fair"). In these stories, P. showed the difficult situation of the peasantry, the gloomy life of the merchants, and the cruelty of the serfs. Belinsky wrote about P.'s stories, singling out the stories "The Beggar", "Black Sickness" and "The Bride at the Fair" from them: "The world of his poetry is the world of the common people, the world of merchants, burghers, small estate nobility and peasants, whom he, I must say the truth, depicts very, successfully, very correctly. He knows so well their way of thinking and feeling, their domestic and social life, their customs, manners and relationships, and he depicts them with special love and with special success "(" About the Russian story and stories of Gogol). Along with these works, which differ in
mainly realistic tendencies, P. also gave a number of romantic stories, which were of lesser importance ("Sorcerer-sorcerer", etc.). Later, P. moved mainly to journalistic and scientific activities, resolutely refusing to criticize the existing social order. Subsequently, Pogodin defined himself as a terry representative of the police-state "official populism." This worldview was fully developed by him during the period of editing Moskvityanin, a magazine that was under the auspices of the Minister of Public Education Uvarov and the spiritual authorities. Orthodoxy as a religion of "humble wisdom," autocracy as a system of paternal government, and nationality as fidelity to the ancient foundations - these are the principles on which, according to P., the power and prosperity of Russia are based. It is the duty of a patriot to protect these three "truly Russian" principles from the pernicious influence of the "rotting" West. This reactionary theory was dictated by the interests of the feudal-monarchist groups. Defending these interests, P. zealously attacked not only the direct political tendencies of the progressive liberals, but also such phenomena as innovations in language, new trends in literature and criticism. At the same time, in his critical activity, P. entered into a struggle with noble classicism. He condemned the natural school, criticism of Belinsky and welcomed Gogol's Correspondence with Friends. P.'s "protection" (which served Herzen and Saltykov as a target for satirical shelling) grew to such an extent that even the by no means liberal Slavophiles, his recent associates, disowned him. As a diligent official, P. after the Crimean collapse tried to pursue a new government line - the line of rapprochement with the West and reformism. But on this new ground, he weakly revealed himself and entered the history of the Russian public as a representative of the reaction and the ideologist of the "official nationality."
Bibliography: I. Tale, 3 ch., M., 1832; Studies, remarks and lectures on Russian history, 7 vols., M., 1846-1857; Ancient Russian history before the Mongol yoke, 2 vols., M., 1872.
II. Barsukov N., Life and works of M. P. Pogodin, 22 vols., St. Petersburg, 1888-1907 (not finished); Plekhanov G. V., M. P. Pogodin and the struggle of classes, "Works", vol. XXIII, M. - L., 1926 (or "Modern World", 1911, March - April).
III. Mezier A. V., Russian literature from the XI to the XIX century. inclusive, part 2, St. Petersburg, 1902.
D. Bernstein.
(Lit. Enz.)
Pogodin, Mikhail Petrovich
Historian, writer, journalist. Genus. in Moscow, in the family of a serf who was released into the wild in 1806. He graduated from Moscow. un-t (1821), defended his master's thesis. "On the Origin of Russia" (1825), in which he developed the Norman theory of education of Old Russian. state-va as a result of the calling of the Varangians to Russia. In 1826-1844 - prof. Moscow un-ta first in general, then in Russian. stories. From 1841 - acad. Petersburg. AN. In the 20s. adjoined Moscow. lit.-philos. association "Society of the Wise", which played a significant role in the dissemination of the ideas of idealistic dialectics, especially the teachings of Schelling. In 1827-1830 he published "Moskovsky V.", expressing the views of the philosophers, defending the theory of "pure art" in the spirit of German. romanticism. In 1841-1856, together with S.P. Shevyrev, he published a railway. "Muscovitian", to-ry supported the doctrine of the Slavophiles about the original cultural-ist. ways of development of Russia, advocated the national-state. the unity of Russia on the basis of the principles of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality, argued with those opposed to the regime. Westerners "Domestic Notes", "Contemporary". Well. articles P. defended views close to the historiosophy of the Slavophiles. As a historian, he contributed to the study of Old Russian. Chronicles, Kievan Rus, Mosk. state-va, the process of formation of serfdom in Russia. In lit. polemic opposed the transformation of art into a means of ideological and watered. struggle, was an opponent of VG Belinsky and his like-minded people, who defended the critical principle in the literature of the "natural school". P. belongs to a number of everyday stories that reliably tell about the life of serfs, merchants, and philistines. He is the author. the drama "Martha, the Novgorod Posadnitsa" about the most bloody page of the reign of Ivan the Terrible - the ruin of Novgorod and the terror against its inhabitants in 1570.
Y.D. Vorobey
The bibliography of P.'s works includes hundreds of titles. Ch. his ist. works entered on Sat. "Historical-critical passages" (M., 1846. Issue I; M., 1867. Issue II), "Research, remarks and lectures on Russian history" (M., 1846-1857. Vol. 1- 7), as well as "Works" (M., 1872-1876. T. 1-5). In them, considering the beginning of Rus. statehood as a voluntary "calling" of the Normans, P. developed an original interpretation of the specific period and, in general, the entire history of Russia, considering it conflict-free, radically different from that begun by the "conquest" and driven by the socialist. struggle of the history of Western Europe. An analogue of feudalism, according to P., was in Russia the appanage system, which was fundamentally different from Western Europe. lazy system by the fact that all Russian. the princes were not seigneurs and vassals, but members of the same family, obedient to the authority of the elder; in the West, the city is the cradle of the third estate, Old Russian. the city is a military settlement, and later - the administrative center of government; the state in Russia acted as a reforming force, all innovations were carried out "from above", rus. people - God-bearing people, having a "meek, humble and patient character to the extreme"; the Orthodox Church, just as in Byzantium, did not fight the state, but humbly submitted to secular power; in Russia there was no aristocracy, no third estate, there was no social. gulf between "upper" and "lower" classes, rus. the nobles received their privileges by serving not the overlord, but the fatherland, Russia; later, university education opened the way for anyone "upstairs", replacing privileges and letters; polit. the system of the West is based on the law of opposition, rus. implies "perfect amity"; app. peoples "write" or "seek" constitutions, and Rus. the people do not know about them; in the West, everything is subordinated to form, every movement is "shackled" into a rule, and Rus. “they cannot stand” any form, “they seek not so much law as truth” and therefore the path of free choice, changes according to circumstances, is always open to them. Trying to convince "of the need to explain the phenomena of Russian history from itself" (Yu.F. Samarin), P. was one of the first to express the thesis about the fundamental difference between Russia and Zap. Europe, about the opposite of the principles they represent: "in Russia - love and unity, in Europe - enmity and discord," while he emphasized that "the West does not know us and does not want to know." P. associated his role in science with the defense of "historical Orthodoxy" and "Russian originality" (i.e., the annals of Nestor and the "general ancient period", the identity of the Russian people and its history), which he defended in a sharp controversy with M. T.Kachenovskiy, N.A.Polevym, S.M.Soloviev, K.D.Kavelin, N.I.Kostomarov, S.A.Gedeonov and other opponents. In a number of works of the 30-70s, emphasizing the hatred of Europe for Russia, the corrupting influence of the West on the Slavs, wishing the "Turkish" Slavs polit. independence, "Austrian", who fought for administrative and cultural equality - the success of their federalist plans and sharply negatively evaluating the anti-Russians. speeches of the Poles, P. argued that in order to save their identity, all Slavic peoples must unite into a single state. whole under the auspices of the Russian. Orthodox king - "Danubian Union" with a center in Constantinople. For polit. and cultural rapprochement between Russia and the rest of the Slavs P. offered a whole list of measures, including military ones, but Ch. considered the introduction of a single Slavic lit. language.
Op.: About the origin of Russia. M., 1825 ;Nestor,historical-critical reasoning about the beginning of Russian chronicles. M., 1839 ;Historical-critical passages. 1846. Prince. 2. M., 1867 ;Research,remarks and lectures on Russian history. In 7 t. M., 1846-1857 ;Norman period of Russian history. M., 1859 ;Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin,according to his writings,letters and reviews of contemporaries. Materials for a biography with notes and explanations. At 2 o'clock M., 1866 ;Ancient Russian history,to the Mongol yoke. In 3 t. M., 1871-1872 ;Works. In 5 t. M., 1872-1876 ;Fight not on the stomach,but to death,with new historical heresies. M., 1874 ;Simple talk about tricky things. 3rd ed. M., 1875 ;About fashionable philosophical rumors in our country. For our nihilists and nihilists. M., 1875 ;Collection of articles,letters and speeches on the Slavic question. M.,Biographical Dictionary
Pogodin Mikhail Petrovich, whose biography and work are the subject of this review, was one of the prominent and major Russian historians of the 19th century. In addition, he is known as a public figure, publicist, publisher, collector of antiquities and writer. His works on sources contributed to the development of Russian historical science, and his research methodology was truly a new word in the science of that time.
Some facts of life
Pogodin Mikhail Petrovich, whose brief biography is the subject of this article, lived a long and fruitful life (1800-1875). He was the son of a serf Count Saltykov, but he received a free education and entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. Here he defended and became a professor.
He taught national and world history, and soon Pogodin Mikhail Petrovich became the head of the department of Russian history, which was founded in 1835 according to the university charter. However, after some time he was forced to leave this post. This happened in 1844 due to a conflict with the trustee of this educational institution. Since then, Pogodin has devoted himself exclusively to research, journalistic and social activities. From 1820 to 1850 he published conservative journals.
Working with sources
Pogodin Mikhail Petrovich is known as a collector of Russian antiquities. He collected old manuscripts and various rarities. He carefully described and published them. In this respect, his works were fruitful for historical science. After all, just at that time she experienced her heyday. Therefore, the introduction of sources into scientific circulation was extremely important. Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin began collecting his collection back in the 1830s. He found a significant amount of ancient things: icons, images, seals, autographs of famous people, old manuscripts, including act material. All this was called "Drevlekhranilische".
Proceedings
The historian paid special attention to ancient and medieval Russian history. In the center of his attention was the problem of the emergence of the state. In 1825 he wrote his master's thesis "On the Origin of Russia". This question interested him because it was in it that he saw the difference between the ways of development of our country and the Western European states. So, he contrasted the conquest that took place in these lands with the peaceful one. In 1834, Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin defended his second dissertation “On the Chronicle of Nestor”, in which he outlined the problem of sources. In addition, he was interested in the issue. And he was the first historian to create the theory of “gathering power” by its rulers.
periodization
Pogodin Mikhail Petrovich created his own chronological grid of the history of Russia. The starting point for him was the aforementioned, however, he stipulated that the Slavic factor was of great importance in the creation of the state. He completed this first period with the reign of Yaroslav, to the time of which he attributed the final formation of Russian statehood. He determined the border of the second stage by the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars and the establishment of the Horde yoke. The next period, Moscow, he attributed to the time until the beginning of the reign of Peter I. And finally, Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin called the contemporary era the time of national originality, while he spoke especially positively about the abolition of serfdom.
Comparison of domestic and world history
The scientist expressed a number of interesting thoughts about common and distinctive features about the development of Europe and Russia. In his opinion, their past has many parallels: feudalism and the appanage system, its subsequent weakening and strengthening of monarchical power. However, the researcher argued that despite the similarities, these stories will never intersect. He eventually came to the conclusion that our country is developing in a special way. This is possible due to the fact that the state was founded by a peaceful vocation, and not by conquest. And therefore, the empire is insured against the revolutions that were taking place on the continent at that time.
On the meaning of history
The author, in principle, was close to the Slavophiles, since the latter also spoke about the original path of development of Russia. Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin developed approximately the same ideas in his writings. The main historical work of the researcher is, perhaps, "Research, remarks and lectures on Russian history." He attached great importance to this discipline in moral and patriotic education, since he saw in it a guardian and guardian of public order. He believed that there were no reasons for revolutionary upheavals in our country, since the people were sincerely devoted to autocracy, the Orthodox faith and their native language. Thus, the scientist approached which was created at that time.
About rulers
Pogodin Mikhail Petrovich, whose photo is presented in the article, in addition to medieval and ancient history, also dealt with later times. Of particular interest are his assessments of various rulers. So, he considered the reign of Ivan the Terrible a natural stage on the way to the formation of Russian statehood. The historian highly appreciated Peter's transformations, believing that their prerequisites arose even before the beginning of his reign. So, the work and activities of Pogodin occupy a prominent place in the development of Russian historiography.
Pogodin (Mikhail Petrovich)
Historian, archaeologist and journalist (1800 - 1875). His father was a serf "housekeeper" of Count Stroganov. The atmosphere of the manor's court, the search for a father among the noble and rich did not remain without influence on the character of Pogodin: he was distinguished by great practicality, combined in him with a considerable amount of sentimentality, on the one hand, and a critical mind, on the other. In the 11th year, he was given up for education to the printer A.G. Reshetnikov, but soon entered the 1st Moscow gymnasium. His sentimental-patriotic mood found support in his passion for the then theater, where Ozerov's tragedies reigned, as well as in his acquaintance with, which he acquired with his last money. At Moscow University, where Pogodin entered in 1818, he fell under the influence of the professor of poetry theory Merzlyakov, a belated admirer of Sumarokov and Derzhavin. A summer stay as a teacher with Prince Trubetskoy was for Pogodin a kind of counterbalance to this influence: here he got acquainted with the works of Rousseau, Madame Stahl (on Germany) and Chateaubriand. Pogodin's scholarly tastes also began to take shape at the university; he became interested in the original Russian activity, the question of the origin of the princes, as well as questions of common Slavic history (he translated Dobrovsky's works "On Cyril and Mythodius"). In almost all of his views, he found an opponent in the person of the then professor of Russian history Kachenovsky, with whom he had a strong polemic and later, already being his fellow professor. After graduating from the course in 1823, Pogodin defended his master's thesis "On the Origin of Russia" a year later, where he was a defender of the Norman school and a merciless critic of the theory of the Khazar origin of Russian princes, for which Kachenovsky stood. This dissertation was welcomed, on the one hand, and by specialist historians Schlozer and Academician Krug, on the other. In his dissertation, Pogodin discovered remarkable critical abilities. His plans for the future at this time have not yet been determined: he dreams of journalism, teaching, or an administrative career. His request to travel abroad was not respected. The committee of ministers decided that "it is not useful to send this master to foreign lands to complete the course of sciences under current circumstances, but it is more convenient to give an education at the university that will be convenient for the government." Since 1826, Pogodin was instructed to read a general history for first-year students. Pogodin's professorship continued until 1844. In 1835 he was transferred to the department of Russian history, in 1841 he was elected a member of the second department of the Academy of Sciences (in Russian language and literature); was also the secretary of the "Society of Russian History and Antiquities" and was in charge of publishing the "Russian Historical Collection", where he placed an important article "On localism". By the end of Pogodin's professorial activity is the beginning of his publication of "Research, lectures and remarks", on which Pogodin's significance as a historian is based mainly; here he most of all revealed his critical talent and least of all the negative side of his mind - an excessive predilection for fantastic constructions. "Research" (7 volumes), brought to the Tatar period of Russian history, and now serve as one of the necessary manuals for those specially engaged in ancient history. At the same time, Pogodin began to collect his "Ancient Repository", which included a lot of monuments, both written and material, of Russian antiquity. The manuscript part of this collection, bought later by Nicholas I, is currently kept in St. Petersburg in the Imperial Public Library and is of great interest to historians. Pogodin traveled abroad several times; Of his travels abroad, the first one (1835) is of greatest importance, when in Prague he established close relations with prominent representatives of science among the Slavic peoples: Shafarik, Ganka and Palacki. This journey undoubtedly contributed to the rapprochement of the Russian scientific world with the Slavic one. From 1844, Pogodin's specially-scientific activity faded and only increased towards the end of his life. By 1860, he had a public dispute with Kostomarov on the issue of the origin of the Russian princes. Rather, Pogodin was right in this dispute, which was not noticed by the public, which was interested in opponents as representatives of well-known public parties, and not as research scientists. At the end of his life, Pogodin led a debate on the same issue with D.I. Ilovaisky. In 1872 he published Ancient Russian History before the Mongol Yoke, which added nothing to his fame. Pogodin's scientific works did not reflect the philosophical mood that swept Moscow University in the 1930s and 1940s: strong as a specialist researcher, Pogodin was weak as a thinker. Combining his enthusiasm for Schelling with the patriarchal Moscow leaven, Pogodin adhered to the so-called theory of official nationality in his views and, together with the professor, joined the party that defended this theory with the arguments of German philosophy. He carried out his views in two magazines published by him: "Moscow Bulletin" (1827 - 30) and "Moskvityanin" (1841 - 56). The former had to contend with the colossus of Russian journalism in the early 1930s, the Moscow Telegraph. Almost exclusively literary in content, Moskovsky Vestnik was often too learned in tone and therefore, despite Pushkin's participation, was not a complete success. Another Pogodin's magazine, Moskvityanin, had a more political agenda. Here the Slavophil trend, which at that time began to separate itself from the general Hegelian hobbies, found refuge. The Slavophils had to work here together with the defenders of the theory of official nationality, with the aspirations of which they had only a purely external affinity, putting a completely different meaning into the formula and defending it by other means. In the history of science, the name "Moskvityanin" is associated with a controversy against the theory of tribal life, representatives of which were and. Criticism of the extremes of this theory succeeded Pogodin more than an assessment of its positive aspects. "Moskvityanin" put forward all-Slavic issues and defended the right of the West Slavic peoples to national freedom, at a time when, according to K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, "the opinion was fashionable belief that the Austrian gendarme is a civilizing principle in the Slavic lands." The lack of philosophical education and external adverse conditions did not allow Pogodin to develop into a thinker and public figure, for the role of which he claimed. Love for knowledge and natural mind made him a prominent research historian, with undoubted importance in Russian historiography. See "Biographical Dictionary of Professors of Moscow University" (Moscow, 1855; complete set of factual data up to 1855); "Historical note of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society for the first 25 years of its existence" (M., 1890; Pogodin's biography belongs here to a pen); Bestuzhev-Ryumin in "Biographies and Characteristics" (very lively, full of well-aimed remarks, characterization); N.P. Barsukov "The Life and Works of MP Pogodin" is the most complete collection of everything related to Pogodin himself, containing a lot of interesting data in general for the history of that time (the work is far from finished).
M. Polievktov.
Pogodin Mikhail Petrovich (1800-75),
Russian historian, writer, publicist, teacher Moscow. university (since 1825); ed. "Moscow Bulletin" (1827-30), "Moskvityanin" (1841-56). Intensively communicated and corresponded with A. S. Pushkin. From con. 30s - activist of the right wing of Slavophilism. Examined L. in history upon admission to Moscow. un-t (see LN, vol. 45-46, p. 249). The first course P. read the history of the Middle Ages; judging by the results of the exams, L. gave P. lectures more attention than other subjects. On May 9, 1840, L. was at P.'s house at a birthday dinner in honor of N. V. Gogol and read excerpts from Mtsyra there. In "Moskvityanin" were publ. critical analyzes of production L., in many ways polemical. character; in May 1841, L. gave P. (through) a verse. "Dispute" for publication in the journal. Lermont's motives. demonism did not meet with sympathy from P. (obviously, due to his religious beliefs). In 1846, arguing with, P. deliberately caricatured his tz. to creative the fate of Pushkin and L.: “Pushkin started well, and met with the demon, but, being frightened, walked away from him, and thereby ruined the whole thing, and Lermontov became friends with him, and became the first poet” (“Moskvityanin”, 1846, part 1). III, No. 5, p. 165). In 1848, P. added to a similar presentation that he borrowed the very idea of various “meetings” of poets with a demon from J. Zand (ibid., 1848, part IV, No. 8, Critique, pp. 43-44). In 1843 Iv. Betsky acquired in Kharkov for the collection of P. "Lermontov's handwritten manuscripts"; in the collection of P. there was a portrait of L., a copy written by Koeppen (lost).
Lit .: Barsukov N.P., Life and works of M.P. Pogodin, book. 1-22, St. Petersburg, 1888-1910 (as indicated in v. 22); Korsakov D. A., Pogodin, in the book: Rus. biographical dictionary, v. 14, St. Petersburg, 1905; Brodsky (5), p. 236-41; Gillelson (3); Zaslavsky I. Ya., Autographs L. in red. "Molodika", in the book: Sat. Leningrad.
M. F. Muryanov.
Lermontov Encyclopedia / USSR Academy of Sciences. In-t rus. lit. (Pushkin. House); Scientific-ed. Council of the publishing house "Sov. Enzikl."; Ch. ed. Manuilov V. A., Editorial staff: Andronikov I. L., Bazanov V. G., Bushmin A. S., Vatsuro V. E., Zhdanov V. V., Khrapchenko M. B. - M .: Sov. Encycl., 1981.
Pogodin Mikhail Petrovich
Russian historian, writer, journalist, academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1841). The son of a serf, released in 1806. In 1821 he graduated from Moscow University, where he defended his master's thesis "On the Origin of Russia" (1825), in which he spoke from the standpoint of the Norman theory. Adjoined the "lovers of wisdom". In 1826-44 professor at Moscow University, at first general, from 1835 - Russian history. In 1827-30 he published the magazine "Moscow Bulletin", in 1841-56 together with - "Moskvityanin". Performed in the 20's and 30's. with criticism of the historian M. T. Kachenovsky and the "skeptical school". He studied ancient Russian and Slavic history, was close to the Slavophiles. He established the sources of the Primary Chronicle (see The Tale of Bygone Years), studied the reasons for the rise of Moscow, and revealed gradualism in the enslavement of the Russian peasantry. Recognition of the originality of Russian history was the basis of the scientific views of P., who considered it impossible to comprehend the Russian historical process and draw any conclusions and generalizations from this. P. was a historian of the official direction and saw the main task of history in making it "... the guardian and guardian of public peace ...". P.'s everyday stories "The Beggar", "Black Sickness", "The Bride at the Fair", etc. (included in his books "Tales", parts 1-3, 1832) gave a reliable picture of the life of serfs, merchants, and philistines, but were devoid of depth of artistic generalization. P. - the author of the historical drama "Marfa Posadnitsa" (1830). Publicism P. in the 30s - early 50s. was reactionary; in the literary movement of the 1940s. held conservative positions; fought against the natural school, in a number of issues opposed
Political conservatism of M. P. Pogodin
November 23, 2005 marks the 205th anniversary of the birth of the Russian publicist, editor, historian and ideologist of the patriotic, monarchist direction of thought, one of the founders of the famous triad “Orthodoxy. autocracy. Nationalities” M.P. Pogodin (1800-1875). In today's society, devoid of solid moral guidelines, there is a need to develop a sustainable national ideology. In this regard, the figure of M.P. Pogodina is of particular interest to us.
Unfortunately, until recently, the name of Pogodin has been consigned to oblivion. Until now, his main works, as a journalistic, historical nature, as well as poems, dramas and historical prose, have not been published. But besides this, he is of interest to us today as the ideologist of Russian national development, who expressed the essence of the national idea.
He was born in the family of a serf, manager of the Moscow houses P.A. Saltykov, who was released by him in 1806. He received his first education at home, having learned to read and write from a house clerk. Since 1814 - at the Moscow Provincial Gymnasium. After graduating from the gymnasium as the first student, he entered the verbal department of Moscow University (1818), where he was most influenced by prof. R.F. Timkovsky, I.A. Game and especially A.F. Merzlyakov.
Interest in German literature also stimulated his rapprochement with F.I. Tyutchev. F.I. Tyutchev, to the best of his ability, helped the development of Pogodin's talent. Friendship with Tyutchev contributed to rapprochement with his literary mentor S.E. Raich, who invited him in December 1822 to his literary society. In addition, together with Tyutchev, he was a member of the society of wisdom and actively participated in it.
Here he met the Moscow literary youth and, in particular, S.P. Shevyryov, V.P. Titov, who introduce him into the circle of philosophical and aesthetic interests of the philosophers. At the same time, Pogodin gravitates towards the "Schellingian" wing of society, perceiving the ideas of the German philosopher in relation to aesthetics and the theory of history from J. Bachmann and F. Ast and remaining alien to the natural philosophy of F. Schelling.
At the end of 1825, Pogodin compiled a literary almanac Urania. Pocket book for 1826" (1825), which was intended to become the "Moscow answer" to the Decembrist St. Petersburg "Polar Star" by A.A. Bestuzhev and K.F. Ryleeva. Pogodin managed to attract A.F. Merzlyakova, F.I. Tyutcheva, E.A. Boratynsky, P.A. Vyazemsky, who brought him poems by A.S. Pushkin. However, the basis was formed by the participants of the collection and the Moscow philosophers, i.e. here for the first time the range of literary names and aesthetic aspirations that characterized Moscow literature of the 1820s and 30s was presented.
Starting from 1827-30s, he published the magazine "Moscow Bulletin", where he attracted A.S. Pushkin. Despite the formal failure, "Moskovsky Vestnik" was an expression of a circle of ideas that were developing in the 1920s among the young generation of Moscow writers - a kind of "Moscow romanticism", having adopted the paradigm of German romanticism of literary theory and philosophy. The role of historical materials was determined by Schelling's understanding of history as the science of "self-knowledge" of mankind and romanticism. Pogodin's "historical aphorisms and questions" (1827), which determined his Schellingian hobbies and desire for a philosophical "theory of history", had a programmatic interest in national history.
Without any doubt, Pogodin was one of the best and deepest Russian thinkers, preserving and developing our Russian originality, and who, together with F.I. Tyutchev as one of the brightest exponents of the Russian imperial idea.
By origin, he was the son of a serf and, like his namesake M.V. Lomonosov, Mikhail Petrovich came to one of the capitals in search of knowledge. In 1841 elected a full member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Pogodin's work is exceptionally multifaceted. He is the author of a number of major historical works, the historical drama "Marfa Posadnitsa", a number of stories, literary criticism and other works.
Historical studies are at the center of Pogodin's interests. In the early 1830s, he collaborated in the publications of N. Nadezhdin "Molva" and "Telescope", placing here, in addition to stories and essays, various notes, as well as articles on the current Polish topic. According to Pogodin, the history of Poland, filled with turmoil and "anarchy", proves the need for Russian domination, but the conclusion about the importance of studying and popularizing Polish history and language made his position ambiguous. Apparently, conversations with A.S. were also reflected in Pogodin’s position. Pushkin.
Pogodin saw the main task of history in making it "the guardian and custodian of public peace." In the journalism of the 1830s - early 1850s, he firmly stood on the patriotic and conservative traditions. Mikhail Petrovich entered the history of Russian social thought as a supporter of the ideology of the official nationality, represented by the triune formula “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality”, and also took an active part in the development of this theory.
Pogodin's worldview was very eclectic, in its individual elements it was simply contradictory incompatible. In general, he can be called a democratic monarchist. Coming out of the people, rooting for the people, dreaming of their liberation from serfdom and, on the other hand, being completely alien to the aristocratic elite and noble arrogance, he nevertheless was not a liberal and a revolutionary. Like the Slavophiles, he developed the idea of the voluntary calling of rulers by the people (he adhered to the Varangian-Norman theory regarding the first Russian princes), but if the Slavophiles emphasized that the people, having given up power, retained the power of public opinion and advice, then Pogodin, in many respects as well as F.I. Tyutchev forgot this principle and completely immersed himself in the activities of the state authorities.
A significant role in the development of the theory of official nationality belonged to the young Pogodin. The blood connection with the people and a deep understanding of Russian Orthodoxy made the Russian national idea especially close to him. The idea of the special nature of Russian history in comparison with European history was formed by him in a lecture he gave under Comrade Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov and fully approved by him.
Immersed in the study of Russian chronicles, Pogodin became convinced of the profound difference between the course of Russian history and Western European history. F.I. came to similar thoughts. Tyutchev, being at that time in the West in the diplomatic field. In one of his speeches, which are largely official in nature, Pogodin expressed the essence of the Russian people. This is how Pogodin explained the reason for the absence in Russia of laws and institutions similar to Western European ones: “... Every decree must certainly have its seed and its root ... replanting other people's plants, no matter how magnificent and brilliant they are, is not always possible or healthy".
The adoption of Orthodoxy, which develops a “special side of the faith”, and the voluntary “calling of the Varangians”, which, unlike the conquest in the West, marked the beginning of Russian statehood, predetermined the specific nature of the relationship of the supreme power to the nation and its role in all spheres of life, in particular national education .
On a number of issues (the independence of the Russian historical process, the role of Orthodoxy, and some others), Pogodin's views were close to those of the Slavophiles.
His views were imbued with the idea of providentialism. Domestic history was a clear example of the leading role of Divine Providence. A brilliant future was predicted for the Fatherland, while noting that Russia was being led "by the finger of God ... to some lofty goal." Particular importance was attached to the ethnic unity of the population of the empire, speaking the same language and professing the same faith.
Pogodin promoted the ideas of the official nationality in the future - both in lectures and on the pages of the press. However, while adhering to conservative views on the state structure of Russia, the scientist at the same time was a staunch supporter of the abolition of serfdom, and based his commitment to autocracy primarily on the educational mission that he associated with it. And in this regard, the positions of both M.P. Pogodin, and F.I. Tyutchev became the forerunner of the doctrine of the people's monarchy, the main developers of which were later L.N. Tikhomirov, V.V. Rozanov, M.O. Menshikov, I.A. Ilyin, and, of course, I.L. Solonevich.
An important component of Pogodin's historical and political concept is the idea of the pan-Slavic roots of Russian history and culture, which predetermined sympathy for the ideas of the "Slavic revival" and the formation of pan-Slavic views. Having made a trip to Germany in 1835, having visited Vienna, he provided S.S. Uvarov "Report", in which he reported the news of the scientific life of Germany and talked about meetings with "figures of the Slavic revival" - V. Ganka, Shafarik, V. Karadzic. The Slavic theme becomes a significant part of Pogodin's literary and social activities.
Finally, in a subsequent report to the Minister of Education on a new trip abroad in 1839, he first formulated the newest pan-Slavic doctrine. Having given an outline of the position of the Slavs and Austria, the historian outlined a program of Slavic cultural and linguistic "rapprochement", supplementing it with political assumptions - about the need to change the policy towards Austria and unite the Slavs under the scepter of Russia.
After the journey of 1839, Pogodin finally decided to publish The Moskvityanin, having received Zhukovsky's "blessing" and Gogol's approval, and official permission - thanks to the support of S.S. Uvarov (with the active participation of another developer of the concept of official nationality and a friend of youth, S.P. Shevyrev). The title and concept of the magazine reflected Pogodin's "Moscowphile" views.
In this magazine, Pogodin continued to promote the ideas of the official nationality. The humanities professors leading the Moskvityanin were inspired by the idea of the identity of Russia, Russian history, Russian people, and, protesting against the worship of the West, in a polemical impulse, they often turned to exaggerations and one-sidedness.
Pogodin and Tyutchev were often referred to by contemporaries as Slavophiles. Indeed, they had a lot in common. In Slavophilism, noticeable conservative elements are noticeable: adherence to national Russian traditions, Orthodoxy, patriarchal customs, monarchy (in the form of the ideal of the Zemstvo tsar), a negative attitude towards rationalism and the general nature of Western European enlightenment. However, both of them were much broader than the early Slavophiles, they looked both at Russian history as a whole and at modern events (in particular, this was reflected in the more objective attitude of F.I. Tyutchev and M.P. Pogodin to the ambiguous and contradictory acts of Peter I).
To a greater extent, the views of Pogodin largely coincided with the views of F.I. Tyutchev in the 50s. During the Crimean War, he wrote "Historical and political letters and notes in the continuation of the Crimean War of 1853-56." Particularly popular was his letter "A Look at Russian Politics in the Present Century", where he sharply criticized the legitimist principle of Russian politics. This letter was determined by the fact that it (along with Tyutchev's political articles) clearly formulated the thesis about the opposition of the interests of Europe and Russia as a representative of the Eastern Russian-Slavic world. The initial indignation that Tyutchev had immediately after the Crimean War emotionally spilled over into the epitaph on the death of Nicholas I. However, after talking with M.P. Pogodin, Tyutchev himself comes to the conclusion that the tsar himself was a victim of deception and treason on the part of his entourage.
In general, his views on the socio-political situation varied depending on the situation in the country. The beginning of a military clash causes Pogodin's patriotic enthusiasm, but the failures of the Russian army and the disapproving comments of Nicholas I about his letters change their subject matter. So, in the letter "On the Influence of Foreign Policy on Domestic Policy", which sharply criticizes "the protective direction of the current reign, which, not taking into account the peculiarities of national history and national character and hindering Russian original enlightenment, only strengthens bureaucratic" ulcers ", Pogodin proclaims the only cure for them publicity. Later, the position of the thinker comes into conflict with the official foreign policy, repeated attempts to publish political letters in 1856-58 fail. These letters turned out to be very radical both in tone and substance. In them, Pogodin deeply suffers "about the people who work, shed blood, bear all burdens."
He draws a terrible image of Russia, "hungry, thirsty, yearning, not knowing what to do with its forces, squandering God's gifts fornication ...". Pogodin sees the reason for this situation as “a false fear of having a Western revolution!”. In this regard, he directly says that “Mirobo is not terrible for us, but Emelka Pugachev is terrible for us; Ledru-Rollin with all the communists will not find adherents among us, and any village will open its mouth before Nikita Pustosvyat.
Pogodin leaves no stone unturned on the foreign policy of Nicholas I and Nesselrode. He, like F.I. Tyutchev, denounces the “pro-Austrian” orientation of the cabinet, the policy of the “gendarme of Europe”, as a result of which “the peoples have come to hate Russia ... and now happily seized on the first opportunity to shake it in any way.”
In addition, Pogodin directly calls for the abolition of serfdom, expressing the famous argument that was made later in the speech of Alexander II to the Moscow nobility (“it is better to make liberation from above than it will happen from below”). Confirmation of this anxiety is his statement: “If Shamil, Pugachev or Razin appear in some Arkhangelsk or Vologda wilderness, he can pass, preaching in a triumphal march to several provinces and cause more trouble to the government than the revolt of Catherine's time ... ". The apparent “calmness” of the people is deceptive: “The ignoramuses praise her, Russian silence, but this silence of the cemetery, rotting and stinking physically and morally ... Such an order will lead us not to glory, not to happiness, but to the abyss!”. And then there is the demand for material progress (“the establishment of railways”), the speedy development of education, indispensable publicity (“the medicine that our Western policy forbade us under threat of execution”). Immediately - the realization of the need to "rebuild the state mechanism and get rid of a large part of the apparatus.
Pogodin, while working on the Letters, by his own admission, “thought that the time had finally come for the fulfillment of the most sincere, cherished hopes,” and therefore he invariably sent each of the newly written anti-Nikolaev pamphlets ... to the imperial court! And there they were approved: in November 1854, Pogodin, while in St. Petersburg, twice received an audience with the heir (who became Alexander II two months later).
Published on the advice of Tyutchev abroad, "Letters and Articles on Russia's Policy towards the Slavic Peoples" in 1858 caused sharp discontent of the authorities, and the article "The Past Year in Russian History" became the reason for the closure of the Parus newspaper.
Just like M.P. Pogodin, F.I. Tyutchev is aware of the relationship between foreign policy and domestic policy, and also perceives more deeply the inevitability of the defeat of such a policy by K.V. Nesselrode and his entourage, despite all the sacrifices of the Russian people.
In his articles, the Russian historian and thinker Pogodin proceeded from the need to take into account the unique identity, lifestyle, culture of the Russian and other Slavic peoples. Pogodin believed that the basis of Russian history is essentially "an eternal beginning, the Russian spirit."
Creativity M.P. Pogodin was filled with Slavic catholicity, that is, the feeling and consciousness of the spiritual reciprocity of the Slav brothers worthy of freedom and unity. “We love the Slavs, but they also love us, that's all: politics has nothing to go in here,” the scientist exclaimed. Therefore, Mikhail Petrovich repeatedly called on the Slavs to mutual agreement.
The exceptional breadth of the range of interests, activities, acquaintances make him one of the central figures of Russian literary and social life in the middle of the 19th century, and his archive - into a kind of encyclopedia of this era in Russia, remarkable for talents.
9) Russian writers. 1800-1917. Dictionary. T.4. - M: 1999.10) Russian worldview. Dictionary. - M: 2003.
11) Russian-Slavic civilization. - M: 1998.
12) V.O. Klyuchevsky. M.P. Pogodin. Sobr. op. in 9 vols. T.7. - M: 1989.
13) F.I. Buslaev. Pogodin as a professor. - In his book "My leisure", part 2. - 1886.
14) D. Languages. M.P. Pogodin. - M: 1901.
Sergey Labanov, Moscow
November 23 marks the 205th anniversary of the birth of the Russian publicist, editor, historian and ideologist of the patriotic, monarchist direction of thought, one of the founders of the famous triad “Orthodoxy. autocracy. Nationalities” M.P. Pogodin (1800-1875). In today's society, devoid of solid moral guidelines, there is a need to develop a sustainable national ideology. In this regard, the figure of M.P. Pogodina is of particular interest to us.
Unfortunately, until recently, the name of Pogodin has been consigned to oblivion. Until now, his main works, as a journalistic, historical nature, as well as poems, dramas and historical prose, have not been published. But besides this, he is of interest to us today as the ideologist of Russian national development, who expressed the essence of the national idea.
He was born in the family of a serf, manager of the Moscow houses P.A. Saltykov, who was released by him in 1806. He received his first education at home, having learned to read and write from a house clerk. Since 1814 - at the Moscow Provincial Gymnasium. After graduating from the gymnasium as the first student, he entered the verbal department of Moscow University (1818), where he was most influenced by prof. R.F. Timkovsky, I.A. Game and especially A.F. Merzlyakov.
Interest in German literature also stimulated his rapprochement with F.I. Tyutchev. F.I. Tyutchev, to the best of his ability, helped the development of Pogodin's talent. Friendship with Tyutchev contributed to rapprochement with his literary mentor S.E. Raich, who invited him in December 1822 to his literary society. In addition, together with Tyutchev, he was a member of the society of wisdom and actively participated in it.
Here he met the Moscow literary youth and, in particular, S.P. Shevyryov, V.P. Titov, who introduce him into the circle of philosophical and aesthetic interests of the philosophers. At the same time, Pogodin gravitates towards the "Schellingian" wing of society, perceiving the ideas of the German philosopher in relation to aesthetics and the theory of history from J. Bachmann and F. Ast and remaining alien to the natural philosophy of F. Schelling.
At the end of 1825, Pogodin compiled a literary almanac Urania. Pocket book for 1826" (1825), which was intended to become the "Moscow answer" to the Decembrist St. Petersburg "Polar Star" by A.A. Bestuzhev and K.F. Ryleeva. Pogodin managed to attract A.F. Merzlyakova, F.I. Tyutcheva, E.A. Boratynsky, P.A. Vyazemsky, who brought him poems by A.S. Pushkin. However, the basis was formed by the participants of the collection and the Moscow philosophers, i.e. here for the first time the range of literary names and aesthetic aspirations that characterized Moscow literature of the 1820s and 30s was presented.
Starting from 1827-30s, he published the magazine "Moscow Bulletin", where he attracted A.S. Pushkin. Despite the formal failure, "Moskovsky Vestnik" was an expression of a circle of ideas that were developing in the 1920s among the young generation of Moscow writers - a kind of "Moscow romanticism", having adopted the paradigm of German romanticism of literary theory and philosophy. The role of historical materials was determined by Schelling's understanding of history as the science of "self-knowledge" of mankind and romanticism. Pogodin's "historical aphorisms and questions" (1827), which determined his Schellingian hobbies and desire for a philosophical "theory of history", had a programmatic interest in national history.
Without any doubt, Pogodin was one of the best and deepest Russian thinkers, preserving and developing our Russian originality, and who, together with F.I. Tyutchev as one of the brightest exponents of the Russian imperial idea.
By origin, he was the son of a serf and, like his namesake M.V. Lomonosov, Mikhail Petrovich came to one of the capitals in search of knowledge. In 1841 elected a full member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Pogodin's work is exceptionally multifaceted. He is the author of a number of major historical works, the historical drama "Marfa Posadnitsa", a number of stories, literary criticism and other works.
Historical studies are at the center of Pogodin's interests. In the early 1830s, he collaborated in the publications of N. Nadezhdin "Molva" and "Telescope", placing here, in addition to stories and essays, various notes, as well as articles on the current Polish topic. According to Pogodin, the history of Poland, filled with turmoil and "anarchy", proves the need for Russian domination, but the conclusion about the importance of studying and popularizing Polish history and language made his position ambiguous. Apparently, conversations with A.S. were also reflected in Pogodin’s position. Pushkin.
Pogodin saw the main task of history in making it "the guardian and custodian of public peace." In the journalism of the 1830s - early 1850s, he firmly stood on the patriotic and conservative traditions. Mikhail Petrovich entered the history of Russian social thought as a supporter of the ideology of the official nationality, represented by the triune formula “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality”, and also took an active part in the development of this theory.
Pogodin's worldview was very eclectic, in its individual elements it was simply contradictory incompatible. In general, he can be called a democratic monarchist. Coming out of the people, rooting for the people, dreaming of their liberation from serfdom and, on the other hand, being completely alien to the aristocratic elite and noble arrogance, he nevertheless was not a liberal and a revolutionary. Like the Slavophiles, he developed the idea of the voluntary calling of rulers by the people (he adhered to the Varangian-Norman theory regarding the first Russian princes), but if the Slavophiles emphasized that the people, having given up power, retained the power of public opinion and advice, then Pogodin, in many respects as well as F.I. Tyutchev forgot this principle and completely immersed himself in the activities of the state authorities.
A significant role in the development of the theory of official nationality belonged to the young Pogodin. The blood connection with the people and a deep understanding of Russian Orthodoxy made the Russian national idea especially close to him. The idea of the special nature of Russian history in comparison with European history was formed by him in a lecture he gave under Comrade Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov and fully approved by him.
Immersed in the study of Russian chronicles, Pogodin became convinced of the profound difference between the course of Russian history and Western European history. F.I. came to similar thoughts. Tyutchev, being at that time in the West in the diplomatic field. In one of his speeches, which are largely official in nature, Pogodin expressed the essence of the Russian people. This is how Pogodin explained the reason for the absence in Russia of laws and institutions similar to Western European ones: “... Every decree must certainly have its seed and its root ... replanting other people's plants, no matter how magnificent and brilliant they are, is not always possible or healthy".
The adoption of Orthodoxy, which develops a “special side of the faith”, and the voluntary “calling of the Varangians”, which, unlike the conquest in the West, marked the beginning of Russian statehood, predetermined the specific nature of the relationship of the supreme power to the nation and its role in all spheres of life, in particular national education .
On a number of issues (the independence of the Russian historical process, the role of Orthodoxy, and some others), Pogodin's views were close to those of the Slavophiles.
His views were imbued with the idea of providentialism. Domestic history was a clear example of the leading role of Divine Providence. A brilliant future was predicted for the Fatherland, while noting that Russia was being led "by the finger of God ... to some lofty goal." Particular importance was attached to the ethnic unity of the population of the empire, speaking the same language and professing the same faith.
Pogodin promoted the ideas of the official nationality in the future - both in lectures and on the pages of the press. However, while adhering to conservative views on the state structure of Russia, the scientist at the same time was a staunch supporter of the abolition of serfdom, and based his commitment to autocracy primarily on the educational mission that he associated with it. And in this regard, the positions of both M.P. Pogodin, and F.I. Tyutchev became the forerunner of the doctrine of the people's monarchy, the main developers of which were later L.N. Tikhomirov, V.V. Rozanov, M.O. Menshikov, I.A. Ilyin, and, of course, I.L. Solonevich.
An important component of Pogodin's historical and political concept is the idea of the pan-Slavic roots of Russian history and culture, which predetermined sympathy for the ideas of the "Slavic revival" and the formation of pan-Slavic views. Having made a trip to Germany in 1835, having visited Vienna, he provided S.S. Uvarov "Report", in which he reported the news of the scientific life of Germany and talked about meetings with "figures of the Slavic revival" - V. Ganka, Shafarik, V. Karadzic. The Slavic theme becomes a significant part of Pogodin's literary and social activities.
Finally, in a subsequent report to the Minister of Education on a new trip abroad in 1839, he first formulated the newest pan-Slavic doctrine. Having given an outline of the position of the Slavs and Austria, the historian outlined a program of Slavic cultural and linguistic "rapprochement", supplementing it with political assumptions - about the need to change the policy towards Austria and unite the Slavs under the scepter of Russia.
After the journey of 1839, Pogodin finally decided to publish The Moskvityanin, having received Zhukovsky's "blessing" and Gogol's approval, and official permission - thanks to the support of S.S. Uvarov (with the active participation of another developer of the concept of official nationality and a friend of youth, S.P. Shevyrev). The title and concept of the magazine reflected Pogodin's "Moscowphile" views.
In this magazine, Pogodin continued to promote the ideas of the official nationality. The humanities professors leading the Moskvityanin were inspired by the idea of the identity of Russia, Russian history, Russian people, and, protesting against the worship of the West, in a polemical impulse, they often turned to exaggerations and one-sidedness.
