“Two things strike my imagination: the starry sky above my head and the moral law inside us"

Immanuel Kant was born in Königsberg and was the son of poor parents. Having received prestigious education, he began to write multi-volume works that made a great revolution in the field of philosophy. Now it was not the environment that formed the person, but the personality itself created the world commensurate with it. Kant was a living confirmation of his theory. He led a very orderly and measured way of life, for years not deviating from his usual routine. However, several interesting facts are connected with his personality:

Exact time 15 hours 30 minutes

Kant's daily routine did not change over the years and was distinguished by perfectly calculated details. After dinner, Kant invariably made his famous promenades. As soon as the workers saw the philosopher in the park, they understood that it was exactly 3:30 p.m. and it was time to start working again. They say that even the watchman of the Königsberg Cathedral also checked the time of the tower clock. Something, but punctuality Kant was not to occupy.

recluse

Kant never left his hometown. For such a habit, the philosopher was nicknamed the "Prussian recluse." Later, when M. Bulgakov in The Master and Margarita described the joint meal of Woland and Kant, critics joked that on such an occasion, Satan himself bothered to come to the genius in Koenigsberg for breakfast.

The Mystery of the Seven Bridges

Kant, due to his methodical walks around the city, knew exactly how many streets and bridges there were in Königsberg. So, he calculated that it was impossible to cross all the bridges without crossing one of them twice. This was Kant's favorite riddle, which he asked all his guests. Many scientists tried to solve the philosopher's charade, but no one succeeded. In 1905, on the orders of the Kaiser himself, who became another victim of the puzzle, the eighth Imperial Bridge was built. It was destroyed during the Second World War, and later the Jubilee Bridge was built on its supports, which still exists today.

Subject of the Russian Empire

Despite the fact that Kant lived all his life on the territory of Prussia, by the end of his life he turned out to be a Russian subject. When Königsberg was taken by Russian troops during Seven Years' War, Kant swore allegiance to the Russian Empress Elizaveta Petrovna. Later, when Koenigsberg was renamed Kaliningrad and annexed to Russia, it turned out that the great German philosopher was buried on Russian soil.

"Kant is a sucker"

Mid March current year an inscription was found on Kant's house. As it turned out, the act of vandalism was committed by a 17-year-old. The motives behind her actions have not yet been revealed. The building is in disrepair, it was built on the foundation of the house where the philosopher lived and worked. Representatives of the authorities promised to restore the building and include it in the route of memorable places of the great German.

Grave mystery

Despite the fact that the procedure for Kant's funeral was solemn and pompous, there was no personal tomb for him, and the philosopher was buried in the common crypt of the professors of the local university. Only 76 years later, it was decided to remove the ashes of the scientist from the mass grave of scientists and identify him. At the resting place of Kant, the remains of his contemporary, professor of theology Johann Schulz, were discovered. According to eyewitnesses, Kant was buried to the right of Schultz, but searches in this direction did not yield any results. Started digging into opposite side, the commission stumbled upon a skeleton. It was later established that it was these remains that belonged to Kant, but some Kant scholars still dispute the decision of the commission.

Kant Island

Kant Island, or Kneipkhov, is located in the very center of Kaliningrad, in the middle of the Pregel River. It was there that the great philosopher lived and counted bridges. Today the island of Kant favorite place rest of the townspeople. Cultural figures periodically organize events there dedicated to the memory of the scientist. So, on Kant's birthday in 1996, St. Petersburg art critics held an action called Kant's Jacket. Wooden posts were placed on the island, equal in height to 157 cm - the height of Immanuel Kant. They had black bows and posters with quotes from the philosopher. The arrangement of the bars marked Kant's usual route from his home to the Albertina University, where he lectured.

Returning to the quote cited at the beginning, I would like to dilute the process of comprehending the complex intellects of the philosopher with a bearded, but quite appropriate joke:

Home economics lesson for girls in the sixth grade. The teacher says:

- Girls, today we have a very difficult topic: turning the edge inside out.

One student holds out her hand and asks:

- Marvanna, what is it that turns out - the starry sky inside us and the moral law above our heads?

Text: Irina Grigoryan

"Empire as Russia's Path to Europeanization". With such a report at the seminar of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy spoke famous historian, philosopher and writer Vladimir Karlovich Kantor. You can watch the video of the performance at the bottom of the post.

Here are the most interesting thoughts of the participants in the discussion.

The Soviet Union was not an empire!

European civilization is a mutation of Asian structures.

Despotia was born in Asia.
Despotism - when one rules, but he is not free either (he is a slave of power, like the rest).

The path of Europe is the imperial path.
The empire originated in Greece.
Greece is the first maritime civilization and the answer to the East.

The first response of the eastern despotism was the empire of Alexander the Great.
The empire of Alexander the Great is a system of reconciliation of different cultures.

The classical empire arises in the era of Rome. AT ancient rome there was a combination of three main Aristotelian power structures: 1 monarchy 2 aristocracy 3 polity

Empire is a legal space. In despotism, only the despot has rights, the rest are slaves.

Literacy is the conquest of an empire. Despotism does not like literacy.

The empire unites many peoples, and the task is to bring these peoples into the legal and civilizational space.
The empire is supranational and supra-confessional.

The idea of ​​Rome did not die with the Roman Empire.

Europe is an idea, a strong-willed decision, unlike Asia.
One is when the peoples are equally subordinate to the emperor. Another - one titular people!

Russia became a nation without including the people in the nation. From this, the Russian Empire perished.

In its state building, Russia was guided by the experience of England.
Struve wanted to build Russia on the model of Great Britain.

Stolypin was against the introduction of the patriarchate. "We leave the Synod as a supra-confessional institution."

Nationalists will never create an empire, because they will start to suppress other peoples.

The RSDLP is a Russian party, but not a Russian one.
The Bolsheviks wanted to restore the empire. But by their methods it was impossible, since a legal framework was required. And thus, they built a despotism.

The USSR was not an imperial structure, but a despotism!

Empire is an open system.

Christianity as a supranational religion could have arisen and spread in the Roman Empire - a supranational structure.

It doesn't matter which monotheistic religion is used to create an empire.

You can’t ask to enter Europe, you can enter Europe “under the roar of cannons and ships under construction,” as Pushkin wrote.

Peter not only built an empire, but created a matrix, including the city of St. Petersburg.
Every city structures the consciousness of the people living in it.
Saint Petersburg is an imperial city.

The Bolsheviks, breaking the empire, transfer the capital to Moscow. Instead of Russian empire appeared Moscow despotism.

Despotism does not tolerate people who offer something of themselves, but only requires submission.

Modern Russia is not an empire.

Orthodoxy now really holds together the state of Russia.

There is no exact knowledge in history. The philosophy of history is a form of false consciousness.

Russia has imperial qualities.

Today Russia is being created as a nation-state with an ethnic Russian identity and a typical ethnic religion - Orthodoxy. It is an isolating identity, not of an imperial type, that rejects everyone else.

At the end of the twentieth century, the expansion of peoples began. Peoples, cultures began to go beyond state borders. World diasporas began to form, which are not assimilated, but isolated from the local population, forming their own trading posts (“Chinatowns”).

World diasporas associated with the mother country form imperial structures that go beyond national borders. This is a new type of state, based not on the totality of territories, but on the totality of citizens. Citizenship is key. This is a new version of imperial existence.

There is an expansion of diasporas.
In the European Union, 8 million Russians are the largest diaspora.

The critical mass of imperial components is important, when an empire can arise even without an emperor, with multi-confessionalism or a large mass of the population.

The democratic state is the idea of ​​mechanical statehood of equal individuals.

The empire belongs to organic statehood, the essence of which is in connection with the transcendent.

The meaning of the existence of an empire is that there is always a certain beginning for the sake of which it is worth living, without extracting from it practical use something that is eternal.

I ASKED TWO QUESTIONS:
1 Today we see two empires: the European Union and the United States of America. What is the place of Russia between these two empires - between the "hammer" and the "anvil"?
2 If the city structures consciousness, then how has the power changed with the presence of Petersburgers in it?

MY OPINION ON THIS ISSUE IS THE FOLLOWING:
Immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was called the "evil empire", the United States became the hegemon in the world, and the attitude towards the concept of empire changed to a positive one.

One can argue whether the Soviet Union was an empire or not, but it is important that the peoples lived in peace, there was no xenophobia. And in this sense, the USSR for common man was a prosperous country.

What's for ordinary people means empire? This is the absence of borders and customs, a single space for the dissemination of information and culture, a single labor market, freedom of movement, uniform rules for all.

The national elites ruined the country of the USSR. Now everyone has their own ministry of foreign affairs, their own embassies, their own ambassadors. And all these freeloaders should be fed by a simple person.

Nation states are an invention of national elites to exercise their dominance within their state.
Elites are fighting, and people are dying!

At one time, Lenin was warned that the right of nations to self-determination would lead to the collapse of the country. And so it happened.

To avoid the sad experience of the collapse of the USSR, Russia is being built as a nation state. This is served by the division into seven federal districts, and the United Russia party.

The Roman Empire certainly gave impetus to the development of the conquered peoples. Roman roads still exist, for more than two thousand years.
Roman law served as a catalyst for the development of legal consciousness on the outskirts of the empire.
An important feature the Roman Empire was that it did not suppress national cultures and respected foreign gods, did not fight with national traditions.
Obviously, if there had been no Roman Empire, then Christianity would not have become a world religion.
If there were no Roman law, then Jesus of Nazareth would have been killed without trial or investigation.

All empires were based on religious tolerance. But even in the Roman Empire there was religious enmity. This is well shown in the new film directed by Alejandro Amenabar "Agora".

The world strives for unity. But on what basis is this unity possible? Either on the basis of strength or brotherhood. The idea of ​​personal enrichment will not be able to rally people!
It is impossible to unite by loving yourself more than others. The soul feels the need for sacrificial service, and not for selfish enrichment. Therefore, it is natural that unification is possible only on the basis of a sense of brotherhood as an expression of equality and love.

What will be world empire future?

The idea of ​​globalism is the idea of ​​uniting the world. But on what principles will it be built?
The rejection of the principles of globalization leads to back effect- glocalization.

No one will give up their advantages for the sake of others. Inequality will persist and always will. There will always be servants and there will always be managers, as there will always be those who find it easier to execute than to think and make decisions. And the work of the leader will never cost less than the work of the performer. Hence the inequality. This, however, does not mean that everyone will want to become leaders.
So everything again rests on individual differences that were, are and will always be.

The only question is how to make this system fair so that it does not lead to conflicts and wars. So that everyone gets what they deserve and does not consider themselves offended. Although, I dare to assume, offended will always be.

Economically, the world may be united, but spiritually it is unlikely. And this is good. Because diversity is the source of development.

A new paradigm is needed as an alternative to the consumer economy; altruistic consumption as opposed to "simulative" consumption.

In fact, we are talking about the future fair structure of the world based on fair social communities.

The question is who will offer a fairer and more satisfying social model with the greatest development potential. A model in which global goals will be linked to individual goals and meanings of existence, taking into account religious and ethnic characteristics.

Or is this another utopia, and the war for the dominance of one over the other will divide humanity into ethnic "corners"?

Either the model of domination-submission, leading to inevitable self-destruction; or a model of solidarity and cooperation.
Of course, the future lies in cooperation. But the thirst for domination and submission is in human nature, and this cannot be ignored.
Solidarity can only be based on justice.

Patriotism is love for one's own, and nationalism is hatred for strangers.
You need to love all people, not selectively Russians or Americans.

Remaining a citizen of one's country, one must be a citizen of the world in one's soul.
I am a Russian citizen of the world!

Objective regularities historical development Russia determined the dominant role of the state in almost all spheres of society - political, economic and ideological. In this paper, we will focus on the image of subjects in the perception of the throne and the terminology with which the relations of power and personality were built and functioned in Russia XVIII century.

To late XVII century, the social hierarchy of society was reflected in the following way in the highest given "conceptual apparatus" of applications for highest name: representatives of the taxable population had to sign "your orphan", the clergy - "your pilgrimage", and service people should call themselves "your serf". On March 1, 1702, the form of messages to the monarch was changed by Peter's personal decree “On the form of petitions submitted to the highest name”: “In Moscow and in all cities of the Russian kingdom, people write every order in petitions the lowest slave» . The unification of the population of the country by the name "slave" in relation to supreme ruler meant terminological fixation of growth autocratic power, an increase in the distance between the throne and subjects and stimulated the sacralization of the personality of the monarch in Russian public consciousness. In this context, the concept of "slave" was practically devoid of pejorative meaning. In Russia in the 18th century, where service to the monarch was elevated to the rank of the most important ideological value, the role of the “servant of the tsar” exalted the subject just as much as the humility of the “servant of God” adorned the righteous. An analysis of petitions to the highest name after 1702 shows that the new form and, in particular, the signature “Your Majesty the lowest slave” was easily assimilated by the petitioners and quickly moved into the category of automatically reproduced stamps.

The officially given name of the subjects was preserved and repeatedly confirmed until 1786, i.e. before the decree of Catherine II "On the abolition of the use of words and sayings in petitions addressed to the Highest Name and to the Public Places of petitions submitted" . According to the decree, the signature "loyal slave" was transformed in messages addressed to the highest name into the concept of "loyal subject." Such a terminological choice of power has become a laconic expression of the proclaimed and legalized change in the official concept of the relationship between the throne and the individual, as well as an impetus for the development of the institution of allegiance in Russian society and further understanding of this concept.

The concept of “subject” came to Russian from Latin (subditus) through Polish influence (poddany, poddaństwo). In the XV-XVI centuries. this term was most often used in the sense of "subordinate, dependent, subjugated" when describing the relationship between the monarch and the population of foreign states. Only since XVII century the word "subject" begins to be actively used to characterize the "susceptibility" of the inhabitants of Muscovite Russia to the power of the tsar and acquires a different semantic connotation, expressed in the concepts of "devoted, faithful, submissive" . The legislation of the 18th century, especially its second half, testified to the complication of the official interpretation of the institution of citizenship and the increasingly intensive use of this concept by the authorities as an instrument of social control. The terminological analysis of documents emanating from the throne revealed a differentiated attitude towards the subjects of the empire: the absolutism of Catherine's reign distinguished between "old", "natural" and "new" subjects, in addition - "temporary" and "permanent" subjects, official texts also mention "useful" , "enlightened", "true" loyal subjects, and, finally, the existence of "noble" and "low" subjects is recognized. The main reference group for the authorities were, of course, the “noble subjects”, which extended, in particular, to the small elite of the “gentiles” and the population of the annexed territories, the so-called “new subjects”.

In the Russian language of the 18th century, there was another term - "citizen", expressing the relationship between the state and the individual and found in legislation, journalism, as well as in fiction and translated literature. This concept was, perhaps, one of the most ambiguous, as evidenced by the antonymic series of words opposing in meaning and giving the evolution of the meaning of the term “citizen” a special polemical tension. Conflict content was absent only in the dichotomies "civilian - ecclesiastical", "civilian - military". By the end of the century, both in legislation and in independent journalism, the secular sphere and the spiritual principle were not separated, but, on the contrary, were often combined, which emphasized the universality of this or that described phenomenon. So N.I. Novikov, having published moralizing messages to his nephew in Trutnya, denounced “human weakness” and “sins” “against all the commandments given to us through the prophet Moses, and against civil laws” . Around the same years, Nikita Panin, in the draft of the Imperial Council, singled out the main features of state government, which included, in particular, "spiritual law and civil mores, which is called domestic politics." In the "Sentence on the death penalty for the impostor Pugachev and his accomplices", the "Book of Wisdom of Solomon" and the Code of 1649 were simultaneously quoted, since the sentence "outrageous people" and "blinded mob" was passed both on the basis of "Divine" and "civil" laws . The “Instruction” of the Legislative Commission also said that “in the thing itself, the Sovereign is the source of all state and civil authority» . In addition, traditionally in the Russian language, power was distinguished between “civil, secular and spiritual”. In the 18th century, these differences are enriched by such concepts as "civil and military ranks", "civil and ecclesiastical press", etc.

Based on Russian dictionaries language XVIII century, one could conclude that the original meaning of the word "citizen", meaning a resident of a city (city), retained its relevance in the time under consideration. However, in this case dictionaries reflect an earlier linguistic tradition. It is no coincidence that in the "Charter on the Rights and Benefits of the Cities of the Russian Empire" of 1785, city residents are referred to not just as "citizens", but as "loyal subjects of our cities", who, according to the terminology of official documents of Catherine's reign, were united in an indefinite social composition group "in the city living”, including “nobles”, “merchants”, “eminent citizens”, “neuter kind of people”, “city dwellers”, “philistines”, “townspeople”, etc. It is significant that Paul I, in order to emasculate from the concept of "citizen" all the meanings that are more or less dangerous for the autocracy, was forced by will imperial decree return the content of this term to its original meaning. In April 1800, it was ordered not to use the words "citizen" and "eminent citizen" in reports addressed to the highest name, but to write "merchant or tradesman" and, accordingly, "eminent merchant or tradesman".

In modern times, the term "citizen", historically associated in all languages ​​of the Romano-Germanic group with the concept of "citizen" ( Bü rger, Stadtbü rger, citizen, citoyen, cittadino, ciudades), also lost its original meaning. However, the fact that a new understanding of the relationship between power, society and the individual in monarchical states was expressed precisely through the concept of "citizen" had its own historical pattern. Throughout Europe, city dwellers were the most independent part of the population. S.M. Kashtanov rightly notes that in Russia “a freer class of subjects was formed in the 16th-17th centuries. in cities" .

In my opinion, milestone deepening the semantic meaning of the concept of "citizen" in the Russian language of the second half of XVIII century, the “Order” of the Legislative Commission has become, in which this term alone, without taking into account such expressions as “civil service”, “civil freedom”, etc., occurs more than 100 times, while there are more than 100 mentions of the word “subject” only 10. For comparison, it should be noted that in legislative acts in the second half of the 18th century, this ratio looks approximately like 1 to 100 and indicates a rather rare use of the concept of "citizen" in official documents of the period under review. In Nakaz, devoid of strict regulatory functions and based on the works of Montesquieu, Beccaria, Bielfeld and other European thinkers, an abstract image of a “citizen” arose, having, in contrast to the “zealous Russian subject”, not only duties, but also rights. The “estate, honor and security” of this abstract social subject, living in a certain “well-established moderation observing state”, were protected by the same laws for all “compatriots”. The gigantic distance between the social utopia of the "Nakaz" and reality does not detract, however, from the fundamental impact of the empress's legal studies on the way of thinking of the educated elite. The very fact of the presence in the documents emanating from the throne, lengthy discussions about "civil liberty", "equality of all citizens", "peace of the citizen", "civil societies", etc., implicitly stimulated the complication of the semantic content of these concepts in the language and consciousness contemporaries.

In this context, the word "citizen" was used as a term close in meaning to the term "citizenship", which was adapted much earlier in the Russian language than the actual concept of "citizen" in the sense of a member of society, endowed with certain rights guaranteed by law. Numerous dictionaries testify that the concept of "citizenship", denoting a society with a certain structure, as well as laws, social life and ethics, appears already in translated monuments of the XIII-XIV centuries. However, the representatives of this “society” were perceived not as separate individuals, but as a single group, which was called by the same term “citizenship”, but already in a collective sense: “all citizenship took up arms against the enemy” . In the 18th century, this language tradition was preserved. For V.N. Tatishchev, the meaning of the term "citizenship" was also identical to the word "society". And in the project of Artemy Volynsky “On Citizenship”, which protects the rights of the nobility violated during the Bironovshchina, the concept of “citizen” is practically not used. Thus, the term "citizen" to characterize the relationship between the individual and the state is updated in political vocabulary only by the second half of the 18th century, which was greatly facilitated by journalism. Russian empress operating with educational concepts and being an integral part of the European public thought this period. In Nakaz, the existence of an “alliance between a citizen and the state” was directly stated, and in the book “On the Positions of a Man and a Citizen”, an entire chapter was devoted to the “Civilian Union”.

However, the context of the use of the concept of "citizen" in documents emanating from the throne reveals all the specifics of its semantic content in Russian political language XVIII century. The complete absence of a conflict opposition of the terms "citizen" and "subject" attracts attention. In the book on "The Duties of a Man and a Citizen", it was the duty of everyone to "firmly hope that those who command know that it is useful for the state, subjects and, in general, for the whole civil society" . As a rule, the “citizen” was mentioned in the legislation only when the “Instruction” was quoted in the personal decrees of the Empress or when it was about “the state of citizens of the Republic of Poland, cut off from anarchy and passed into the possession of Her Majesty” on “the rights of ancient subjects” . In public journalism, there were often cases of direct identification of the concepts of "citizen" and "subject". So, Novikov believed that in the teachings of the Rosicrucians there is nothing "contrary to Christian doctrine", and the order "requires from its members that they be the best subjects, the best citizens".

Such word usage testified, first of all, that in the middle of the 18th century, both for the authorities and for the majority of contemporaries, the concept of “citizen” was not a symbol of opposition to absolutism. This term was often used in order to emphasize not only the existence of a general dependence of subjects on the throne, but also the existence of so-called horizontal relations between the inhabitants of the empire, which in this case were called "compatriots".

At that time, fundamentally different processes were taking place in the opposite part of Europe, which were also reflected in the language. By apt expression Joseph Chenier and Benjamin Constant, "Five million Frenchmen died in order not to be subjects" . In 1797, the historian and publicist Joseph de Maistre, who clearly did not sympathize with the dramatic events in Paris in revolt, wrote: “The word citizen existed during French even before the Revolution took possession of him in order to dishonor him. At the same time, the author condemns Rousseau's "absurd remark" about the meaning of this word in French. In fact famous philosopher in the 1752 treatise "On the Social Contract" he carried out a kind of semantic analysis of the concept of "citizen" and subtly caught the main direction of the evolution of its content. “The true meaning of this word has almost completely disappeared for people of modern times,” writes Rousseau, “the majority takes the city for the Civil Community, and the city dweller for the citizen<…>I have not read that a subject of any sovereign was given a title civis. <…>Some French people quite easily call themselves citizens, because they have, as can be seen from their dictionaries, no idea about the real meaning of this word; were it not for this, they would be guilty of lèse majesté by illegally appropriating this name to themselves. For them, this word means virtue, not right. Thus, Rousseau pointed to a single semantic root of the concepts "citizen" and "citizen". Then the philosopher revealed the gradual filling of the last term with new content, reflecting the complication of the relationship between power and personality in the 18th century, and, finally, noted the presence in the contemporary understanding of the word "citizen" of two meanings - virtue and law. Later, during French Revolution, the "legal component" will completely triumph, ousting "virtue" and finally destroying the concept of "subject" in the political language of revolutionary Paris. Similar, though not so radical lexical processes also happened in German. Already in the early modern times, the dual meaning of the concept "Bürger" was fixed in two terms with the same root stem - "Stadtbürger", which meant "citizen" proper, and "Staatsbürger", in other words, "member of the state" or "Staatsangehörige". The concepts of "Staatsbürger" and "Staatsangehörige", as well as the name of the inhabitants of the German lands in accordance with their nationalities (Badenese, Bavarian, Prussian, etc.) gradually replaced the concept of "Untertan" ("subject").

The fundamental difference between the Russian official political terminology of the last third of the 18th century was not only in the unconditional monopoly of the word "subject" to determine the real relationship between the individual and autocratic power. The specifics of the social structure of Russian society, which is practically devoid of the "third estate" in its European sense, was also reflected in the evolution of the concept of "citizen", which, losing its original meaning of "citizen", was filled exclusively with state-legal or moral-ethical meaning and was not burdened by etymological connection with the name of the class "bourgeois". In Russia in the second half of the 18th century, the word "bourgeois" was practically not used, and the concept of "citizen" was most actively used by the "enlightened empress" herself, associated with the rights of some abstract subject of the "well-established state" "Nakaz" and had an instructive meaning. The rights of the “citizen”, declared on the pages of the highest journalism, were limited only to the sphere of property and security, without affecting the field of politics at all. At the same time, no less than about rights, the duties of a “true citizen” were mentioned, which did not differ in any way from the duties of a “true subject”.

In such documents as the “General Plan of the Moscow Orphanage”, as well as the highest approved report by I.I. “Peter the Great created people in Russia:<императрица Екатерина II>puts souls into them. In other words, the throne of the second half of the 18th century developed “rules that prepared” to be “desired citizens” or “direct subjects of the fatherland”, which was completely identified. The name "new citizens" and "true subjects" meant a high threshold of expectations of power, which implied "love for the fatherland", "respect for the established civil laws", "industriousness", "courtesy", "aversion from any pretense", "a tendency to neatness and cleanliness." The "useful members of society" were obliged to "execute the August will more than other subjects." A certain political maturity and commitment to the "common good" had to be manifested in the "citizen" in a clear understanding of the need for strong autocratic rule or "the need to have a Sovereign." So objective economic need Russia in a leading role state power and the ability to realize it was transformed in the official ideology into the highest virtue of the "citizen" and "subject". Among the main provisions of the “short moralizing book for pupils” of the Moscow Orphanage, future “fit citizens”, the following thesis was put forward as the main one: “The need to have a Sovereign is the greatest and most important. Without his laws, without his care, without his house-building, without his justice, our enemies would have exterminated us, we would not have free roads, nor agriculture, below other arts, necessary for human life.

In serf-owning Russia, the elite of the nobility possessed the reference traits of a “true citizen” set by the authorities, first of all. The taxable population was excluded from the category of "hominess politici" and was not included among the "citizens". Back in 1741, upon the accession of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna to the throne, "arable peasants" were excluded from the number of persons required to take an oath to the monarch. From that moment on, they were, as it were, recognized as subjects not of the state, but of their soul owners. By decree of July 2, 1742, the peasants were deprived of the right to enter the military service of their own free will, and at the same time, the only opportunity to get out of serfdom. In the future, the landlords were allowed to sell their people into soldiers, as well as to exile the guilty to Siberia with a set-off of recruiting supplies. The decree of 1761 forbade serfs from issuing bills and taking on guarantees without the permission of the master. The government as a whole made the nobleman responsible for the peasants belonging to him, seeing this as the duty of the upper class to the throne.

Supported by law, the official opinion about the political incapacity of the serfs was dominant among the nobles, who perceived the peasantry primarily as a labor force, a source of income, living property. And if in the ideologically directed manifestos of the throne there were still generalized terms “people”, “nation”, “subjects”, “citizens”, behind which perfect image of the entire population of the empire, then in such a document of everyday life as correspondence, the name of the peasantry was limited the following concepts: "souls", "vile estate", "common people", "mob", "village", "muzhiks", "my people". Peasants were exchanged, given to soldiers, resettled, separated from their families, sold and bought "good and inexpensive coachmen and gardeners" like timber or horses. “Here they pay very well for people,” the Little Russian landowner G.A. Poletiko reported in one of his letters to his wife, “for one person fit for soldiers, they give 300 and 400 rubles each.”

At the same time, the definitions of “vile estate” and “rabble” were by no means always of a sharply negative, pejorative nature, often etymologically associated with the concepts of “black settlements”, “simple”, “taxable” and reflected for centuries the emerging idea of ​​​​the initially defined position of everyone in the system social hierarchy. “Thin villages inhabited by no one except peasants,” “the hardships of serfs” were for the landowner familiar from childhood pictures of the life of people to whom such a share was “determined by their condition.” This is how the objective inevitability of the existence and even strengthening of serfdom with its cruelest “regime of survival of the corvée village” was bizarrely transformed in the mind of the nobleman.

In the minds of the Russian educated nobility, which is an integral part of the European elite, and the “enlightened” empress herself, there was an inner need to somehow reconcile the humanitarian ideas of the second half of the 18th century and the inexorable reality, in which 90% of the country’s population belonged to the “low taxable estate”. While still a Grand Duchess, Catherine wrote: “It is contrary to the Christian faith and justice to make people slaves (they are all born free). One Council freed all the peasants (former serfs) in Germany, France, Spain, etc. By implementing such a decisive measure, of course, it will not be possible to earn the love of landowners full of stubbornness and prejudice. Later, the empress will understand that it was not about evil will, not about a pathological tendency to oppression, and not about the "stubbornness and prejudice" of the Russian landowners. The abolition of serfdom in Russia in the second half of the 18th century was objectively economically impossible.

This circumstance was intensified in the mind of the nobleman by confidence in the complete psychological and intellectual unpreparedness of the serfs to acquire the “title of free citizens”. So, in the documents of the Moscow Orphanage, it was directly stated that “those born into slavery have a defeated spirit”, “ignorant” and prone to “two vile vices so deeply rooted in the common people - drunkenness and idleness”. From the point of view of the privileged stratum, the "lower class" could only exist under the strict and wise patronage of the landowner, and freeing this "unthinkable mob" meant "unleashing wild animals." The nobleman was sincerely convinced that the destruction of social order and the chains that bind society was impossible without a change in the consciousness of the peasant himself. "Is it free<быть>serf? - A.P. Sumarokov reasoned, - but first you need to ask: do serfs need freedom for the sake of general prosperity? . In the anonymous article “A Conversation about the Son of the Fatherland”, which was attributed to A.N. Radishchev for a rather long time, the image of the “son of the Fatherland” was identified with the image of the “patriot”, who is “afraid to infect the juices of the well-being of his fellow citizens<и>blazes with the most tender love for the integrity and tranquility of his compatriots. These elevating titles were in no way associated with human rights, they were filled with an exclusively ethical meaning and narrowed the scope of duties of the “son of the Fatherland”, “patriot” and “citizen” to correspond to specific moral qualities. The mistake that, from the point of view of Rousseau, the French made in the middle of the 18th century, seeing in the concept of “citizen” not a claim to political freedom, but a virtue, was characteristic of the consciousness of the Russian upper class, and, perhaps, in general, of the worldview of the Age of Enlightenment. The author of the article sincerely believed that the “son of the Fatherland” is also the “son of the Monarchy”, “obeys the laws and their guardians, holding the authorities and<…>Sovereign”, who “is the Father of the People”. “This true citizen” “shines in the Society with reason and Virtue”, avoids “lust, gluttony, drunkenness, smart science” and “does not make his head a flour shop, his eyebrows a receptacle of soot, his cheeks boxes of whitewash and minium”. Expressing complete unanimity with the views of the authorities on the "lower class" and with the attitude of the landowners to "their baptized property", the author of the article had no doubt that those "who are likened to draft cattle<…>are not members of the State."

Thus, in the development of the political terminology of the Russian language in the second half of the 18th century, another paradox was imprinted - the concepts of "citizen", "son of the Fatherland", "member of the State" became a moral justification for the existence of serfdom. In one of the most revised by the empress and retreating from Western European sources, the XI chapter of the “Instruction” said: “Civil society requires known order. There must be one who rules and commands, and the other who obeys. And this is the beginning of every kind of obedience.” All that a “true citizen” could do for the unfortunate, immersed “in the gloom of barbarism, atrocity and slavery,” was “not to torment [them] with violence, persecution, oppression.”

Thus, the idea of ​​the happy lot of the “simple ignorant people”, for whom freedom is detrimental and who needs the patronage of the higher “enlightened” class of “true citizens”, gradually developed. In The Order, Catherine made it clear that it was better to be the slave of one master than the state: “In Lacedaemon, slaves could not demand any pleasure in court; and their misfortune was multiplied by the fact that they were slaves not only of one citizen, but also of the whole society. Denis Fonvizin, during his second trip abroad in 1777-1778, comparing the dependence of the taxable estate in Russia with personal freedom in France, generally gave priority to serfdom: “I saw Languedoc, Provence, Dufinet, Lyon, Bourgogne, Champagne. The first two provinces are considered the most fertile and abundant in the whole local state. Comparing our peasants in the best places with those there, I find, impartially judging, our condition incomparably the happiest. I had the honor to describe to your excellency part of the reason for this in my previous letters; but the main thing I put is that unlimited tax is paid to the treasury and, consequently, the property of the estate is only in one's imagination.

Thus, the conceptual analysis of official and personal sources revealed hidden metamorphoses of power and personality relations in 18th-century Russia, which are embodied in the lexicon, and which are not always seen with such obviousness when using other methods of text analysis. “Serfs”, “orphans” and “pilgrims” of the 17th century in 1703, by the will of Peter I, all without exception became “lowest slaves”, and in 1786, in accordance with the decree of Empress Catherine II, they were called “loyal subjects”. This new name was used by the autocracy as a tool to influence the consciousness of the population of the historical core of the empire and the inhabitants of the annexed territories, which turned into “new subjects” for the throne, and “dear fellow citizens” for the “ancient, old subjects”. In real political practice, the authorities did not honor anyone with the name “citizen”, using this concept only to create an abstract image of the “Instruction” and the book “On the Positions of a Man and a Citizen”. But even on the pages of the highest journalism, a certain speculative "citizen" was endowed not with rights, but with duties and virtues that were instructive in nature and did not differ in any way from the duties and virtues of a "loyal subject." The associations of the concept of "citizen" with the republican form of government did not worry the authorities too much when it came to the archaic ancient Greece and republican Rome, as well as the "citizens of the Republic of Poland", whom the valiant troops of the Empress delivered from anarchy. But the “maddened” “citizens” of the insurgent Paris deeply outraged the autocratic throne, and Paul I needed a special decree to introduce the objectionable word into its former semantic channel - in 1800, “citizens” was ordered to mean as in the old days “townspeople”. Meanwhile, in Russia in the last third of the 18th century, not only the concept of "citizen", but even the concept of "subject" was quite abstract and collective. The “new subjects”, who were promised the rights and benefits of the “ancients”, received them very soon, however, these rights actually turned out to be an increased dependence for the majority, and 90% of the “ancient subjects” themselves were usually called in practice not “subjects”, but “ souls" and "lower classes".

According to the decree of 1786, the term "subject" as a signature becomes mandatory only for a certain kind messages addressed to the Empress, namely for reports, reports, letters, as well as sworn sheets and patents. The form of complaints or petitions, excluding the word "slave", at the same time did not assume the etiquette form "subject", "loyal subject" and was limited to the neutral ending "brings a complaint or asks for a name". And given what happened during the 18th century. the rapid narrowing of the privileged stratum, whose representatives had a real right to address their messages directly to the empress, it will become obvious that the authorities actually recognized a very select group of people as “subjects”. In 1765, a decree was published prohibiting the submission of petitions to the Empress personally, bypassing the corresponding public places. The punishments varied depending on the rank and status of the "pretty" petitioners: those with rank paid one-third of the annual salary as a fine, and the peasants were sent into exile for life in Nerchinsk. Consequently, only the closest circle, sending Catherine not petitions, but letters, could count on “immediate”, as they said in the 18th century, filing complaints or petitions to the empress.

It turns out that legislative change the form of petitions and vocabulary of messages addressed to the highest name was addressed not only to enlightened European opinion, but also to the upper class and, above all, to its politically active elite. The exclusion from the standard signature of petitions of any form of expression of the relationship between the author and the monarch, on the one hand, and the officially given ending “loyal subject” in personal and business messages sent to the throne, on the other, testified to the empress’s desire for a different level of contacts precisely with her inner circle, in which she wanted to see partners, not petitioners.

However, the originals of numerous messages from representatives of the noble elite to the highest name, preserved in the archives and manuscript departments, testify that they all easily put up with the stencil signature “slave”, did not require a change in the form, and ignored Catherine’s terminological innovations. The legally amended ending of the messages to the empress was silently ignored, and even diplomatic communications and political projects continued to arrive signed "the lowest loyal slave."

The top of the nobility, which in fact was granted the right to be called "subjects", was in no hurry to use this right. Some representatives of the educated elite even dared to oppose the concept of "subject" to the concept of "citizen" and turn this opposition into a tool of political discourse. A few years before Catherine's decree on the prohibition to mention the word "slave" in messages addressed to the highest name and the mandatory replacement of it with the word "subject", in N.I. Panin's project "On Fundamental Laws", which was preserved in the record of his friend and like-minded Denis Fonvizin, said: “Where the arbitrariness of one is the supreme law, there a strong common bond cannot exist; there is the State, but there is no Fatherland; there are subjects, but no citizens, there is no political body whose members would be connected by a knot of mutual rights and positions » . The quoted words of Chancellor Panin and writer Fonvizin are one of the first cases of using the direct antithesis "subject" - "citizen". In this political treatise, the semantic content of the word “citizen” also conflicted with such antonyms as “the right of the strong”, “slave”, “despot”, “biased patronage”, “abuse of power”, “whim”, “darling”, and also deepened with the help of a synonymic series, including the concepts of “law”, “noble piety”, “direct political freedom of the nation”, “free man”. Thus, in the public consciousness of the second half of the 18th century, a different, alternative to the official, interpretation of the word “citizen” gradually took shape, in which the highest political elite of the nobility began to see a person protected by law from the willfulness of the autocrat and his personal highest predilections. A few years after the appearance of the Panin-Fonvizin projects, the new chancellor A.A. Bezborodko writes: “<…>let all hidden ways be destroyed and where the blood of a person and a citizen is oppressed contrary to the laws.

At the same time, the "citizen" was endowed not only with purely moral virtues, testifying, in particular, to his cleanliness or chastity. The thinking nobleman expected from the “true citizen”, whom he considered himself to be, a certain political maturity and a sense of personal responsibility for the Fatherland, but not for the autocratic state. It is no coincidence that the Panin-Fonvizn project clearly expressed the opinion that the concept of "Fatherland" is not limited to the image of the absolute monarchy of Catherine. Recalling the conflict between the empress and the private publisher, thinker and Rosicrucian Novikov, N.M. Karamzin wrote: “Novikov, as a citizen, useful by his work, deserved public gratitude; Novikov as a theosophical dreamer at least didn't deserve a dungeon." Finally, in the texts of some representatives of the noble elite, the concept of "citizen" was compared with the concept of "man". Following the views of Rousseau "on the transition from the state of nature to the state of civility", Radishchev believed that "a person born into the world is equal in everything else", respectively, "a state where two-thirds of the citizens are deprived of civil status, and part of the law are dead" cannot to be called “blessed” - “farmers and slaves among us until now; we do not recognize fellow citizens equal to us in them, we have forgotten the person in them.

In general, the concept of "citizen" was rarely used in works of art and journalism of the second half of the 18th century, and in private correspondence almost never met. Oddly enough, this term was most popular with the "enlightened empress." The concept of "citizen" was used not sporadically, but for a purposeful characterization of the relationship between the individual and the state only in the projects of Panin-Fonvizin and Radishchev's Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow. In the first case, the “citizen” became a symbol of the monarchy, where the throne is surrounded not by favorites, but by the state elite protected by law, in the second, the right to political capacity was also recognized for the serf, who has “the same constitution by nature”. These ideas cannot be recognized as unique and existing only in the minds of the mentioned authors - such thoughts were very characteristic of the opposition-minded nobility, however, they were by no means always expressed using the term “citizen”. So M.N. Muravyov, expressing his attitude to the personality of a peasant, used the antithesis “simple” - “noble”: “On the same day, a simple peasant inspired respect in me when I looked with contempt at a noble, unworthy of his breed. I felt all the power personal dignity. It alone belongs to man and elevates every state.

Indeed, the Russian front during the reign of Catherine II was not going to die for the republic, the constitution and the right, together with their own peasants, to “be called citizens”: representatives of the self-determining noble culture even granted them the privilege of signing letters to the empress as “subject”, and not “slave”, reacted chilly. Autocracy in Russia in the second half of the 18th century will be limited not by a “citizen” who demands rights guaranteed by law, but by a person with an independent spiritual life, and not in the field of politics, but in the sphere of the inner world of the opposing nobleman. The weakening of the alliance between the educated elite and the state in relation to this period will manifest itself at the level of evaluative reactions and terminological preferences. Overcoming the indisputable authority of autocratic rule will consist in the search for other spheres for the realization of the personality, relatively independent of the imperial apparatus, the throne, and the secular masses. The most thinking and keenly feeling part of the intellectuals will move away from the supreme power and will more and more persistently try to realize themselves on the social periphery, remote from the epicenter of official values. This process, unique in its own way for European history, due to the ambiguity of its manifestations, has acquired a whole repertoire of names in the literature - the emergence public opinion, self-determination of the intellectual aristocracy, the emancipation of culture, the formation of the intelligentsia - will begin already in the reign of Elizabeth and will end in the first half of the 19th century. Its essence was paradoxically formulated by Lomonosov and reproduced by Pushkin several decades later. In 1761, the scientist told the brilliant nobleman I.I. Shuvalov: “I don’t want to be a fool at the table of noble gentlemen or any earthly rulers; but below the very Lord God, who gave me meaning, until he takes it away. In the diary of 1833-1835. the poet writes: “But I can be a subject, even a slave, but I won’t be a serf and a jester even with the king of heaven.”

Notes

1. complete collection laws of the Russian Empire since 1649. Meeting 1st. SPb. 1830. (hereinafter - PSZ). T.IV. 1702. No. 1899. P.189.
2. PSZ. T.XXII. 1786. No. 16329. P.534.
3. Fasmer M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M. 1971. T.III. P.296.
4. See, for example: Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI-XVII centuries. M. 1995. Issue 20. S.248; Dictionary of the Russian language of the XVIII century. L. 1988. Issue 4. pp.147-148.
5. See, for example: The highest approved report of the Military Collegium of Vice-President Potemkin on the establishment of a civil government within the Don Army (PSZ. T.XX. No. 14251. February 14, 1775. P.53.)
6. Novikov N.I. Selected works. M.-L. 1952. P.47.
7. Sat. RIO. 1871. V.7. S.202.
8. PSZ. T.XX. No. 14233. January 10, 1775. S.5-11.
9. Order of Empress Catherine II, given to the Commission on the drafting of a new Code. Ed. N.D. Chechulin. SPb. 1907. p.5.
10. See, for example: Nominal decree “On taking an oath at each rank, both military and civilian, and clergy” (PSZ. T.VI. No. 3846. November 10, 1721. P. 452); Dictionary of the Russian Academy. SPb. 1806. Part IV. Art.1234.
11 See: Sreznevsky I.I. Dictionary of the Old Russian language. M. 1989. V.1. Part 1. Art.577; Dictionary of the Old Russian language (XI-XIV centuries) M. 1989. T.II. pp.380-381; Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI-XVII centuries. M. 1977. Issue 4. pp.117-118; Dictionary of the Russian Academy. Part I Art.1234.
12. See also: PSZ. T.XX. No. 14490. August 4, 1776. P. 403; T.XXXIII. No. 17006.
13. Russian antiquity. 1872. V.6. No. 7. P.98.
14. Kashtanov S.M. Sovereign and subjects in Russia in the XIV-XVI centuries. // Im memoriam. Collection of memory of Ya.S. Lurie. SPb. 1997. S.217-218. P.228.
15. Order of Empress Catherine II. C.1-2,7-9,14-15,24,27-28,102.
16. See also: Khoroshkevich A.L. Psychological readiness Russians to the reforms of Peter the Great (to the formulation of the question) // Russian autocracy and bureaucracy. M., Novosibirsk. 2000. S.167-168; Kashtanov S.M. Sovereign and subjects in Russia in the XIV-XVI centuries. pp.217-218.
17. Dictionary of the Russian Academy. Part I Art.1235.
18. Order of Empress Catherine II. p.34; On the positions of a person and a citizen // Russian Archive. 1907. No. 3. P.346.
19. About positions of the person and the citizen. P.347. In this context, it is significant to compare the text of this free transcription of Pufendorf's work and the original philosophical treatise of the German thinker. In particular, in the chapter "Duties of Citizens" Pufendorf writes not about the complete subordination of subjects to autocracy, which has access to exclusive knowledge about the essence of "civil society", but about the duties of a citizen or "subject to civil authority" in equally both before the state and its rulers, and in relation to other "fellow citizens" ( Pufendorf S. De Officio Hominis Et Civis Juxta Legen Naturalem Libri Duo. NY. 1927. P.144-146).
20. See, for example: PSZ. T.XXIII. No. 17090. P.390. December 8, 1792.
21. See, for example, the Acts made with the Kingdom of Poland as a result of the tract of September 18, 1773 (ibid. T. XX. No. 14271. P. 74. March 15, 1775).
22. Novikov N.I. Selected writings. M., L. 1954. S.616-617.
23 See: Labula E. The political ideas of Benjamin Constant. M. 1905. S.70-77.
24. Mestre J. Reflections on France. M. 1997. S.105-106.
25. Rousseau J.-J. Treatises. M. 1969. S.161-162.
26. See more about this: Bürger, Staatsbürger, Bürgertum // Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. Stuttgart. 1972. Bd.I. S.672-725; Bürger, Bürgertum // Lexikon der Aufklärung. Deutschland and Europa. Munich. 1995. S.70-72.
27. In " master plan Moscow Orphanage" recognized the existence of only two social groups in Russian society - "nobles" and "serfs", and the task was to educate people of the "third rank", who, "having achieved art in various institutions related to commerce, will enter into a community with current merchants, artists, merchants and manufacturers." It is characteristic that the name of this new “third estate” is in no way associated with the concepts of “city dweller” and “bourgeois” (PSZ. T.XVIII. No. 12957. P.290-325. August 11, 1767).
28. See: Order of Empress Catherine II. pp.103-105; PSZ. T.XVI. No. 11908. C.346,348,350; September 1, 1763; No. 12103. P.670. March 22, 1764; T.XVIII. No. 12957. pp.290-325. August 11, 1767.
29. PSZ. T.XVIII. No. 12957. P.316. August 11, 1767.
30. See about it, for example: Khoroshkevich A.L. Psychological readiness of Russians for the reforms of Peter the Great. P.175.
31. PSZ. T.XI. No. 8474. pp.538-541. November 25, 1741; No. 8577. S.624-625. July 2, 1742; No. 8655. pp.708-709. November 1, 1742; T.XV. No. 10855. pp.236-237. May 2, 1758; No. 11166. pp.582-584. December 13, 1760; No. 11204. S.649-650 and others.
32. See, for example: the letter of G.A. Fly to wife. 1777, September // Kievan antiquity. 1893. V.41. No. 5. P.211. See also, for example: letter from E.R. Dashkova R.I. Vorontsov. 1782, December // Archive of Prince Vorontsov. M. 1880. Book 24. P.141.
33. Letter to G.A. Fly to wife. 1777, September. // Kievan antiquity. 1893. V.41. No. 5. P.211.
34. See, for example: A.S. Shishkov's letter. 1776, August // Russian antiquity. 1897. T.90. May. S.410; VV Kapnist's letter to his wife. February 1788 // Kapnist V.V. Collected Op. M.; L. 1960. V.2. P.314.
35. See about it: Milov L.V. General and special of Russian feudalism. (Statement of the problem) // History of the USSR. 1989. No. 2. C.42,50,62; aka: The Great Russian Plowman and the Peculiarities of the Russian Historical Process. pp. 425-429, 430-433, 549-550, 563-564, etc.
36. Handwritten notes Grand Duchess Ekaterina Alekseevna. P.84, see also: Notes of Empress Catherine II. pp.626-627.
37. Letter from I.I. Betsky to the Board of Trustees. 1784, October // Russian antiquity. 1873. No. 11. P.714).
38. See: PSZ. T.XVIII. No. 12957. pp.290-325. August 11, 1767; letter from I.I. Betsky to the Board of Trustees. 1784, October // Russian antiquity. 1873. No. 11. pp.714-715.
39. Op. by: Soloviev S.M. History of Russia since ancient times. M. 1965. Book XIV. T.27-28. P.102.
40. Many literary critics believed that the article was written by A.N. Radishchev. However, in my opinion, the author of the article should be considered a contemporary of the writer close to Masonic circles. (See about it: V.A. Zapadov Was Radishchev the author of "Conversations about what is the son of the Fatherland"? // XVIII century: Collection of articles. SPb. 1993. S.131-155).
41. Rousseau J.-J. Treatises. pp.161-162.
42 See: Radishchev A.N. Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow // He. Full Sobr. op. M.-L. 1938. Vol.1. pp.215-223.
43. Order of Empress Catherine II. P.74.
44 See: Radishchev A.N. Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow. pp.218-219.
45. Order of Empress Catherine II. P.75.
46. ​​Letter from D.I. Fonvizin to P.I. Panin. March 1778 // Fonvizin D.I. Collected Op. in two volumes. M., L. 1959. V.2. pp.465-466.
47. PSZ. 1765. T.XVII. No. 12316. S.12-13.
48. Letters with applications from Counts Nikita and Peter Ivanovich Panin of blessed memory to the Sovereign Emperor Pavel Petrovich // Emperor Paul I. Life and reign (Compiled by E.S. Shumigorsky). SPb. 1907. p.4; see also: Papers of Counts N. and P. Panins (notes, projects, letters to Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich) 1784-1786. // RGADA. F.1. Op.1. Item 17. L.6ob., 13.14.
49. Note of Prince Bezborodko on the needs of the Russian Empire // Russian archive. 1877. Book I. Number 3. pp.297-300.
50. N.M. Karamzin. A note about N.I. Novikov // He. Selected works in two volumes. M., L. 1964. V.2. P.232.
51. Rousseau J.-J. Treatises. P.164.
52. Radishchev A.N. Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow. pp.227,248,279,293,313-315,323 etc.
53. Radishchev A.N. Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow. P.314.
54. Muraviev M.N. Inhabitant of the suburb // He. Full coll. op. SPb. 1819. V.1. P.101.
55. Op. on: Pushkin A.S. Diaries, notes. SPb. 1995. P. 40,238.

In 1756-1762, Central and Northern Europe became another battlefield. Prussia decided to expand its borders, and its claims also extended to Russian lands. As a result, Saxony, Austria, Sweden, England, France, Russia and, of course, Prussia, led by Frederick II the Invincible, joined the war, called the Seven Years.

Despite the fact that the Russians achieved great success on the territory of Prussia, won a number of victories, occupied Berlin and Königsberg, we did not have to take advantage of the victories. The war began under Elizabeth Petrovna, and ended under Peter III, who was an ardent admirer of Frederick II. In the spring of 1762, the new Russian emperor made peace between Russia and Prussia and voluntarily returned the entire territory of Prussia, which was occupied by Russian troops. Nevertheless, Friedrich did not go to Königsberg until the end of his life - apparently, he was very offended that the city surrendered to the Russian troops.

In the period from January 1758 to July 1762, East Prussia and the city of Königsberg became part of the Russian Empire. And, of course, all classes East Prussia swore allegiance to the Russian crown, and it was in January 1758. The philosopher Immanuel Kant, who lived and worked at that time at Königsberg University, also swore allegiance.

Kant was the most famous citizen of this city in its entire history. Neither the rulers, nor the participants in the wars in these lands, nor the merchants of this Hanseatic city, located at the crossroads of important trade routes, could neither surpass nor repeat this glory.

Then the city again became Prussian, but historians have not found evidence that Immanuel Kant renounced Russian citizenship. And today the grave of the philosopher is located on the territory of Russia: in 1945, following the end of World War II, this land of East Prussia passed to Soviet Union. Koenigsberg was renamed Kaliningrad. The world-famous philosopher rests in the center of the city.

Today we continue our “walk” around the city of Kant. So, the famous French philosopher Jean-Baptiste Botul wrote a fundamental work called “ sex life Immanuel Kant". Botul argues that Kant was not alien to sensuality (It is known that the philosopher, being a deep old man, asked that a young beauty be seated next to him at dinner parties and dinners. Moreover, on the right side - in his left eye he was already blind) . He was not ashamed of his body and liked to dress beautifully. As soon as he had money, he bought three-cornered hats, powdered wigs, caftans with gold embroidery and silk-covered buttons, waistcoat and pantaloons to match the caftan, white lace shirts, gray silk stockings, shoes with silver buckles ...

He believed that "it is better to be a fool in fashion than a fool out of fashion." And he could not stand slovenly dressed, and especially toothless (!) Interlocutors.

The son of a saddler, he acquired sophistication and sophistication while teaching in aristocratic houses, even if located in the "bear corners" of East Prussia.

Kant was thirty-one years old when he returned to native city. On June 12, 1754, he received his Ph.D. and began lecturing in the autumn of that year. Even earlier, he had published articles in Vohentlichen Königsbergischen Frag-und Anzaigars-Nakhrichten, a publication that, on the basis of royal decree, was to publish regularly scientific work. So he was no longer an obscure philosopher. And at his introductory lecture, with some confusion, he saw not only a crowded audience (in the apartment of Professor Kapke. At that time, and also much later, professors lectured in their apartments), but also the “incredible crowd of students” on the stairs. It was an interesting time!.. People were intensely searching for the meaning of life. And they were ready to pay someone who would help them with this. Kant was engaged in philosophy "in free flight", like a doctor or a lawyer.

Russian citizen Immanuel Kant

When in 1758, during the Seven Years' War, Koenigsberg was occupied by the Russian army, Kant, like other townspeople, swore allegiance to Empress Elizaveta Petrovna in the Cathedral. For four years he was a Russian subject, and Russian army officers attended his lectures on fortification and pyrotechnics. Among his listeners were Grigory Orlov, the future favorite of Catherine II, who was then recovering in Koenigsberg, Alexander Suvorov, still a lieutenant colonel, who visited his father, Governor V. Suvorov ... However, Russian officers were waiting for revelations from Kant not in the field of pyrotechnics. And even more so, they were not attracted by his “deep” knowledge of geography (Kant imagined Russia in a very peculiar way: “The beluga fish that lives in the Volga swallows large stones as ballast to stay on the bottom<...>In the monastery of the Trinity-Sergius and in the Kyiv region there are naturally undecayed dead who are passed off as great martyrs<...>In winter, there is so much snow in Siberia that people walk with long boards attached to their feet. Tobacco is not only smoked there, but also chewed” etc.)

Kant's ideas - that's what attracted Russian students. German philosopher compared the war to a fight between two drunk guys waving clubs in a china shop. Kant believed that humanity has only two paths: eternal peace as an end to all wars international treaties- or eternal rest in the general cemetery of mankind. And Russian students bowed before Kant. Muraviev-Apostol, the father of the future Decembrists, met with him, and the president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Countess Dashkova, corresponded with him ... But, most likely, Kant remained deeply indifferent to them. “Dear friends, there are no friends!” - he repeated even to those with whom he seemed to be connected by bonds of friendship. What is there to talk about love! While Kant was young, he was poor. To receive clients, he needed a room. And silence. If he allowed himself to fall in love ... or marry ... his wife would have to be fed-watered-clothed-shoeed; children, screaming piercingly, would rush along the corridor while in the audience Kant, with his weak, barely audible voice, would try to keep the attention of customers ... Collapse! Catastrophe! And first of all - financial. Kant, who said: “When I could need a woman, I was not able to feed her, and when I was able to feed her, I could no longer need her” , - hardly pretended to be soulful. From an everyday point of view, for a long, very long time he could not call himself a completely arranged person.

The rooster that expelled Kant

He changed several apartments: on Masterstrasse, next to Pregel, he liked everything except the noise coming from ships and barges. He also lived near the Bull Market (the corner of the current Oktyabrskaya street and the embankment of General Karbyshev), and near the Wood Gate (on the bank of the Pregel opposite the Bull Market). He lodged for quite some time in the house of the bookseller Kanter on the Altstadtish Langasse. (segment of Moskovsky Prospekt from the trestle bridge to the monument to the Baltic sailors). This house, built in the patrician style, was of rare beauty. Kant's apartment was located on the left side of the attic. The bookseller Kanter was a pleasant person, a great friend of the arts and sciences, in his bookshop, decorated with portraits of scientists (including Kant) every educated visitor was warmly welcomed. And from this blessed corner Kant was expelled ... by a neighbor's rooster. restless bird (says historical anecdote) she began to crow very early, which violated the routine of the philosopher's life. Once Kant could not stand it and asked to sell him a loud "alarm clock". He was ready to pay any price, but ... carelessly let slip that he needed the rooster not as food, but only to get rid of the irritant. The neighbor was offended - and refused to sell the vociferous bird. Soon Kant was forced to move out. However, according to another version, he was annoyed by the rest of the tenants.

When Kant dined in the drawing room, they often and willingly sat down at his table. Kant tolerated their company without showing his displeasure. However, he always followed the dignified behavior and decent manners of his uninvited companions. And if one of them suddenly became too familiar or made an obscene joke, Kant immediately got up from the table and silently left.

“My watch will also be wound”

Education did not allow him to sink to the level of interlocutors. Education did not allow him many things - for example, to enter into carnal pleasures with a woman without marriage. And there was such a possibility. In 1762, 23-year-old Maria Charlotte Jacobi wrote to the 38-year-old philosopher: "Dear friend!<...>I hoped to see you yesterday in my garden, but my friend and I searched all the alleys and did not find our friend under this firmament. I had to take up needlework - a ribbon for a sword intended for you. Claim your company tomorrow afternoon<...>We are waiting for you, my watch will also be wound. Sorry for this reminder...”

Maria Charlotte Jacobi was unconventional. Having married a respectable banker at the age of thirteen and having ten years of unsuccessful marriage behind her, she, as they said then, "threw her cap behind the mill." A letter composed in French style - direct to certificate. Interpreters have long puzzled over what this strange phrase about “wound clocks” could mean. Some suggested that this was a free quote from the then popular novel by Lawrence Sterne "Tristam Shandy" (Papa Tristam used to wind the clock with a pendulum whenever he was going to fulfill his marital duty). Other interpreters (including the aforementioned expert on Kant's personal life, J.-B. Botul) sure that the phrase refers to ... stocking philosopher. At the end of the 18th century, before long trousers began to replace pantaloons, all more or less wealthy men wore stockings, and to prevent them from slipping, they used special garters. But Kant, who attached special importance to his health (we will talk about this in more detail below), on the one hand, he could not do without garters, on the other, he could not allow them to pull the artery. Then the philosopher invented an ingenious design, with the help of which blood could freely circulate through the body: the tape covering his stockings was passed through two pocket watch cases (they were reinforced on each thigh and provided with springs). Kant could adjust the tension of the tapes so that they did not put pressure on the artery. The expression "also start the clock" could mean "pull up the stockings higher", i.e. get dressed to the nines. And it could also hint at some physiological details associated with the flow of blood into a known part of the body. One way or another, the sexual background of Ms. Jacobi's letter is obvious: Madame, at least, should have had information about what was under the philosopher's clothes ... By the way, giving a man a hand-embroidered sword belt was at that time very intimate and a very binding gesture.

Six years later, Jacobi writes to Kant again, inviting him to come to her in Berlin. But he's not going anywhere.

Man with a cricket in his head

The forty-four-year-old philosopher has long convinced himself that marriage is suicide in slow motion. "Difficult<...>prove that people who have reached old age for the most part were married he writes. “Unmarried or early widowed old men tend to retain their youthful appearance longer than married men who seem to look older than their years.”. But relationships outside of marriage are destructive.

Kant is a hypochondriac (“an extravagant madman”, “a man with a cricket in his head” - that was what hypochondriacs were called in the 18th century). He is obsessed with bouts of black melancholy and is focused on keeping maximum amount"bodily fluids", whether it be sweat, saliva or semen. To spend these “vital juices” is to spill your life. If you prevent the release of sperm - it will turn into a spiritual source.

True, Kant almost got married twice. (his biographer Borowski says this). But... "a little bit" doesn't count. And then ... what kind of woman could "fit" into the order of the life of a philosopher? Every morning at five minutes to five, Kant was awakened by his servant Lampe. (a retired soldier, so stupid that, for thirty years in a row, bringing the same newspaper from the post office, he could not remember its name). Kant got up. When it was five o'clock, he was already sitting at the table and drinking one or two cups of weak tea. (he liked coffee, but tried not to drink it, considering it stimulating and harmful), smoked one pipe, prepared for lectures for exactly an hour or worked on another philosophical treatise.

Then, depending on the day of the week, he either gave lectures to students at the university, or received them in his classroom.

In 1783, he finally got his own house - with the help of Gippel, burgomaster of Königsberg. House at Princesseschenstrasse, 2 (near the Royal Castle), cost 5570 guilders. According to the announcement in “Vohantlichen Königsberschen Frag-und Anzeigers-Nachrichten” (reported by Kant's biographer Karl), the house had an entrance hall, an auditorium, behind it - a kitchen and on the right - a cook's room. On the top floor there was a dining room, a living room, a bedroom and an office. In the attic there are three closets and a servant's room. A cellar, a summer room and a chicken coop, a covered balcony and a woodshed were added to the lower floor, and a small old-fashioned garden was laid out behind the house in the former castle moat.

The Princesseschenstrasse was considered one of the quietest streets in Königsberg, but... Kant's pleasure from owning his own house was poisoned by the singing of the prisoners (there was a prison next door). Through Hippel and with the help of the police, Kant tried to forbid the prisoners from singing loudly. In the end, they were ordered to sing only with the windows tightly closed.

The boys also annoyed Kant, who often threw stones into the philosopher's garden through the fence.

The interior of the house was simple. The entrance hall is darkish, undecorated, often smoky. The door to the kitchen is open, which is why the smell of cooking food spread throughout the house. In the kitchen, as permanent residents, a dog and a cat. They were adored by the cook Kant, who was able to read whole sermons to her favorites. Kant was indifferent to domestic animals, but he appreciated the cook and was forced to put up with the tailed inhabitants of the house. In each room - a table, chairs, a decent, but unpretentious slide (or a solid, but modest secretary). In the living room - a sofa, a glass cabinet with several household items (porcelain), a bureau where Kant's silver and money savings were kept, a thermometer, several chairs covered with canvas. In the office there are two ordinary tables, a sofa, several chairs, a chest of drawers, a barometer, a thermometer ... There are books on the shelves (his library had no more than 500 books, while other European philosophers had two or three thousand volumes in their personal collections), on the wall is a portrait of Rousseau...

At 12:55 Kant was drinking a glass of Hungarian wine ( he despised beer, considering it "food of bad taste"), per hour - sat down at the dinner table (In Bulgakov’s novel The Master and Margarita, Woland, when he says that he HAVE BREAKFAST with Kant, either confuses or lies. The philosopher DID NOT HAVE BREAKFAST at all. But if we assume that Woland mistook an early lunch for a late morning snack ... and given that Kant never left the borders of East Prussia, which means that Woland visited our city. .

Kant never dined alone, and chose guests from different layers society in order to avoid one-sided views on natural science and politics (these topics were usually devoted to a table conversation). However, in the last years of his life, he tried to talk with visitors about ... the latest means of destroying bedbugs. Or about cooking recipes.

Lunch consisted of three courses, dessert and wine. Kant usually ate with great appetite and rejoiced when his guests paid tribute to the food.

After lunch, Kant took a walk to the Friedrichsburg Fortress and back, and always followed the same route, which the townspeople dubbed "Kant's path." (In old age, the philosopher acquired the habit of stopping at a certain house and leaning against a brick wall to rest and enjoy the view of the Pregel. Soon the owner of the house set up a special bench for Kant) .

Returning home at six o'clock in the evening, Kant read the newspapers and went to his office, where he worked until 21:45. Around 10:00 pm he went to the bedroom (Kant demanded that the window there be tightly closed throughout the year, and Lampe's servant ventilated the bedroom secretly), undressed and went to bed, accompanying this simple action with a number of special manipulations. First he sat on the bed, then jumped on it, dragged the corner of the blanket behind his back over one shoulder to the other, then wrapped the other end of the blanket around him. It turned out a kind of cocoon. Having packed, Kant waited for the coming of sleep, repeating to himself the same word: "Cicero" . On the 115th Cicero, he usually fell asleep. If at night he needed to go out, he guided himself by a cable stretched between the bed and the toilet so as not to stumble in the dark.

“Es east gut”

In the last years of Kant's life, Lampe became quite insolent. One of the philosopher's good acquaintances was forced to hire another servant for him and - just in case - ask Kant's sister to help manage the household.

On February 12, 1804, Kant died. His last word It was: “Es east gut” ("Good")- as a grateful rejection of the offered service. There is a legend that this day was transparent and clear - except for one small light cloud hovering in the blue sky. People looked at this white spot and said: “This is the soul of Professor Kant” ...

On February 28, 1804, to the sound of all the bells of the city, a long funeral procession moved from the philosopher's house to the Cathedral. After a solemn funeral service, Kant's body was buried in the professorial crypt near the north side of the cathedral choir. (The open colonnade around Kant's grave was erected by F. Lars in 1924 and consecrated on the 200th anniversary of Kant's birth).

However, the sentimental townspeople very quickly stopped mourning “ greatest son Koenigsberg". Soon his house was bought by the merchant Johann Christopher Richter, who in the same year resold it to the innkeeper Johann Ludwig Meyer. In a tavern arranged in former home philosopher, once a year (April 22) Kant's friends were gathering for a memorial meal. Then the custom disappeared. (although the Society of Friends of Kant - as an organization - exists in Göttingen to this day), and the tavern went bankrupt.

In 1836, Herr Schaller, a government adviser in Berlin, bought the house for only 130 thalers in order to resell it to his doctor friend Carl Gustav Debbelin. He is the first and only! - I realized that along with the house I also acquired certain responsibilities for its preservation. He decorated the house with a board with the inscription:

"Immanuel Kant

Lived and taught here

Since 1783

But ... the house itself was used for household purposes, a bathhouse was built in the garden, an information desk was opened in the building itself (later - a private dental clinic). In 1881, Debbelin's heir sold the house to the firm of a certain Bernhard Liedtke, who - "to expand the business" - dismantled all the internal ceilings and made Kant's house an extension of his store ...

In 1893, the "philosopher's abode" ceased to exist. Unbelievable, but true: despite the admiration for Kant, there was no one in Koenigsberg who would buy his house and pass it on to his descendants in an untouched state (as it was in Weimar: the place where Goethe lived turned into a museum) .

In 1904, thanks to the efforts of Burgomaster Sagfried Kerte, a memorial plaque dedicated to Kant appeared on one of the walls of the Royal Castle, from the Princessstrasse side, with the famous quotation from the Critique of Pure Reason: “Two things fill my soul with new awe and wonder the longer I think about them: the starry sky above me and the law of morality within me” . This board was dragged off in the late forties and sold for scrap. But Kant ... stayed with us. As well as the very starry sky, which he was surprised at, is a symbol of Eternity. In the face of which the centuries separating us from Kant are just moments ... But with the moral law within us, things are much more tragic. Though it's also not completely hopeless.

Our “City of K.” - well, not Kalinin, really, this is a city? .. No, no, this is a city that can make even the son of a saddler a great philosopher ... even if in exchange for the possibility of simple human happiness.