17.04.2008

Our countryman Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev in the middle of the 19th century, he consistently spoke in social and political issues as a liberal Westernizer, but with a Russian mentality. He believed that the Russians should not deny the discoveries made in the West and use everything worked out there; however, we must pass the "Western" through the critique of public reason and develop ourselves with the help, and not through borrowings from the peoples who are ahead of us in the path of education.

AI Koshelev sought to make his contribution to the development of agrarian reform in Russia, to direct it forward along the rails of bourgeois development, to turn society towards the ideas of democracy and progress. He can be attributed to the category of those public figures who persistently followed their goal. As a young man he wrote: “No matter how strong my desire to learn is, it cannot fill my entire existence: I need real help. I will try to become the first agronomist in Russia. In less than 5 years I will double my income and make a noticeable improvement in the position of the peasants. Abroad, I will pay special attention to agronomy and related sciences. I will arrange agriculture in a new way and will produce sugar, I will take up all kinds of enterprises - in a word, I will try to use my time with the possible benefit. 1 It should be noted that he adhered to this program in his mature years, becoming one of the most enterprising landowners of post-reform Russia. In 1835, having retired at the age of 29, A.I. Koshelev settled in his estate Pesochna, Sapozhkovsky district, Ryazan province. In addition to the land holdings he had, he bought a large, but very neglected estate of the prince V.V.Dolgorukova. Koshelev's wife also had a lot of land - Olga Fedorovna Petrovo-Solovovo. The researchers note that according to the 9th revision in 1850, Koshelev had 1632 souls only in the counties of Ryazhsky and Sapozhkovsky, and his wife owned 3862 peasants. The author calls Alexander Ivanovich "one of the largest landowners in the Ryazan province." In total, by the end of the 50s of the XIX century, Koshelev had about 5.5 thousand serfs in the Ryazan and Saratov provinces.

It should be emphasized that about half of the peasants worked on corvée three days a week. A.I. Koshelev considered such a practice beneficial for the landowner and "not burdensome" for the peasant. The economy of Alexander Ivanovich, especially after the establishment of a large herd of a thousand heads, became diversified and it was actively involved in commodity-money relations. For a more rational management of the economy, Koshelev "tried to apply the principle of self-government to the peasants, as far as it was possible under the conditions of serfdom and personal farming." 2 Self-government consisted in the fact that the peasants had the right to elect from their secular elders and foremen. Their duties included: - analysis of all disputes and lawsuits between peasants;
- collection of poll taxes and their contribution to the treasury;
- collection of cash and grain arrears;
- monitoring the correction of all state duties;
- observation of the peasant economy, timely plowing,
sowing and harvesting, for the sale of grain by those peasants who have arrears;
- care for orphans, the sick and the poor,
This arrangement of affairs allowed Koshelev later to declare that his peasants were real peasants, and he owed this especially to the fact that he did not take care of their own affairs.

Taking advantage of the greater freedom of the press that came in the reign of Alexander II, Koshelev began to publish in 1856 the journal "Russian Conversation", which was published four times a year, and since December 1857, as an addition to this magazine, books "Rural Improvement" devoted exclusively to the peasant question. About the direction of these publications, the following words of the publisher make it clear: “Rather, the water will go against its usual course, - he wrote in Russkaya Conversation in 1857, - how can a Russian peasant be torn off from the earth, nourished by his sweat”. "We are convinced- said in the program of the magazine "Rural Improvement" for 1859, - that the emancipation of the peasants with land should be ours, that is, the Russian way of solving the great social task before us. We are convinced that a communal system, with communal landownership, is the surest means of ensuring the settlement and well-being of the peasants, of consolidating the real benefits of the landowners, and of establishing the tranquility and power of Russia. These are the main principles, which, in our opinion, should serve as the basis for the great work ahead. 3 All this made Koshelev a reputation as a liberal on the peasant question. When the provincial committees on the peasant question were established, he was appointed a member of the government there, at the suggestion of the Ryazan governor Klingenberg.

The active nature of Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev could not focus only on agricultural affairs. In 1865 he was elected a member of the Sapozhkovsky district assembly, where in the same year he was elected a member of the Ryazan provincial zemstvo. Especially fruitful A.I. Koshelev worked as chairman of the school council of the Sapozhkovsky district. He understood that the abolition of serfdom and the implementation of reforms put on the agenda questions about public literacy, which became one of the important aspects of his zemstvo activities in the countryside.

Practical work of A.I. Koshelev on the development of public education in the Sapozhkovsky district of the Ryazan province was combined with his speeches in the press. Many of his ideas and undertakings were put into practice by the county and provincial zemstvos. The number of public schools was increased, and a men's zemstvo school was opened in Sapozhka. In Ryazan, a special zemstvo school began to operate to train teachers for public schools. As a result of the successful work of zemstvo institutions, literacy in the Ryazan province rose from 6% in the middle of the century to 24% at the end of the 19th century, and this, in our opinion, is the merit of A.I. Koshelev.

Publishing and journalistic activity of A.I. Kosheleva, as noted above, appeared before the public as the journal "Russian Conversation" and supplements to it as brochures "Rural Improvement". In addition, it also expressed itself in his active participation in two periodicals: in the journal "Conversation", published under the editorship of S. A. Yurieva(1871-1872) and in the newspaper "Zemstvo"(1880-1882), edited by V. Yu. rock. A.I. Koshelev, at his own expense, published a number of books abroad on topical issues of Russian public life, which could not appear in Russia due to censorship conditions. The most significant of them are: "Where are we? Where and how to go? And "Notes" published in Berlin in 1881 and 1883, respectively. 4

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that A.I. Koshelev represented in the public life of post-reform Russia a new type of Russian intellectual, who, in a fateful period for the country, did not oppose himself to the government and bureaucracy. According to one of the researchers: “Koshelev was one of the first ... to serve his country, he considered it necessary to be with the authorities and influence it, since significant changes in Russia can only be made using its unlimited possibilities." 5

Zaitsev V.M., Associate Professor, Cand. ist. Sciences.
Ryazan branch of the Military University of Communications

Literature

1 N.P. Kolyupanov. Biography of A.I. Koshelev. M., 1889-1892, v.2, p. 217.
2 N.P. Kolyupanov. Biography of A.I. Koshelev. M., 1889-1892, v.1, p. 25.
3 Russian biographical dictionary. St. Petersburg, 1903., p. 388.
4 Ibid., p. 391.
5 A.A. Popov. A.I. Koshelev: at the origins of liberalism In Russia. - Socio-political magazine. 1994. No. 1-2, p.144.

1806-1883) - Russian public figure, Slavophile, author of moderate-liberal projects for the abolition of serfdom, participant in the preparation of the peasant reform of 1861, publishing editor of the journals Russkaya Beseda and Rural Improvement.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

KOSHELEV Alexander Ivanovich

1806-1883), public figure, Slavophile, large landowner. The author of a moderately liberal project for the abolition of serfdom, a participant in the preparation of the peasant reform of 1861. Publisher and editor of the magazine "Russian conversation" and "Rural improvement". Memoir author.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

KOSHELEV Alexander Ivanovich

05/09/1806 - 11/12/1883), Russian public figure and publicist. From childhood he was close to the brothers Kireevsky and V.F. Odoevsky. In 1823 - 25 member of the Society of Philosophy. From the 1840s he entered the circle of Slavophiles. He published and edited their magazines "Russian conversation" and "Rural improvement". Participated in the preparation of the peasant reform of 1861. He advocated the convocation of the Zemstvo Duma, worked in the organs of Zemstvo and city self-government.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

KOSHELEV Alexander Ivanovich

(1806-1883) - Russian public liberal figure and publicist. In the 1830s - landowner-entrepreneur and farmer. In the 1840s joined the circle of Slavophiles and began to actively engage in social activities. He published and edited the journals "Russian conversation" (1856-1860) and "Rural improvement" (1858-1859), in which he defended the ideas of Slavophilism. In the 1840-1850s. supported moderate-noble projects on the peasant issue, proved the advantages of civilian labor over serfs. Participated in the preparation of the Peasant Reform of 1861 as a member of the Ryazan Provincial Committee. During the preparation of the zemstvo reform of 1864, he published the pamphlet The Constitution, Autocracy and the Zemstvo Duma (1862), advocating the convocation of a deliberative Zemstvo Duma. In the post-reform period, he worked in zemstvo and city self-government bodies. He left "Notes" (1864) on the process of preparing the Zemstvo reform.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Koshelev Alexander Ivanovich is a well-known publicist and public figure. He was born on May 9, 1806. His father, who studied at Oxford University, liked Potemkin, who elevated him to adjutant general. Catherine, who noticed the mind and beauty of the young Koshelev, once called him to her; this was enough for Potemkin to send him to the inner provinces, from where he never returned to St. Petersburg. After retiring under Paul, he settled in Moscow, where he was known under the name of "liberal lord" and enjoyed universal respect; he was keenly interested in the sciences and was especially fond of history. Koshelev's mother, the daughter of a French emigrant, was an intelligent and educated woman. From his parents Koshelev received his initial education. In Moscow, together with the Kireevskys, Koshelev took lessons from Merzlyakov, and studied political sciences from Schlozer's son. In 1821, Koshelev entered Moscow University, but soon left it, due to the rector's demand that students take eight subjects. In 1822 he entered the service of the Moscow archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Among the comrades of Koshelev were Prince. V.F. Odoevsky, Venevitinov, Shevyrev and others; the head of the archive was Malinovsky, who forced the so-called "archival youths" to describe over the years diplomatic relations with one state or another. Koshelev handled relations with Turkey. Prince Odoevsky introduced Koshelev to Raich's literary circle. Soon, some members of the circle, including Koshelev, with Odoevsky at the head, separated from the circle, formed the "Society of Philosophy" and began publishing "Mnemosyne" - the first philosophical journal in Russia. The December events of 1825 prompted the Society to cease to exist. In 1827, at the bedside of the dying Venevitinov, Koshelev met Khomyakov, who greatly influenced his worldview: Koshelev soon became a Slavophile. In 1826, Koshelev moved to St. Petersburg, where he served in the Department of Foreign Confessions and made (1827 - 1831) extracts from foreign newspapers for Emperor Nicholas. Koshelev lived in the house of his uncle, the famous mystic R.A. Koshelev; an episode of his unhappy love for A.O. belongs to this period. Rossetti, later Smirnova. In 1831, Koshelev traveled abroad, met Goethe, the economist Rossi, and other celebrities, and conceived the idea of ​​founding a society to counter Russian laziness that had not materialized and was rather vague in its objectives. Returning to Moscow, Koshelev briefly served as an adviser to the provincial government, then bought an estate in the Sapozhkovsky district of the Ryazan province and, having moved there, introduced secular government: the world elected the headman, who, along with the world, was given a court, as well as the distribution of taxes. On the estate, Koshelev started several schools. The distillery located on the estate involved Koshelev in farming operations, which at that time were not considered indecent. Koshelev held the ransom until 1848: practice convinced him of the inconvenience of this method of doing business, and he submitted a note to the Minister of Finance on replacing the farming system with the introduction of an excise tax. This note was not given a move. As the marshal of the nobility of Sapozhkovsky, Koshelev tirelessly pursued the abuses of serfdom, not retreating from the fight against the most influential and wealthy landowners. Reading the Holy Scriptures and the works of the Church Fathers led Koshelev to the idea of ​​the need for the unconditional abolition of serfdom. Refuting Kireevsky, who in his abstract mood remained aloof from social issues, Koshelev said in his Notes: In the "Agricultural Newspaper" of 1847, an article by Koshelev appeared: "" Good will is stronger than bondage "", proposing to free household people, concluding conditions with them on the basis of a decree of 1842. But Koshelev could not express his main idea - about the liberation of the peasants with land based on the fact that the landlords in Russia never had the right to own land, but only the right to use it, under the control of the government. In 1847, Koshelev turned to the Ryazan nobility with a proposal to ask permission to form a committee to improve the life of the peasants; the same idea originated in Moscow with D.N. Sverbeev, and a lively correspondence ensued between both figures. Having met the resistance of the provincial leader, Koshelev turned in 1850 to the Minister of the Interior Perovsky, but his proposal was rejected. Like the first Slavophiles, Koshelev recognized autocracy as the only possible form of government in Russia, but he considered it necessary for society to participate in a deliberative form. Koshelev spent winter in Moscow, summer - in the countryside. Farming brought him closer to the Lebedyansky society of agriculture, in the works of which he took a serious part, but soon became disillusioned: "We have no society, but only faces," he said. During the Crimean War, Koshelev drew up a note on finances, which he submitted to the new sovereign. He proposed not to resort to new taxes and internal and external loans to continue the war, but to turn to voluntary donations, for which purpose make an appeal to the country's patriotism and convene its representatives who would decide to what extent donations from each estate are possible. In 1852, the first volume of the "Moscow Collection" was published at the expense of Koshelev; the second volume was held up by the censors. In 1856, the publication of the Slavophile "Russian Conversation" was allowed; its publisher and first editor was Koshelev. In 1858, he founded a new publication: Rural Improvement. At the same time, he took an ardent part in the work of the Ryazan provincial committee for the liberation of the peasants. "" Rather, the water, - he said, - will go against its usual course, than the Russian peasant can be torn off from the earth, nourished by his sweat "". In 1859, he was among the deputies summoned to St. Petersburg from the provincial committees and was one of those 18 deputies who asked the sovereign to allow them to submit their comments on the final works of the editorial commissions before they were received by the main committee on peasant affairs. Those who signed the address were subjected to administrative pressure and light penalties, with some placed under the special supervision of local authorities. Koshelev did not escape this fate either. In 1859 - 1860. Koshelev was a member of the commission for the organization of zemstvo banks, from 1861 to 1863 a member of the founding committee in the Kingdom of Poland, where he was entrusted with financial management. He did not offend the national feelings of the Poles, respected their national independence and insisted, with great difficulty, on calling representatives of the Polish population to participate in the commission on the issue of taxes in the Kingdom. Differing from his closest comrade, Prince Cherkassky, in his views on Russian relations with the Poles and dissatisfied with the measures of the Minister of Finance Reitern, Koshelev resigned his title, leaving the Poles with the warmest memories. The results of his activities can be judged by the fact that the Russian government, starting from 1815, always had to pay certain amounts to balance the budget of Poland, and thanks to Koshelev's management, this surcharge turned out to be excessive, and the region could be maintained at its own expense. Working tirelessly in the zemstvo in the Ryazan province, Koshelev was the president of the Imperial Society of Agriculture in Moscow and an energetic spokesman for the Moscow City Duma. In 1871 - 1872. Koshelev published the journal "Conversation" in 1880-1882. - Zemstvo newspaper. Both of these publications, despite the difference in direction, which depended on the editors (S.A. Yuriev and V.Yu. Skalon), stood up for enlightenment and love for the people, glorified "the power of the earth" and defended the community - that is, they expressed the main Koshelev's views. Koshelev acted especially vigorously in the role of chairman of the Sapozhkov district school council. He organized statistical studies in the Ryazan province and ardently defended the Ryazan statisticians in Golos against the unfair reproaches raised against them. Koshelev died on November 12, 1883. From the works of Koshelev came out separately: "" About Prince V.F. Odoevsky "" (M., 1869); "Our position" (B., 1879); ""About credit to landowners when they buy land"" (M., 1880); ""On the Estates and Conditions of Russia"" (M., 1881); ""On measures to reduce drunkenness"" (M., 1881); ""Memoiren"" (B., 1883). - See N. Kolyupanov "" Biography of Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev "" (M., 1889 - 1892; brought to 1856); S.A. Yuryev "" A.I. Koshelev"" ("Russian Thought", 1883, XII); N.N. Semenov ""Summoning and receiving deputies of the first invitation on the peasant case"" ("Russian Bulletin", 1868, XI); article by V. Stroev in the ""Russian Biographical Dictionary"".

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Koshelev, Alexander I.

Writer publicist, b. May 9, 1806, d. November 3, 1883 His father, Ivan Rodionovich, was an adjutant general under Prince. Potemkin; according to stories, he managed to attract the attention of Empress Catherine II and, as a result, was removed by Prince Potemkin from St. Petersburg to the provinces. After retiring, he settled in Moscow, where he gained fame as one of the most educated people of his time; Alexander Ivanovich's mother, Daria Nikolaevna, born Desjardins (Desjardins), the daughter of a French emigrant, was also a very intelligent and educated woman. Under the guidance of his parents, A. I. Koshelev received his initial education, and then took private lessons from professors at Moscow University; of the latter, Merzlyakov, who taught him Russian and classical literature, and Shlozer-son, who taught political sciences, had a special influence on his pet; the first addicted the young Koshelev to the ancient classics, and the second to German literature. In September 1822, Koshelev entered the Moscow University, but, not wanting to obey the demands of his superiors, he had to leave it without completing the course and held the final exam at the university in 1824 as an external student. Having received a certificate of higher education, Koshelev joined the Moscow Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and took part in a literary circle, which, under the chairmanship of S. E. Raich, gathered first in Muravyov's house, on Dmitrovka, and then at the apartment of Senator Rakhmanov. To this circle belonged F.I. Tyutchev, Prince. V. F. Odoevsky, S. P. Shevyrev, M. P. Pogodin, A. S. Norov, A. N. Muravyov and many other persons who later became famous in the literature; sometimes the circle received visits from the popular Moscow governor-general, Prince. D. V. Golitsyna. In addition, Koshelev with friends of his childhood, Prince. Odoevsky, Iv. Kireevsky and Dm. Venevitinov, founded another circle dealing with philosophical questions; the existence of this circle was kept secret. This circle lasted until mid-December 1825, when its members decided to stop their meetings, both because they did not want to attract the attention of the police, and because political events concentrated all their attention on themselves. In September 1826, Koshelev went to serve in St. Petersburg, where his uncle, a member of the State Council, Rodion Alexandrovich Koshelev, occupied a prominent position, although with the death of Emperor Alexander I, to whom he was very close, he lost part of his influence. He received his nephew very affectionately. In his house, Koshelev met Prince. A. N. Golitsyn, M. M. Speransky and other prominent statesmen. Young Koshelev entered the service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he was instructed to compile extracts from foreign newspapers for Emperor Nicholas I. With his connections and his abilities, Koshelev could count on a brilliant career, but his character prevented him from doing this, thanks to which he had several rather violent clashes with prominent members of the administration. These clashes earned him a reputation as a restless person, and Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich himself, as Koshelev says, called him nothing more than "mauvais homme". From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Koshelev was transferred to his department by D.N. Bludov, who at that time was in charge of the affairs of foreign religions. Here A.I. Koshelev took part, as a clerk, in the committee for drawing up the "General Rules for the Lutheran Churches in the Empire" and more than once ardently defended the intentions of the government, which tended to unite the decrees for the Protestant churches of all Russia, against the members of the committee from the Baltic Germans. Koshelev's stay in St. Petersburg also included his first acquaintance with the famous Slavophil A. S. Khomyakov, with whom he became especially close at the bedside of the dying Venevitinov and who subsequently had a decisive influence on his way of thinking. In 1831 Koshelev went abroad, where he met such European celebrities as Schleiermacher, Hans, Savigny and finally Goethe. Lectures in Geneva on the legal sciences of the famous Rossi (later a minister of Pope Pius IX) had a particular influence on the traveler. “This man,” Koshelev writes about him, “developed in me real liberalism, which, unfortunately, is rarely found among us, because among our so-called liberals, for the most part, there are people imbued with Western doctrinairism and guided by feelings and rules rather despotism than true love of freedom and free thinking. I owe a lot to this kind influence on me of the famous Russia in my activities and in the cause of the liberation of our serfs and in managing affairs in the Kingdom of Poland. Upon returning to the fatherland, Koshelev served for some time as an adviser to the provincial government in Moscow, but then, having married the girl Olga Feodorovna Petrova-Solova, he retired, bought himself an estate in the Sapozhkovsky district of the Ryazan province and began farming here. In 1848, he left the ransom and submitted a note to the Ministry of Finance, in which he pointed out the harm of this system and advised to replace it with an excise tax; this note was not given a go. Koshelev's main attention at that time was focused on the peasant issue: being the Sapozhkov district marshal of the nobility, he repeatedly stood up for the peasants of his district against those landowners who oppressed them, which caused displeasure on the part of the local nobility, and especially from the provincial marshal. Koshelev’s interest in the peasant cause is evidenced by his correspondence with P. V. Kireevsky on this issue, as well as his article: “Hunting more than captivity”, which appeared in 1847 in the Agricultural Newspaper, which was then edited by A. P. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky. In this article, the author developed the idea that free labor is more productive than serf labor, and that only the laziness of Russian landlords prevents them from converting their household servants into obligated peasants on the basis of a decree of June 12, 1844. However, in his correspondence with Kireevsky, Koshelev pinned all his hopes on voluntary deals between landowners and peasants and did not even want these deals to be known to the police, as long as the peasants were accustomed to secular government and to some legal independence; "who prevents you from being their trustee for 5-10 years," he wrote. Not satisfied with the theoretical development of the peasant question, Koshelev turned to the nobility of his province with a proposal to petition the government to form a committee of two deputies from each county to develop draft measures "to legitimize the relationship of peasants to landowners in the Ryazan province." This proposal met with strong opposition from the provincial marshal of the nobility. Then Koshelev turned to the Minister of the Interior, from whom he received an answer that the Sovereign would not agree to the establishment of such a committee, but that the author of the proposal could himself turn his peasants into obligors on the basis of a decree of June 12, 1844. However, Koshelev, the owner of more than three thousand souls , did not wish to use this instruction. In 1849, he again turned to the Minister of the Interior with a note in which he proposed: 1) to forbid the landowners from transferring any of the peasants to the household; 2) to consider now only those who do not own and have not owned any field plot of land for more than 10 years, do not have a permanent settlement and who themselves express a desire to transfer them to the yard, 3) to make this transfer without splitting families. However, Koshelev received no reply to this note either. In the same way, the proposal made by him in 1850 to turn his peasants into debtors with the allotment of the land at their disposal, with a payment of 40 rubles, remained unanswered. for a tithe - probably because Koshelev expected to receive this money from the treasury. Such were Koshelev's attempts to raise the peasant question during the reign of the emperor. Nicholas I.

In 1851, Koshelev, together with a circle of Moscow Slavophiles, to which he joined under the influence of Khomyakov, decided to publish four volumes of a collection, which they called "Moscow" and in which they were going to express their views on various subjects. In 1852 the first volume of this "Collection" was published; in volume 2, Koshelev wanted to publish an article about his trip to the World Exhibition in London in 1851, but this volume was not passed by the censors.

A wider field of activity opened up for Koshelev with the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander II. At the height of the Sevastopol War, Koshelev submitted to the Sovereign a note on our finances, in which he spoke of the need to raise credit within the state and proposed to convene elected representatives from all over the Russian land for this; this note remained, like the previous ones, without any consequences. At the same time, Koshelev began to prepare his project for the liberation of the peasants; The sovereign learned about the work of Koshelev and expressed through the Adjutant General Prince Dolgoruky a desire to get acquainted with him. Koshelev's project was submitted to the Sovereign in 1858, simultaneously with the projects of Yu. F. Samarin and Prince. V. A. Cherkassky and turned out to be the most radical. Samarin proposed only to expand and make more convenient the decree on obligated peasants, Prince. Cherkassky proposed the release of the peasants only with estates, and Koshelev - the redemption of the peasants with all the land in their possession. Such a release, according to Koshelev's project, was to take place at the age of 12; it was supposed to give the landlords the right to first enter into voluntary transactions with the peasants during the first three years on the account of the amount of land to be redeemed, its price at the maximum established by the government in different provinces, and on account of the terms of payment and the boundaries of the allotted allotment. Then it was meant to appoint a three-year period, during which the terms of the ransom should be drawn up through the mediation of elected representatives from the nobility and from the peasants. Finally, in the third, already six-year period, with the continuation of the operation of the first two methods, the obligatory determination of all the conditions for the ransom, through officials appointed by the government, came into effect. Subsequently, these notes, like many others, were first transferred to the main committee on peasant affairs, and then to the editorial commissions established under the chairmanship of Ya. I. Rostovtsev, and here, according to Koshelev, his project at first turned out to be the most radical, but soon radicalism he was outclassed and he was "nearly reckoned among the retarded". Taking advantage of the greater freedom of the press that came in the new reign, Koshelev began to publish in 1856 the journal Russkaya Conversation, which was published four times a year, and from December 1857, as an addition to this journal, the books Rural Improvement, dedicated to exclusively to the peasant question. The following words of the publisher give an idea of ​​the direction of both editions: "Rather, the water will go against its usual course," he wrote in "Russian Conversation" in 1857. , "how can a Russian peasant be torn off from the earth, nourished by his sweat." "We are convinced," said the program of the magazine "Selskoye Improvement" for 1859, "that the liberation of the peasants with land should be ours, that is, the Russian way of solving the great social task before us. We are convinced that a communal structure, with a communal landownership, represents the surest means to ensure the settlement and prosperity of the peasants, to strengthen the real benefits of landowners and to establish the tranquility and power of Russia. These are the main principles that, in our opinion, should serve as the basis for the upcoming great work. " All this made Koshelev, at least at first, a reputation as a liberal on the peasant question; when the provincial committees on peasant affairs were established, he was not elected to the Ryazan committee, but he was appointed a government member there, at the suggestion of the Ryazan governor Klingenberg. Here Koshelev soon became hostile to all the other members. These relations were especially aggravated on the following occasion. I. S. Aksakov, who was in charge of the publication of Russkaya Conversations in Koshelev's absence, published an article in it. V. A. Cherkassky, in which it was said that the sudden abolition of corporal punishment in peasant life is not desirable. This article caused a storm of indignation both in the press and in society, both against the author and against the publisher of the journal that published it, that is, against Koshelev. Objecting to these attacks, Aksakov wrote that one should not attack people who are currently fighting in the provincial committees against self-interest and ignorance. This statement caused new storms already in the provincial committees: in Tula against Prince. Cherkassky, and in Ryazan against Koshelev. The members of the Ryazan committee demanded that Koshelev object to the "slander" published by Aksakov; he refused, and then they petitioned the head of the province to remove him from the committee. However, Koshelev went to St. Petersburg, presented the case there in the proper light, and succeeded in having another member from the government, Maslov, who signed the petition for his removal and generally acted against him, was himself removed, by the Highest command, and in his place was appointed, at the choice of Koshelev himself, D. F. Samarin. With his new comrade, Koshelev continued to vigorously defend the peasant cause in the Ryazan Committee, but when editorial commissions were established under the chairmanship of Ya. I. Rostovtsev, he was not invited to join them and joined the opposition last: in 1859 Koshelev, being one of the so-called deputies from the provincial committees of the first convocation, filed, together with 18 other deputies, a petition that they be allowed to submit their views on the final works of the editorial commissions before they were received and the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs and wrote on them the most harsh criticism. The most important of the accusations he brought against the commission were the following: 1) the commissions completely unnecessarily violate the property rights of the landowners by giving their land to the peasants for indefinite use in return for invariable duties; Koshelev demanded a mandatory ransom; 2) they arbitrarily appoint the highest peasant allotments in the provinces, and 3) thanks to the commissions, the influence of the nobles on the peasants is completely eliminated, and the opinion of officials replaces it. With this criticism, Koshelev incurred the strong displeasure of the government and therefore had to completely abstain from active participation in resolving the peasant question. In a book published by him in the winter of 1861-62 in Dresden: "What is the outcome for Russia from the current situation," he argued that in order to successfully resolve the peasant question, it was necessary to convene a general Zemstvo Duma. The unconstitutional views of the author of this book aroused rumors in society about his insincerity, and in order to explain himself, he wrote a new pamphlet: "The Constitution, the Autocracy and the Zemstvo Duma" (Berlin 1862), in which he proved the unsuitability of the first for Russia and the need for the second. It cannot be passed over in silence that everything we know about Koshelev as a landowner speaks against his sincerity in the peasant question: as can be seen from the "Appendices to the Works of Editorial Commissions" in the main estate of Koshelev in the second half of the 50s, 858 taxes consisted of peasants on corvee and only 86 on dues; of all the thirteen estates of the Sapozhkov district, the size of the quitrent of which is known, in ten it was lower and only in two higher than in the Koshelev estate, while in relation to the size of the land allotment, the Koshelev estate occupied an average place; as has been repeatedly indicated in the press, the peasants of Koshelev received a beggarly allotment after the final liberation. All this forces us to recognize in Kosholev a person who is far from disinterested, although he knew how to go, as it were, along with the spirit of the times.

Since 1860, a new kind of activity was opened for Koshelev. This year, he was summoned to St. Petersburg to the commission to draw up a project to replace farms with a system of excise duties and chaired the distillery subcommittee here. Here he defended the Prussian excise system against members of the commission of officials. Since the commission was charged with keeping the previous figure of income, i.e. 160 million rubles, the project worked out under the chairmanship of Koshelev proposed to establish a four-kopeck tax per degree of alcohol, and the wine trade became free. This project was adopted by the Council of State with two significant restrictions: the excise tax on four kopecks was raised to five kopecks, and the sale of wine was subject to the supervision of excise officials and the police. The words: "free trade" were retained in the Regulations, although after the changes made they lost their meaning. At the same time, Koshelev took part in two more commissions: on the drafting of a draft normal charter for land-based banks and on the consideration of a draft mortgage provision already drawn up, which was rejected by the commission. When in 1864 it was decided to form a special “Constituent Committee” under the governor of the Kingdom of Poland and Russians were appointed to the main administrative positions, Koshelev was invited to the members of this Committee and first had to have supervision over the financial administration of the region, and then take on the title "chief director (i.e. minister) of finance." In this post, Koshelev was very useful: acting entirely in the Russian interests, he did not forget, however, justice in relation to the local population. So, he insisted that members from the Poles, as more knowledgeable about local conditions, should be appointed to the Commission approved by the Highest for the revision and reorganization of various taxes in the Kingdom. Avoiding any violent measures for the introduction of the Russian language in the region, he strongly encouraged the use of it. Finally, he demanded an equally fair treatment of both the peasantry and the gentry, in which he sharply disagreed with the director of internal affairs, Prince. V. A. Cherkassky, who consciously pursued the idea that “it is necessary to maintain bad relations between peasants and landowners, not to encourage voluntary transactions between them, but to counteract them and in every possible way support the enmity existing between them: this is the surest guarantee for Russia not to resume unrest in the region and attempts to tear it away from the empire". Encountering constant opposition in their plans from N. A. Milyutin, who was appointed in 1866 Secretary of State for the Kingdom of Poland, Koshelev resigned this year and left Poland, admonished by regrets from the local society. At the end of the same year, he submitted to the Sovereign a note on Polish affairs, in which he outlined very reasonable views on the administration of the region, advising him to end the indefinite military situation in it as soon as possible and introduce general state institutions.

The rest of AI Koshelev's life was devoted to zemstvo and journalistic activities. Koshelev was for a long time the vowel of Moscow and the president of the Moscow Society of Agriculture. The field of his zemstvo activity was the Ryazan province, where his main estate was located. He worked especially hard and fruitfully in the position of chairman of the school council of the Sapozhkovsky district, which he left after the introduction of the Regulations on public schools on May 25, 1874. In 1872, he was invited to the commission, known as the Valuevskaya, which studied the situation of agriculture in Russia , but did not agree with the views of the majority of its members, who were negative towards our community, and published his opinion on this issue abroad ("On Communal Land Ownership in Russia", Berlin, 1875). In Russia, Koshelev's journalistic activity during this period was expressed mainly in active participation in two periodicals: in the journal "Conversation", published under the editorship of S. A. Yuryev (1871-1872) and in the newspaper "Zemstvo" (1880-1882 d.), which was edited by V. Yu. Skalon. Both editions were short-lived. In addition, Koshelev published abroad on various issues of our social life a number of books that could not appear in Russia due to censorship conditions. Let us also note Koshelev's attitude to the Slavic question. Although he was more passive towards it than other Slavophiles, during his frequent travels abroad he showed great attention to the situation of our fellow tribesmen and became close friends with many of their leading figures. On this issue, he also strongly disagreed with the book. V. A. Cherkassky and I. S. Aksakov, who saw in Orthodoxy the only possible basis for the rapprochement of the Slavic peoples among themselves, and rightly pointed out that such an attitude to the matter should alienate all Catholic Slavs from us. A. I. Koshelev died in Moscow on November 3, 1883 and was buried at the Danilov cemetery. From the works of Koshelev came out separately: "What is the outcome for Russia from the current situation", Leipzig, 1862; "Constitution, Autocracy and Zemstvo Duma", Berlin, 1862; "About the book. V. F. Odoevsky", Moscow, 1869; "Our position", Berlin, 1875; "General Zemstvo Duma in Russia. Supplement to the book: "Our situation", Berlin, 1875; "On measures to restore the value of our ruble", St. Petersburg, 1875; "On communal land tenure in Russia", Berlin, 1875 "What to do now?", Berlin, 1879; "On credit to landowners when they buy land", Moscow, 1880. ; "Voice from Zemstvo", Moscow, 1880; "Where are we? where and how to go?", Berlin, 1881; "On the Estates and Conditions of Russia", Moscow, 1881; "On measures to reduce drunkenness", Moscow, 1881; "Notes", Berlin, 1883. Of his journal articles, the largest are: "Considerations regarding the construction of railways in Russia" ("Rus. Conversation", 1856, vol. I and III); "On the methods of preparing provisions and fodder for the army" (ib. 1857, book II); "Regarding Journal Articles on the Replacement of Compulsory Work by Wage Work and on Communal Land Ownership" (ib. book IV); "Something about literacy" (ib. 1858, book I; "On qualifications" ("The Day", 1862, nos. 18, 20, 23); "On percentage banknotes" (ib. No. 29) ; "On the main obstacles to the organization and success of our agricultural enterprises" (ib. 1864, No. 7); "The inalienability of peasant plots and mutual responsibility" (ib. No. 10); "On our monetary crisis" (ib. No. 13, 14); "On Poll Taxes" ("Conversation", 1871, book I); ​​"On the State Zemstvo Duty" (ib. kya. II); Is it possible and is it possible to introduce them with us?" (ib. book II); "An answer to the notes of Mr. Kolyupanova on the transfer of the poll tax" (ib. book III); "On military service from the zemstvo point of view" (ib. book IV); "What do we need most of all?" (ib. book VIII); "On the all-estate volost" (ib. 1872, book III).

Koshelev's obituaries: in "Rus" (I. S. Aksakov) and in "New Time" (November 1883; in the same place in "New Time" note: "In Memory of a Zemstvo Man"). Articles by S. A. Yuriev and Chuprov ("Russian Thought", 1883 XII). Semevsky V.I., "The Peasant Question in the 18th and in the first half of the 19th century", St. Petersburg, 1889; Kolyupanov. "Biography of A. I. Koshelev", Moscow. 1889-1892 (brought only to 1856).

V. Stroev.

(Polovtsov)

Koshelev, Alexander I.

Well-known publicist and public figure. Genus. May 9, 1806 His father, Ivan Rodionovich, studied at Oxford University; returning to St. Petersburg, Potemkin liked him, who elevated him to adjutant general. Catherine, who noticed the mind and beauty of young K., once called him to her; this was enough for Potemkin to send him to the inner provinces, from where he was more in St. Petersburg. did not return. After retiring under Paul, Father K. settled in Moscow, where he was known under the name of "liberal lord" and enjoyed universal respect; he was keenly interested in the sciences and was especially fond of history. Mother K., daughter of the French. emigrant Desjardins, was also an intelligent and educated woman. From the parents of K. and received his initial education. When he was 15 years old, his mother moved to Moscow to continue his education (his father died in 1818). Here, together with his neighbors down the street, the Kireevskys, K. took lessons from Merzlyakov. At the same time, K. studied in Greek, and with Schlozer-son - political sciences. In the same 1821, K. entered Moscow. univ., but soon left it, due to the demand of the rector that students listen to eight subjects. In 1822 he entered the service in Moscow. archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Among the comrades K. turned out to be Prince. V. F. Odoevsky, Venevitinov, Shevyrev, and others; the head of the archive was Malinovsky, who forced the so-called. "archival youths" to describe, by years, diplomatic relations with one state or another. K. processed, thus, relations with Turkey. Book. Odoevsky introduced K. and his closest friends to the literary circle of Raich (see). Soon, some members of the circle, including K., headed by Odoevsky, separated, formed the Society of Philosophy and began to publish Mnemosyne, the first philosophical journal in Russia. The events of late 1825 prompted the society to cease to exist. In 1827, K., at the bedside of the dying Venevitinov, became close friends with Khomyakov, who radically influenced his worldview: the well-read and philosophically educated K. soon became a Slavophile. In 1826, K. moved to St. Petersburg, where he served in the Department of Foreign Confessions and made (1827-31) extracts from foreign newspapers for Emperor Nicholas. K. lived in the house of his uncle, the famous mystic R. A. Koshelev (see); this period includes an episode of his unhappy love for the famous A. O. Rossetti, later Smirnova (see). In 1831, Mr.. K. went abroad, met Goethe, the economist Rossi, and other celebrities, and conceived the idea of ​​founding an unfulfilled and rather vague task of a society to counteract Russian laziness. Returning to Moscow, K. briefly served as an adviser to the provincial government, then bought an estate in Sapozhkovsky. and, having moved there, he introduced secular management: the world chose the headman, but K. was against the usual unanimity. The headman and the world were given court along with the distribution of taxes. On the estate, K. started several schools. The distillery located on the estate involved K. in paying off operations, which at that time were not considered an indecent occupation. K. held the ransom until 1848; practice convinced him of the inconvenience of this way of doing business, and he submitted a note to the Minister of Finance on replacing the taxation system with the introduction of an excise tax. The note, however, was not given a move. Being Sapozhkovsky district marshal of the nobility, K. was a tireless pursuer of the abuses of serfdom, not hesitating to fight with the most influential and wealthy landowners. Reading St. The writings and works of the Church Fathers led K. to the idea of ​​the unconditional abolition of serfdom. Refuting Kireevsky, who in his abstract mood remained alien to social issues, K. said in his "Notes": "Plunging into the teachings of Christ, I am more and more convinced that brotherhood is the basis of all its rules." In the "Agricultural Gazette" of 1847, an article by K. appeared: "Good will is stronger than bondage," proposing to free household people, concluding conditions with them on the basis of a decree of 1842. But K. could not express his main thought - about the release of peasants with land based on the fact that landowners in Russia never had the right to own land, but only the right to use it, under the control of the government. In 1847, Mr.. K. turned to the Ryazan nobility with a proposal to seek permission to draw up a committee to improve the life of the peasants; the same idea originated in Moscow with D.N. Sverbeev, and a lively correspondence began between the two figures. Having met the resistance of the provincial leader, K. turned to the Minister of the Interior Perovsky by 1850, but his proposal was rejected. Stopped in practical activities, K. went into the theoretical development of state issues. Like the first Slavophiles, K. recognized autocracy as the only possible form of government in Russia, but considered it necessary for society to participate in a deliberative form. During the winter, K. lived in Moscow, and during the summer, in the countryside. Farming brought him closer to the Lebedyansky society of agriculture, in the works of which he took a serious part, but soon became disillusioned: "we have no society, but only faces," he said. During the Crimean War, K. drew up a note on finances, which he submitted to the new sovereign. He proposed not to resort to new taxes and internal and external loans to continue the war, but to turn to voluntary donations, for which purpose make an appeal to the country's patriotism and convene its representatives who would decide to what extent donations from each estate are possible. In 1852, the first volume of the Moscow Collection was published at the expense of K. (see); the second volume was censored. In 1856, the publication of the Slavophile "Russian Conversation" was allowed; its publisher and first editor was K.; in 1858 he founded a new edition; "Rural improvement". At the same time, he took an ardent part in the work of the Ryazan provincial committee for the liberation of the peasants. His views on the need for the liberation of the peasants only with the land are characterized by his words: "Rather, the water will go against its usual course than the Russian peasant can be torn off from the land, nourished by his sweat." In 1859 he was among those called to St. Petersburg. deputies from provincial committees. Here he belonged to those 18 deputies who, dissatisfied with the progress of the case, most submissively asked the sovereign to allow them to submit their considerations to the final works of the editorial commissions before they were received by the main committee on peasant affairs. By decree of the latter, those who signed the address were subjected to administrative reprimands and light penalties, with some placed under the special supervision of the local authorities. Did not escape this fate and K. In 1859-60. K. was a member of the commission for the device zemstvo banks. Then he was appointed a member of the founding committee in the Kingdom of Poland, where he was entrusted with the management of finances (1861-1863). In this post, he did not offend the national feelings of the Poles, respected their national independence and insisted, with great difficulty, on calling representatives of the Polish population to participate in the commission on the issue of taxes in the Kingdom. Dispersing with his closest comrade, Prince. Cherkassky, in his views on Russian relations with the Poles and dissatisfied with the measures of the Minister of Finance, Reitern, K. resigned his title, leaving the Poles with the warmest memories. The results of his activities can be judged by the fact that the Russian government, starting from 1815, always had to pay certain amounts to balance the budget of Poland, but from the time of K. this surcharge turned out to be excessive, and the region could be maintained at its own expense. Then K. devoted himself exclusively to serving the zemstvo and city self-government: he was a tireless zemstvo figure in the Ryazan province. , President of the Imperial Society of Agriculture in Moscow and an energetic vowel of the Moscow City Duma. For some time he was also the chairman of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature in Moscow. In 1871-72. K. published the journal "Conversation" (see), and in 1880-82. newspaper "Zemstvo" (see). Both of these publications, despite the difference in direction, which depended on the editors (S. A. Yuryev and V. Yu. Skalon), stood up for enlightenment and love for the people, glorified the "power of the earth" and defended the community - that is, they expressed the main K.'s views In the zemstvo activity, K.'s energy in the role of chairman of the Sapozhkov district school council is especially prominent. Following the example of the Moscow Zemstvo, he organized statistical research in the Ryazan province. and ardently defended the Ryazan statisticians in Golos against the unfair reproaches leveled at them. K. † November 12, 1883

From the works of K. came out separately: "About the book. VF Odoevsky" (M., 1869); "Our position" (Berl., 1875), "The General Zemstvo Duma in Russia" (Berl., 1875); "On measures to restore the value of the ruble" (St. Petersburg, 1878); "So what's now?" (Berl., 1879); "About credit to landowners when they buy land" (M., 1880); "On estates and states of Russia" (M., 1881); "On measures to reduce drunkenness" (Moscow, 1881); "Memoiren" (Berl., 1883). His larger journal articles: "Considerations regarding the construction of railways in Russia" ("Russian Conversation", 1856, vols. I and III); "On the methods of preparing provisions for fodder and the army" (ib., 1857, book II); "Regarding Journal Articles on the Substitution of Compulsory Work for Wage Work and on Communal Land Ownership" (ib., book IV); "Something about literacy" (ib., 1858, book I); "On qualifications" ("The Day", 1862, 18, 20 and 23); "On interest-bearing currency" (ib., No. 29); "On the main obstacles to the organization and success of our agricultural enterprises" (ib., 1864, No. 7); "Inalienability of peasant plots and mutual responsibility" (ib., No. 10); "Our Monetary Crisis" (ib., nos. 13 and 14); "On poll taxes" "Conversation", 1871, book. 1); "About the state zemstvo tax" (ib., kn. 2); "About the Prussian taxes, class and income, and whether it is desirable and possible to introduce them with us?" (ib., book 2); "An answer to the notes of Mr. Kolyupanova on the transfer of the poll tax" (ib., vn. 3); "On military service from a zemstvo point of view" (ib., v. 4); "What do we most need?" (ib., book 8); "On the all-estate volost" (ib., 1872, book 3). K. published: "The Diary of the Chamber Junker Berkholtz" (M. 1857, 2nd ed. 1863) and "The Complete Works of I. V. Kireevsky" (M. 1861).

Wed N. Kolyupanov, "Biography of A. I. K." (M. 1889-1892; brought to 1856); S. A. Yuriev. "A. I. Koshelev" ("Russian Thought", 1883, XII); H. P. Semenov ("Summoning and Reception of Deputies of the First Invitation on Peasant Affairs", "Russian Bulletin", 1868, XI).

(Brockhaus)

Koshelev, Alexander I.

(Polovtsov)

Koshelev, Alexander I.

overhead owl., writer, farmer, publisher of "Russian conversations" and other ed., author of "Notes"; genus. May 6, 1806, † November 12, 1883

Addition: Koshelev, Alexander Ivanovich, major-general, † 72 y.o., burial. May 1, 1823 on Volkov. class

(Polovtsov)

Koshelev, Alexander I.

(? - 01/06/1943) - fighter pilot, senior lieutenant of the guard. Member of the Great Patriotic War from the first day. He fought in the 129th, 180th (30th Guards), 434th (32nd Guards) Iap. He was a squadron leader. Killed in the battle of Velikiye Luki.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

The Slavophiles are an original trend in Russian thought that took shape in the mid-1850s, a constellation of bright names who showed themselves in various fields of activity. So, Ivan Kireevsky considered a recognized authority in the field of philosophy and history, Alexey Khomyakov in theology and history Konstantin Aksakov And Dmitry Valuev- in historical science, Yuri Samarin- in socio-economic and political problems, Fedor Chizhov in the history of literature and art. Characteristically, the Slavophils themselves initially denied such a name, believing themselves not to be "Slavophiles", but "Russo-lovers" or "Russophiles", not initially claiming any pan-Slavist mission.

Alexander Koshelev specifically emphasized that they should rather be called “natives” or “original people”, whose main goal is to protect the principle of the originality of the historical destinies of the Russian people, not only in comparison with the West, but also with the East.

As many researchers of this phenomenon in the history of Russian thought admit, in terms of its ideological content, Slavophilism is a very heterogeneous ideological trend. Some initial positions obviously brought him closer to " the theory of official nationality”- in particular, the doctrine of the identity and special mission of the Russian people, their rejection of Western “formalism” and many manifestations of the European way of life, the defense of the institution of autocratic monarchy, Orthodoxy and the principle of “nationality” in politics and government.

Being principled opponents of the transfer of European revolutionary practices to Russian soil, the Slavophiles, nevertheless, expressed a number of oppositional ideas for their time - they, in particular, advocated the abolition of serfdom from above and the implementation of a number of other, inherently liberal reforms (although were not doctrinal liberals, denying the individualistic and linear progressive philosophy of liberalism) in the field of court and administration, advocated the development of industry, trade and education, did not accept the "protective" political system of the time of Nicholas I, consistently defended freedom of speech and the press. Such ambiguity of the Slavophile ideological platform, the combination of liberal and conservative moments in it, until recently, did not allow many researchers who profess traditional ideological approaches to give an unambiguous assessment of Slavophilism.

In the author's deep conviction, it is precisely today that the ideological platform of the Slavophiles deserves a reflexive reassessment. Slavophiles are an example of deep historical and creative-conservative reflection, and not just another version of a shapeless and infantile patriarchal utopia. In this case, we should talk about the moral and intellectual rehabilitation of Slavophilism. However, not as a “lubok” or a set of dogmas tailored to the needs of current politics. Today we should talk about the rehabilitation of Slavophilism as a way of thinking and a type of worldview capable of combining into one whole ideas generated by other areas of Russian thought (and taken to extremes by many of them), and formulating a new generalized and deeper approach to understanding the problems of national history and national development.

And equally - about understanding Slavophilism as a set of ideological imperatives, on the basis of which it will be possible to formulate responses to the challenges and problems that modern Russian society faces. Slavophile ideology, it seems, should be perceived not as some exotic kaleidoscope of ideas, but as a way of thinking that, despite external paradoxicality, has an internal logic, and is able to generate (offer) ways to solve a number of problems, almost cyclically reproduced in the course of Russian history. What, in the author's opinion, are the intellectual merits of Slavophilism as a direction of thought?

1. Not a rejection of Europe as such(“countries of holy miracles” by I. Kireevsky) - but the anticipation of the possibility of a fracture in the spiritual culture of the West due to the expansion of material and formal principles - something that Nietzsche, Spengler and others will write about later (“ No matter how much they are enemies of Western enlightenment, Western customs, etc., is it possible without madness to think that someday, by some force, the memory of everything that she received from Europe in the course of two hundred years will be destroyed in Russia? Can we not know what we know, forget everything we know?»).

2. Removing the far-fetched contradiction between freedom and the collectivist principles of public life- within the framework of the return to natural, organic and non-violent forms of collective life (“sobornost”) promoted by the Slavophiles, which should not be opposed to the state, but harmoniously coexist with it on the basis of a special unwritten “agreement”.

3. Rejection of the extremes of etatism and anti-state nihilism, characteristic of representatives of many socio-political movements in Russia. The Slavophiles were convinced that the generation of the post-Decembrist intelligentsia had to fight not against the feudal-corporate orders of the Western type, but against a society where the original communal-clan structures were crushed and fragmented by the authoritarian modernization of Peter the Great, who replaced them with an artificial hierarchy of completely disconnected "castes" instead of social strata linked into a single organism.

4. The fundamental upholding of the subjectivity of the people, which should not become a victim of any imposed utopia or unilateral etatist-bureaucratic interests. Moreover, opposing the whole sphere of legal, political and civil relations (i.e., the "state") with their pre- and non-political ideal of the "people" as an organic whole, the Slavophiles at the same time did not fall into "people's religion", justifying any manifestations " nationalities."

5. Understanding the people as a qualitative quantity- without transitions from "people's god" to people's struggle nihilism (a kind of inversion inherent in no small Russian intelligentsia).

6. Understanding the "limit of possibilities" of utopian social engineering, with a simultaneous deep understanding of the phenomenon of bureaucratization and bureaucratic alienation. The Slavophiles considered the Nikolaev political system with its "German" bureaucracy as one of the negative consequences of Peter's reforms and a "painful growth" on the body of the country and the people (consistently condemning bureaucratic bureaucracy, the tsar's unjust court with the justice of judges, and took up arms especially strongly against serfdom) - but at the same time they did not support radical social transformations and projects of an openly utopian nature.

7. Realistic understanding of the nature and purpose of the state - as an institution in a state of a kind of dynamic balance and strategic consensus with a complex society ("the king - the right to power, the earth - the right to opinion"). The state, in the view of the Slavophiles, must be strong, but at the same time it must not increase its power excessively, so as not to destroy the natural way of life of society and not violate its “unwritten” autonomy.

8. A reasonable and balanced understanding of the nature of social institutions - primarily limited opportunities for institutional transit and a clear idea that unrooted "facade" institutions will never become the basis of a sustainable and balanced social order. In addition to this, there is a clear understanding that the weakness of “rootless” institutions is a source of destabilization and social upheaval.

9. Unequivocal rejection of violent and "truncated" modernization from above, which gives rise to numerous social deviations and conflicts. Understanding that high-quality and deep reforms are possible only on the basis of a stable public consensus. In the view of the Slavophils (as well as Westerners), the Petrine order (“the cause of monkeying”, according to K. Aksakov) could only be established in Russia in a despotic way, by enslaving social forces and systematically slowing down the free development of economic forces, which was an inevitable obstacle to development countries.

10. Understanding the danger of marginalization of a society deprived of the possibility of natural evolutionary development - for the latter was fraught with future revolutionary upheavals that threatened to bring down the institutional "facade" that did not have a stable support in society. The introduction of serfdom alien to Russia and other imposed norms, according to the Slavophiles, created the prerequisites for future revolutionary upheavals. It is noteworthy that the gap between the power-political "superstructure" and society is understood by the Slavophiles as a source of chaos (anomie). the mutual estrangement and enmity between the educated minority and the mass of the people threatens to turn any constitutional effort into an oligarchy or "rabble rebellion."

11. Understanding the cultural myth as the basis for the reconstruction of the people as such. The Slavophiles, in particular, believed that Peter's reforms affected only the "Europeanized" top in the face of the nobility and bureaucracy, but not the majority of the people in the face of the peasantry - therefore, special importance should be attached to the study of folk culture and life (for "he only preserves the folk the true foundations of Russia, he was the only one who did not break ties with the past Rus”).

12. The belief that such reconstruction can be carried out peacefully and from above- which implies the return to the people of their original freedoms, including the convening of a deliberative Zemsky Sobor, which should express the opinion of the people and act as an "adviser to the king", as well as the introduction of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, ensuring the free expression of public opinion;

13. The idea of ​​cultural continuity and the restoration of the "organic integrity" of national history. The distortions of the natural way of Russian life, according to the Slavophiles, occurred as a result of the reforms of Peter the Great, which resulted in the introduction of serfdom alien to Russia and the creation of preconditions for future revolutionary upheavals. At the same time, it is important that the actual technological innovations of Peter (the construction of factories and plants, the creation of a modern army and navy, the achievements of science and technology) were assessed by the Slavophiles as good and useful.

14. The idea of ​​limiting the powers of state power by traditional law and custom. According to the Slavophiles, in historical Rus', unlike in the West, the force of immutable custom made any "autocratic" legislation impossible, and even the princely court (before the subordination of the specific principalities to Moscow) could not be carried out without agreement with the customs existing among the people).

15. Protection of the beginnings of self-government and a kind of "informal" agreement between state power and society. According to the Slavophiles, the land (community) and the state should coexist on the basis of mutual agreement and “separation of functions”: the functions of the state should be limited to managing external and internal, organizing military service and protecting the land from external enemies, protecting the rights of the weak and fighting against antisocial phenomena. At the same time, the “zemstvo affair” (community) regulates those relations in which the state cannot interfere: agriculture, industry, trade, life, ideological and moral life. Citizens are obliged to fulfill state requirements, but at the same time they have freedom of moral opinion (judgment).

16. The ideology of conservative reformism - reform as a return to the traditional and natural way. According to the Slavophiles, in the future Russia should not go back (this is a retrograde), but abandon the most negative manifestations of the "Peter's legacy" and return to the organic path of development. " Slavophiles, - wrote K.S. Aksakov in 1857, - they think that it is necessary to return not to the state of ancient Russia (that would mean petrification, stagnation), but to the path forward! There the word back has no meaning».

17. Consistent upholding of the solidarity ideal. Actually, the ideal of Slavophilism is a solidary society with a high degree of internal mobility and self-government based on local public collectives. The Slavophils reveal a desire (albeit not too clearly expressed) to revive the Zemsky Sobor as the “voice of the earth”, which would serve as a link between the tsar (whose sacred, unifying function is beyond doubt) and the “people”.

Thus, the merit of the Slavophiles lies in the fact that they first tried to comprehend the historical path and civilizational specifics of Russia. If the authors - Westerners (A. Yanov, A. Akhiezer) traditionally considered their views as a reactionary utopia that hinders reforms, then the supporters of alternative approaches (S. G. Kara-Murza) believe that they correctly guessed and substantiated the historical type of Russian society and states. It seems that Slavophilism should take its rightful place among the teachings in the spirit of creative conservatism created by representatives of the political thought of other peoples and countries.

Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev(1806-1883) - a special figure within the Slavophile movement and in the panorama of Slavophile thought, a man who showed himself as a thinker, farmer, economist, publicist and public figure. Ideologically adjoining the Slavophiles, Koshelev was nevertheless alien to a number of extremes of this trend, he was tolerant of other opinions. His special position also consisted in special attention to the ideas of fraternal unity of all Slavic tribes.

He came from a wealthy noble family Koshelev, being the nephew of the Tambov governor D. R. Koshelev. His father, Ivan Rodionovich Koshelev, an Oxford graduate, at one time was the adjutant general of Prince Potemkin, who later sent his favorite to the provinces. Having retired already in Pavlovian times, he settled in Moscow, where he earned the reputation of a "liberal lord", while continuing, meanwhile, to be actively interested in science and social innovations. His son, having studied at Moscow University and having worked in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, went abroad in 1831, where he met such European celebrities as Goethe, Schleiermacher, Savigny. After spending some time in public service, Koshelev Jr. retires, settling in a purchased estate in the Ryazan region, where he engaged in wine farming.

Shortly before this time, he became close friends with A. S. Khomyakov, who greatly influenced his worldview: thanks to this influence, Koshelev becomes a staunch Slavophile and takes an active part in the movement that is gaining popularity. Opinions about him by contemporaries and representatives of various currents of Russian social thought varied significantly. So, for example, a very unfavorable review of him was left by the father of the famous Westerner, the representative of the “state school” in Russian historiography B. N. Chicherin: “ Yesterday he dined with me and spent the whole day. I heard of him as a very intelligent man, excellently well-bred, having great knowledge and traveling a lot; such a phenomenon in Tambov is very rare, and I got him to myself to enjoy listening to. During the whole day he talked a lot; in conversations one could see a reasonable and prudent person, but not a single idea that would go beyond the ordinary circle, not a single subtle remark, not a single turn of speech in which one could notice an extraordinary person; he even speaks awkwardly. Strange affair! Apparently, there are people who hide the treasures of the mind and heart so deep that you can’t get to them.».

Diametrically opposite in meaning was the review about Koshelev, left by a fellow Slavophile, I. S. Aksakov. The latter, in his obituary to a long-term comrade-in-arms in the Slavophile movement, in particular, noted: “ Koshelev is the last of Kireevsky and Khomyakov's friends of the same age, this lively, zealous, enlightened and talented public figure and publicist, strong and whole in spirit, unusually expressive and sincere in his appearance, and in speeches, and in actions, who did not know calm, no rest, no fatigue, awake at work until the very last hour of his life».

Let us ask ourselves the question of what is remarkable and significant for the personality of A. I. Koshelev? What was the uniqueness of his personality and creative destiny? And what circumstances determined his special place in the Slavophile movement?

First of all, A. I. Koshelev is a representative of the Slavophile movement, combining the abilities of a theorist with a practical mindset, thereby refuting the widespread idea that the Slavophiles were isolated from socio-economic realities and practical life. So, in particular, starting from 1858, he publishes the journal Rural Improvement, in which issues related to the situation of the peasants are discussed, and which was soon banned by censorship. Koshelev actively participates in the preparation of the peasant reform both as a theorist (author of the project for the liberation of the peasants, as well as a number of articles on this topic), and as a practitioner (deputy from the Ryazan provincial committee), making a number of important suggestions and comments.

In addition, Koshelev is a kind of “liberal on Russian soil”, deriving the idea of ​​freedom not from “pure theory”, but from the organic path of Russia’s development, disrupted as a result of special historical circumstances. Liberalism does not appear to him as an ideal and some end in itself, but is considered by him as a means of improving people's life and the consistent disclosure of the creative abilities of the people, constrained by the bureaucratic system.

Koshelev embodied a peculiar type of "Russian gentry" - but not at the cost of belittling the way of life of the traditional peasantry, but by searching for a constructive solution to the peasant question. At the same time, he combined entrepreneurial pragmatism with numerous reformist and innovative ideas. So, at one time, Koshelev submitted a note to the Minister of Finance on replacing the farming system with the introduction of an excise tax. Following the spirit of the times, he began to engage in the wholesale trade of bread; in 1847-1857 he was a supplier of bread to the treasury for the needs of the army and navy. In his vast possessions (5.5 thousand souls, mainly in the Ryazhsky district of the Ryazan province and the Novouzensky district of the Samara province), he created a diversified economy, transferring most of his serfs to corvee. Actively introducing advanced agricultural technology, he purchased agricultural machinery in Europe - visiting, in particular, the World Exhibitions of 1851 and 1862 in London and the annual agricultural exhibitions in Ghent (Belgium). In addition to economic enterprises, Koshelev led in his possessions introduced “secular management” (reduced to the layout of duties) and a secular court, and also built several schools at his own expense.

As a public figure, Koshelev in 1847 turned to the Ryazan nobility with a proposal to ask permission to draw up a committee of two deputies from each county to develop a draft of measures " to the legalization of relations between peasants and landowners in the Ryazan province”, but did not meet with support for his initiative. His own project for the liberation of the peasants in 1858 was presented to Alexander II, simultaneously with the projects of Yu. F. Samarin and Prince V. A. Cherkassky, and turned out to be the most radical: Samarin only offered to expand and improve the decree on obligated peasants, Cherkassky defended the with estates, and Koshelev - insisted on the ransom of the peasants for 12 years, with all the land in their possession.

Koshelev proved himself not only as a theorist, but also as a practitioner of popular representation, believing the latter to be one of the best ways to arrange affairs in the state. The idea of ​​popular representation (power should not hang in the air) runs through all his work. And this idea is associated with the general anxiety that developed in Russia after the peasant reform of 1861 and other reforms carried out by Alexander II - when almost all the main layers of Russian society that had come into motion were dissatisfied with the current situation. Realizing the need for positive and progressive changes, from 1865 to the end of his days, Koshelev was the vowel of the Sapozhkovsky district and Ryazan provincial zemstvo assemblies, and in the 1870s, the vowel of the Moscow City Duma. It is noteworthy that Koshelev considered the “Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions of 1864” a sufficient basis for the formation and development of a system of local self-government, in the 1860s and 70s he supported the idea of ​​​​creating an all-estate volost, but in the early 1880s, after many disappointments, he came to the conclusion that it was not feasible.

It is important that he proved himself not only as a Slavophile ideologist and theorist, but also as a talented and effective manager. So, when provincial committees began to be established on the eve of the peasant reform, Koshelev was not elected to the Ryazan committee, but was appointed a member from the government there, at the suggestion of the Ryazan governor M. K. Klingenberg. As part of the financial reform carried out by the government at that time, he participated in the work of the commission to draw up a project to replace farming with an excise tax system and was chairman of the distillery subcommittee. He also served on two more commissions: on the development of a charter for land-based banks and on the consideration of a draft mortgage regulation. In 1864-1866 he was a member of the founding committee in the Kingdom of Poland, where he was entrusted with the management of finances; having made great efforts, he managed to stabilize the financial situation in the region.

Koshelev is a public figure who, while remaining faithful to Slavophile convictions, has always been distinguished by his impartiality and breadth of views, harmoniously combining the idea of ​​freedom and the idea of ​​order, natural (as he himself believed) conservatism and the principles of progressism. Supporting the idea of ​​abolishing serfdom and a number of other reforms, while advocating the preservation of noble privileges, he considered it necessary to convene a class Zemsky Duma and create an advisory representation while maintaining autocracy as the most suitable form of government for Russia; these ideas were further developed in Koshelev's pamphlet The Constitution, the Autocracy and the Zemstvo Duma (Leipzig, 1862). Koshelev warned against borrowing Western European political institutions, rejected "nihilism" and atheism. At the same time, Koshelev believed in the ability of the peasant community to prevent the "proletarianization" of Russia, assigned the community a leading role in transforming peasant life on the basis of personal freedom and mutual responsibility, in introducing a public court and self-government. The community, according to Koshelev, should become the guarantor of the economic interests of landowners in the process of emancipating the peasants - without detracting from the interests of the peasant class itself.

Remaining fundamentally on the Slavophil platform, Koshelev invariably positioned himself as a monarchist - without showing unnatural and obsequious zeal. He put forward a number of ideas aimed at protecting the monarchy as such, class privileges of the nobility and reproached the Russian bureaucracy for being unable to cope with the revolutionary movement; however, he justified monarchical rule " not otherwise than during the creation of the Zemsky Duma" and in " harsh terms» censured « the current order of government in Russia" And " her powers that be».

Koshelev is a convinced reformer who understood reform not as an end in itself or a panacea, but as a means of solving accumulated social problems. So, in the period of the 1870s-early 1880s. concerned about the growing economic distress of the people and the increasingly obvious symptoms of social stagnation, he, within the framework of a series of articles published by him, proposes to expand “glasnost” to the maximum extent “in private, church and state life”, “including in the Zemstvo”, to eliminate the numerous remnants of “ serfdom of some people from others”, preventing the “forced establishment of education”, to intensify the activities of the judiciary, since “our judicial system” is “satisfactory”.

One of the few, Koshelev clearly understood that disorder in the affairs of the state is the most dangerous and large-scale threat to the entire society. So, back in 1862, he wrote a long scientific article "What is the nobility and what should it be?", Published in the form of a pamphlet in Leipzig under the title "What is the outcome for Russia from its current situation?". The article noted in particular that “Dissatisfaction with the current situation in the country reigns in all strata of Russian society. The nobility lost possession of land and serfs, and this happened unexpectedly for him, and how it will live on, what to exist on, what place it will take in the life of the country is unknown. The peasants received freedom, but with such a noticeable decrease in land allotments that they could not even provide their own food, not to mention the payment of taxes. In addition, corporal punishment was left for them, and the rod became the main means of their admonition. Among them, there is a widespread belief that "the Tsar wanted to give us free rein, but the bars deceived him and enslaved us again." They do not believe that the Tsar could leave them homeless orphans. Merchants and philistines are dissatisfied with the new order. This does not mean that the country has become worse than it was. No, it has become better, but before everything was certain, but now confusion reigns everywhere, however, natural for any transitional period.". And it is consistent and well-thought-out reforms, according to Koshelev, that are the best way to calm the society and unite it on a healthy basis for forward movement.

Recognizing the unconditional need for Russia to borrow and use the positive European experience, Koshelev assessed the cumulative experience of Europe quite critically, understanding all the ambiguity and inconsistency of the processes of its internal development: “ Even in Europe, in countries predominantly commercial and industrial, they began to worry and talk about the fact that the predominance of material interests over other human needs is harmful, that the worship of one useful thing is not only not useful for people, but even fatal, and that it is necessary for man and for the state to have, in addition to material benefits, a different leader in its affairs. Shall we turn to the tasks of Europe, in order to reach the conviction, through sad, painful experience, to which Europe is now coming?».

Thus, in the person of A. I. Koshelev, we have an example of a representative evolutionary and creative conservatism, which combined the idea of ​​popular representation with the idea of ​​a reasonable state order that does not interfere with the healthy and natural development of society. A convinced reformist who understands reform not only as a method of arranging public affairs, but as a special way to return to the original state of society and the original freedoms lost due to the hypertrophy of the administrative-bureaucratic principle. And, finally, as a pragmatic manager who formulated a number of significant proposals related to the implementation of the peasant and a number of other reforms. Thanks to this contribution, it seems that A.I. Koshelev can rightfully take a worthy place among such recognized conservative thinkers as E. Burke, A. de Tocqueville and L. von Stein - along with a general reassessment of the ideological heritage of Slavophilism as a trend political thought.

Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev

Koshelev Alexander Ivanovich (05/09/1806 - 11/12/1883), Russian public figure and publicist. Close to brothers since childhood Kireevsky And V.F. Odoevsky. In 1823-25 ​​member "Society of Philosophy". From the 1840s he entered the circle Slavophiles. Published and edited their magazines "Russian conversation" And "Rural improvement". Participated in the preparation of the peasant reform of 1861. He advocated the convocation of the Zemstvo Duma, worked in the organs of Zemstvo and city self-government.

Koshelev Alexander Ivanovich (9 (21) 05.1806, Moscow -12 (24). 11.1883, Moscow) - publicist and public figure. Born into a noble family, in 1821 he began to study at Moscow University, but a year later, together with a group of students, due to a conflict with the leadership, he left him (later he takes exams for a university course as an external student). It was a time of enthusiasm for the philosophy of Schelling. In 1822, Koshelev entered the service of the Moscow archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and became one of the "archival youths". Together with Odoevsky, Venevitinov, Shevyrev, S. E. Raich and others, he participates in the organization of the Society of Philosophy. Meetings devoted mainly to literary issues were held quite legally, but there was another, secret society, where philosophical questions were discussed, mainly the views of German philosophers (Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Oken, Görres, etc.). The members of the latter were: Odoevsky, Kireevsky, Venevitinov, I. M. Rozhalin and Koshelev. At the same time, Koshelev and his friends participate in the publication of the Mnemosyne magazine. In 1825, the society dissolved itself. By 1827, Koshelev met Khomyakov, who had a strong influence on him. Adjoining the Slavophiles, Koshelev was nevertheless alien to the extremes of this trend, tolerant of other opinions. His special position also consisted in special attention to the ideas of fraternal unity of all Slavic tribes. Koshelev becomes the first editor and publisher of the organ of the Slavophiles - the journal "Russian conversation" (1856). Since 1858, he has been publishing the journal Rural Improvement, which discusses issues related to the situation of the peasants, and which was soon banned by censorship. Koshelev actively participates in the preparation of the peasant reform both as a theorist (the author of the project for the liberation of the peasants, as well as a number of articles on this topic), and as a practitioner (deputy from the Ryazan provincial committee). In 1861 he published Kireevsky's works in 2 volumes. He owns the book. “The Constitution, the Autocracy and the Zemstvo Duma” and the pamphlet “What is the outcome for Russia from its current situation”, written in 1862. There are no works devoted specifically to philosophical problems in his legacy. His activities as a publicist focused mainly on the practical aspects of those socio-political issues that were relevant at one time or another in his life. Some of his pamphlets, which were mainly political in nature, were published abroad for censorship reasons: Our Generation (Berlin, 1875), The General Zemstvo Duma in Russia (Berlin, 1875), What to Do Now? » (Berlin, 1879). Of particular interest are his memoirs ("Notes"), which are a valuable document on the history of social thought in Russia.

V. I. Prilensky

Russian philosophy. Encyclopedia. Ed. the second, modified and supplemented. Under the general editorship of M.A. Olive. Comp. P.P. Apryshko, A.P. Polyakov. - M., 2014, p. 298.

Compositions: About book. V. F. Odoevsky. M., 1869; On estates and states of Russia. M „ 1881; Notes (1812-1883). M., 1991; M., 2002; Autocracy and Zemskaya Duma. M., 2011.

Literature: Kolyupanov N.P. Biography of A.I. Koshelev. M., 1889-1892. T. 1-2; Yuriev S. A. A. I. Koshelev // Russian Thought. 1883. No. 12.

The Russian thinker Alexander Koshelev was known in his time, among other things, as a deep researcher of lease relations in Western societies. Having the skills of a publicist, he bit by bit collected information that was scarce at that time, for example, about land leases in England and France, made generalizations and conclusions about the prospects for social relations in Western countries. Nowadays, there are no such difficulties in the way of both a theoretical researcher and a practical applicant. Today, it is enough to go to a specialized website to find out literally all possible information about renting office space. You will receive invaluable advice on how to choose office rooms: on the legal aspects of renting (in particular, make sure that the landlord is the owner of the premises), on upcoming utility costs, on communications and infrastructure. In short, go to the site and read about how to rent an office.

Koshelev Alexander Ivanovich (05/09/1806-11/12/1883), thinker, publicist and public figure. Born in Moscow. He came from an old noble family. Received home education (among teachers - A. F. Merzlyakov, H. A. Shletser, professor of political economy); in K. 1822 he passed the "examination for rank" at Moscow University. He was a member of the circle of S. E. Raich, where he met F. I. Tyutchev, S.P. Shevyrev, M.P. Pogodin, A. S. Khomyakov, A. N. Muravyov and others. In 1823-1826 he became close to V. F. Odoevsky, I.V. Kireevsky, D. V. Venevitinov, N. M. Rozhalin (he was friends with them until the end of their lives), Alexander S. Norov and other members of the "Society of the Wise" and writers adjoining it.

For some time he was in the public service. Successfully engaged in agriculture and finance. In 1848, he submitted a note to the Ministry of Finance about the dangers of farming.

From the 1940s, he entered the circle of Slavophiles, where he was attracted by his long-standing closeness to Khomyakov and the Kireevsky brothers, the insistent desire of the Slavophiles to liberate the peasants, loyalty to the Orthodox tradition, craving for philosophy and patristics.

In 1851-1852 he acted as the publisher of the Slavophile "Moscow Collection" (ed. I. Aksakov); 4 releases are expected. 1st (1852) was “an enormous success. Everyone is amazed by his honest physiognomy and consider him insolence” (I. Aksakov). Koshelev placed in it the article “The trip of a Russian farmer to England to the World Exhibition” (in it, Khomyakov’s idea about the closeness of the original Russian and English national existence was economically substantiated; separate print - M., 1852). After looking at the manuscript of the 2nd edition, the censorship banned the publication of the collection; soon she received a secret order: according to the highest command, pay special attention to the works of the Slavophiles. Continuing the activities of a journalist, Koshelev published and edited in 1856-1860 (until the spring of 1857, jointly with T. I. Filippov, and since 1858 - behind the scenes with I. Aksakov) the journal "Russian conversation" (which became the successor to the "Moscow collection"), and in 1858-1859, as an addition to it, the magazine "Rural Improvement", compiled from historical, agricultural and static articles on the issue of improving the life of peasants in Russia. In the dispute about the Russian community, both journals defended its “comradely, worldly” (and not patriarchal, not tribal, not state) nature, deriving its structure, according to Koshelev, “from the thousand-year life of the Russian people and state.” Koshelev also acted as a publisher later: in 1861 he prepared and published a coll. works of I. Kireevsky (PSS. T. 1-2, M.) and compiled a program for the publication of Khomyakov's works in 4 volumes (M.-Prague, 1861-1873).

In the pre-reform era, Koshelev became a prominent public figure on the peasant question. In 1855, during the Crimean War of 1853-56, he submitted to Alexander II a note “On Russia’s Funds in the Present Circumstances”, where for the first time he officially substantiated the need to convene the Zemsky Duma (elected assembly), and in 1857 and 1858 - the most radical for that time " Notes on the abolition of serfdom in Russia ”(abbreviated published in the appendix to the memoir“ Notes ”, 1884), one of the first projects for the liberation of peasants from land. Feb. 1859 elected member of the nobility of the 1st invitation to the Editorial Commission).

Since 1860, Koshelev was in charge of the distillery subcommittee of the State Commission to draw up a project to replace farming out with a system of excise taxes. In 1962-65, he contributed to I. Aksakov's weekly The Day and shared his position on the Polish question (he called his harsh reply to Herzen "a civic feat"). In 1864-66 he was a member of the Constituent Committee and the Chief Director of the Government Finance Commission in the Kingdom of Poland; however, due to disagreement with the government's official position on the Polish aristocracy, he resigned. Soon he became a member of the Moscow City Duma, president of the Moscow Society of Agriculture. Participated in periodicals published at his expense - "Conversation" (1871-72, ed. A. S. Yuryev), "Zemstvo" (1880-82, ed. V. Yu. Skalon), where he placed a number of journalistic articles , which criticized the financial, economic and domestic political activities of the government.

Koshelev's public position, while remaining faithful to the Slavophile foundations, has always been marked by impartiality and breadth. All R. In the 1950s, he made radical statements on the peasant question (so that the conservative E.P. Rostopchina did not accidentally snipe in the satire “The House of Lunatics in Moscow in 1958”: “Koshelev - Conversations of the Russian / Corypheus and Horseman, / French Revolution / In the bowels of Russia, a fast walker"), However, Koshelev himself then declared (in a letter to I. Aksakov) that "Herzen's path, his means, words, etc. will never be approved by me" (adding: "in Filaret's speeches [ Drozdov] incomparably more life than in the works of Herzen". In 1862, in a semi-legal and conservative opposition pamphlet "The Constitution, the Autocracy and the Zemstvo Duma" (Leipzig, 1862), he put forward a number of ideas aimed at protecting the monarchy as such, class noble privileges and reproached Russian bureaucracy in its inability to cope with the revolutionary movement; however, he justified monarchical rule "nothing else but during the creation of the Zemstvo Duma" and in "harsh terms" condemned "the current order of government in Russia" and "its powers that be".

In the 70s - n. In the 1980s, Koshelev, concerned about the growth of the economic ill-being of the people and the symptoms of social stagnation, in a number of sharp articles suggests: to expand “glasnost” to the maximum extent “in private, church and state life”, “including in the Zemstvo”, to eliminate the numerous remnants of “serfdom of some people from others”, to prevent the “forced establishment of education”, to intensify the activities of the judiciary, since “our judicial system” is “satisfactory”. The Council of the Main Administration for Press Affairs took these articles as "material for determining the harmful direction of the journal" - to sharply weaken the higher bureaucracy, which was morally and mentally impoverished and divided the people from the tsar, by all means to establish a Zemsky Duma (advisory). Undoubtedly, in Koshelev's public views there was a lot of sober and urgently positive, dictated in many respects by loyalty to "Slavophile liberalism", which was in opposition to government aspirations.

I. S. Aksakov noted in his obituary to Koshelev: “Koshelev is the last of Kireevsky and Khomyakov’s peer friends, this lively, zealous, enlightened and talented public figure and publicist, strong and whole in spirit, unusually expressive and sincere in his appearance, and in speeches and in deeds - who knew neither calm, nor rest, nor fatigue, who was awake at work until the very last hour of his life.

In the last years of his life (1869-83) Koshelev created his most significant work - “Notes. (1812-83) ”(B., 1884; published by his wife, O. F. Kosheleva); include 2 diary passages for 1857 and 1882-83; the appendix to the book contains 7 journalistic articles and "notes" of Koshelev: the location of the manuscript is unknown). In general, the memoir book covers the events of 1812 - AD. 80s and is a direct continuation of his journalistic works. It discreetly and impartially depicts the figures of contemporaries (A. S. Pushkin, the Decembrists, Odoevsky, Herzen, Slavophile friends, and many others), tells about the formation of a literary society (“The Society of Philosophy”, Slavophil and Western circles) and is presented under a broad panorama of Russian literary and socio-political life from a Slavophile point of view. "Notes" remain the most valuable document for the history of social thought in Russia in the 20-70s of the XIX century.

Source: V. A. Koshelev. A. I. Koshelev in the book: Russian writers 1800-1917. M., 1994, T. 3. p. 117-119.

Koshelev Alexander Ivanovich (05/09/1806–11/12/1883), thinker, farmer, economist, publicist, one of the leaders of the Slavophiles. Born in Moscow into a noble family. Received home education. In 1821–22 he studied at the philological faculty of Moscow University (he graduated as an external student in 1824). In 1823–26 he served in the Moscow Archives of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. Member of the literary society S.E. Raicha (1823–25) and the so-called. "Venevitin's Circle" (since 1822), together with V.F. Odoevsky, poet D.V. Venevitinov, I.V. Kireevsky and others created a circle of "lyubomudrov". From 1826 he served in the Chancellery of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs K.V. Nesselrode in St. Petersburg, in 1820-31 - in the Department of Religious Affairs of Foreign Confessions, participated in the development of the "General Charter for the Lutheran Churches in the Empire." In 1831–32 he was an attache at the Russian embassy in London; traveled around Europe, listened to lectures on philosophy, economics, law at the University of Berlin, as well as private lectures by P.L. Rossi in Geneva, who developed "real liberalism" in Koshelev. In 1831, in the retinue of A.F. Orlov participated in the signing of the London Treaty on the establishment of the Kingdom of Belgium. In 1833–35 he was an adviser to the Moscow provincial government. Retired since 1835; in winter he lived in Moscow, in summer - in the estate of Pesochnya Sapozhkovsky near. Ryazan province, where in the late 1840s he created a diversified economy (grain and vegetable crops, breeding meat and dairy farming, flour milling and butter and cheese production, distillation, etc.). Most of the serfs, whose number reached 5.5 thousand people, Koshelev transferred to corvee, constantly increasing the master's plowing; the size of the dues in Koshelev's farm was higher than the average for the province; on peasants guilty of unauthorized felling of forests or weeding meadows, Koshelev imposed fines in the form of working off. At the same time, Koshelev introduced in his possessions (Koshelev's estates are also located in the Ryazhsky district of the Ryazan province and the Novouzensky district of the Samara province.) “secular administration” (it boiled down to the layout of duties) and a secular court, built several schools at his own expense. He introduced advanced agricultural technology, purchased agricultural machinery, for which he annually traveled to Western Europe, visited the World Exhibitions of 1851 and 1862 in London and the annual agricultural exhibitions in Ghent (Belgium). Since 1848, Koshelev was a full member of the Moscow Society of Agriculture, since 1850 he participated in the work of the Lebedyan Society of Agriculture (at the initiative of Koshelev, instead of official meetings, the latter began to hold congresses in the best estates; in 1852-56 such congresses were held in Pesochnya). In the 1840s and 1850s, Koshelev published articles on the use of agricultural machinery in the Agricultural Gazette, Proceedings of the Free Economic Society, and Zapiski of the Moscow and Lebedyansky Societies of Agriculture (in 1852 Koshelev was awarded gold medals by the Moscow and Lebedyansky Societies).

In his entrepreneurial activity, Koshelev did not avoid risky ventures: in 1838–48 he kept wine farms, which brought at least 100 thousand rubles a year. silver; in 1868, together with V.A. Kokorev headed the Moscow partnership for the purchase of the Nikolaev railway (the deal did not take place).

In the 1840s, Koshelev's anti-serfdom position emerged, based on practical considerations along with religious convictions. In the article “Hunting more than captivity” (Agricultural Newspaper, 1847, No. 99), Koshelev showed the advantages of freelance labor over serf labor, and noted the economic failure of the institution of courtyards. Koshelev considered the Decree of 1842 “On Obligated Peasants” to be a half-measure that did not guarantee the benefit of the landowner; for an annual fee). Being the Sapozhkov district marshal of the nobility (1840-42), Koshelev opposed the arbitrariness of the landlords in relation to the serfs. In 1847, he turned to the nobles of the county with a project to create a "committee" to revise relations between peasants and landlords, citing the decline of most landowners' farms. Having not received the support of the local nobility, Koshelev submitted to the Minister of Internal Affairs L.A. Perovsky a note “On improving the life of the landlord peasants” and asked for permission to present his project at the provincial noble elections, but the minister refused, and the Ryazan nobles staged an obstruction for Koshelev. In 1849, Koshelev again turned to the government with a proposal to ban the transfer of peasants to courtyards, and in 1850 he submitted to the Minister of the Interior a draft transfer of peasants to a state of obligation with an allotment of 2 dessiatins. subject to the payment of compensation to the landowners through state institutions in the amount of 30 rubles. for a tithe of land and 40 rubles. for the revision soul, but both appeals remained unanswered.

In the 1850s, Koshelev, together with the members of the circle of Slavophiles, to which he joined in the 1840s, took up the theoretical development of the problem of the emancipation of the peasants. An old friendship with A.S. Khomyakov, brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky and other members of the circle, the philosophical content of their teaching, loyalty to the Orthodox tradition, and most importantly, the desire of the Slavophiles to promote the abolition of serfdom predetermined Koshelev’s position, but his Slavophilism had a practical, even “applied” character. Koshelev focused his main attention on the practical side of the teachings of the Slavophiles, while advocating the preservation of noble privileges, considered it necessary to convene a class Zemsky Duma and create an advisory representation while maintaining autocracy as the most suitable form of government for Russia (these ideas were further developed in Koshelev’s pamphlet “Constitution, Autocracy and the Zemstvo Duma, Leipzig, 1862). Koshelev warned against borrowing Western European political institutions, rejected "nihilism" and atheism. Koshelev believed in the ability of the peasant community to prevent the "proletarianization" of Russia, assigned the community a leading role in transforming peasant life on the basis of personal freedom and mutual responsibility, in introducing a public court and self-government. The community, according to Koshelev, should become the guarantor of the economic interests of landowners in the process of emancipating the peasants.

Koshelev financed many undertakings of the Slavophiles: in 1852, the 1st volume of the Moscow Collection was published at his expense (under the editorship of I.S. Aksakov; other volumes were prohibited by censorship). In 1856, Koshelev founded the journal Russkaya Beseda, and in 1858, Rural Improvement, in which the problems of preparing a peasant reform were discussed (until Aug. 1858, Koshelev edited both editions).

In 1847–57 Koshelev was a supplier of bread to the treasury for the needs of the army and navy. During the Crimean War, Koshelev in 1854 drew up a note “On Russia's funds in the present circumstances”, in 1855 he submitted it to the imp. Alexander II; proposed to improve the finances to create in Moscow "elected from all the Russian land", which would determine the specific amount of donations from each estate. In 1856, he prepared a note “On the need to abolish serfdom in Russia” - a project for the liberation of peasants with land for redemption, which assumed a 12-year period for the redemption of land (3 years at the official maximum price, 3 years - on the terms developed by agreement of elected from the nobility and peasants , 6 years - a general mandatory redemption on the terms of the government; at the same time, householders were subject to release without land). Feb. 1857 note by Koshelev together with the projects of A.M. Unkovsky, Yu.F. Samarin and Prince. V.A. Cherkassky was introduced to Alexander II, then transferred to the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs. In 1858, on the proposal of the Ryazan governor M.K. Klingenberg (in fact, through the efforts of Vice-Governor M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin), Koshelev was appointed a government member to the Ryazan Provincial Committee on Peasant Affairs. In 1859, during the creation of the Editorial Commissions, Koshelev's candidacy was rejected by Ya.I. Rostovtsev in view of his previous occupations with farming. Koshelev was among 18 deputies from the provincial committees who demanded that the final draft of the peasant reform developed by the Editorial Commissions be submitted for their consideration, criticized the work of the latter, and believed that the patrimonial rights of the landowners were infringed in the final draft. I.S. Aksakov, on behalf of Koshelev, anonymously published in Leipzig his pamphlet Deputies and Editorial Commissions on Peasant Affairs (1860), in which the author sharply criticized the higher bureaucracy, which did not allow provincial deputies to discuss the peasant question in the Main Committee, in defiance of the emperor's promise.

In 1859–60, Koshelev, a member of the Commission for the draft regulatory charter of land banks and the draft mortgage regulation, in 1860 the chairman of the distillery subcommittee, developed a draft free wine trade with an excise tax of 4 kopecks. per degree of alcohol (as early as 1850 he submitted a note to the Ministry of the Interior with a proposal to abolish wine taxation). In 1860–64 he was president of the Moscow Society of Agriculture.

During the Polish uprising of 1863–64, Koshelev approved of the actions of the Vilna Governor-General M.N. Muravyov, considered the existence of an independent Polish state impossible. In 1864, Koshelev was appointed financial manager in the Kingdom of Poland (in addition, he was in charge of the mining plants of the region), obtained permission to attract Poles to the Commission on Taxes in the Kingdom of Poland and include them in the administrative apparatus, drafted a drinking charter and regulations “On the transformation of direct taxes into Kingdom of Poland”, managed to stabilize the financial situation in the region. Koshelev contributed to the spread of the Russian language in office work (documents written in Russian were accepted out of turn and considered with the personal participation of Koshelev), while Koshelev often arranged receptions for the Polish nobility in his house. For services Koshelev in 1865 promoted to court advisers. Due to a conflict with N.A. Milyutin and M.Kh. Reitern Koshelev resigned in 1866; having already left his post, he submitted to the government a note "On the termination of martial law and the introduction of nationwide institutions in the Kingdom of Poland."

From 1865 until the end of his days, Koshelev was the vowel of the Sapozhkovsky district and Ryazan provincial zemstvo assemblies; in the 1870s he was a member of the Moscow City Duma. He considered the “Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions of 1864” a sufficient basis for the formation and development of a system of local self-government; 1880s came to the conclusion that it was not feasible. Koshelev supported the statistical studies undertaken by the Moscow Zemstvo, organized similar ones in the Ryazan province. (see: Zemskaya statistics), in 1870–74 he supervised the work of the evaluation commission of the provincial zemstvo, attracted the prominent statistician V.N. Grigoriev. Koshelev concentrated his main attention on work in the Sapozhkovsky district zemstvo: in 1868, the chairman of the district school council, he achieved the opening of a district zemstvo school in Sapozhka, and the allocation of significant sums for the needs of public education. One of the initiators of the organization of inpatient medical care for the population in the county. In 1874-83, Koshelev participated in the provincial congresses of doctors, developed the charter of the Alexander Teacher's Seminary, which trained teachers for rural zemstvo schools. In 1873 he worked as an expert on agriculture in the Valuev Commission.

In the 1870s, Koshelev returned to active publicistic activity: he collaborated in the journal Russkaya Mysl, the newspaper Golos, Ryazan Gubernskie Vedomosti, and later in the newspaper Rus, published brochures On Measures to Restore the Value of the Ruble (St. ., 1878), “On a loan to farmers when they buy land” (M., 1880), “On estates and fortunes in Russia” (M., 1881), “On measures to reduce drunkenness” (M., 1881); a number of works that were not allowed by censorship in Russia were published in Berlin: Our Position, The General Zemstvo Duma in Russia, On Communal Land Ownership in Russia (all - 1875) and What to Do Now? (1879).

In journalistic articles of the 1880s, Koshelev drew attention to the exorbitance of government spending, argued the need for austerity in the financial sector; developed the idea of ​​uniting the nobility with other estates in order to gradually overcome the omnipotence of the bureaucracy; criticized zemstvo institutions for the development in them of a “noble-serf and lawyer-liberal direction”, noted the weak representation of peasants in zemstvos. In 1882, Koshelev came up with a project to attract district elected officials (2 people each from peasants, nobles and townspeople) to provincial committees for the reorganization of local self-government (moreover, 2 people from each province, without distinction of estates, were to enter the national committee on this issue) .

In 1871–72 Koshelev subsidized the journal Beseda (ed. S.A. Yuryev), in 1880–82 the Zemstvo newspaper (ed. V.Yu. Skalon), published the Complete Works of I.V. Kireevsky (vols. 1–2, 1861).

Koshelev's Notes is a valuable source on the history of social thought in Russia in the 1820s–70s (first published in Berlin in 1884, republished with abridgements in 1991).

V. Gornov

Economic views of A.I. Koshelev

In 1854, Koshelev prepared a note “On Russia’s Financial Resources for the Continuation of the Fight against Turkey and Europe,” which expressed the idea that the side whose funds would endure longer would win the war. Each year of the war cost Russia 100-150 million rubles, which led to a huge increase in the state budget deficit. According to Koshelev, it was impossible to increase taxes from taxable estates, they were already unbearable without that. Obtaining external loans from enemy countries was difficult. Therefore, we can only make an internal loan. And Koshelev developed a mechanism for the implementation of this project, including the convocation of elected representatives from all over the world who will help find the necessary funds. After the sudden death of Nicholas I and the accession to the throne of Alexander II, Koshelev sent a note to the new emperor.

Koshelev, who owned large estates in several provinces and several thousand souls of serfs, based on the experience of his more than 20 years of management, proved, on the one hand, the benefits of using free labor, and on the other hand, the preservation of the peasant community. The landowners, Koshelev's neighbors, increased the plowing and established factories (especially distilleries) using the labor of serfs, and this led to the impoverishment of the peasants. Koshelev considered such a policy unreasonable, leading to an increase in social tension. He was a resolute opponent of the development of Russia along the same path that Western Europe had taken:

“We have before us a Europe, impoverished by the excessive development of private property, disturbed by communism, socialism and other similar ailments, suppressed for a time, but by no means destroyed, which subsequently will shake her life more than once, a Europe that is now sacrificing a significant share of their private property for the benefit of the proletarians, not out of Christian brotherly love, but solely in order to save the rest of their property in this way. In England, the land has become the property of a few who lease it to farmers. In France, the land is divided into such small plots that they can only be worked with a spade. And Koshelev emphasizes the fundamental difference between land and any other type of wealth. “Land is not wealth like some plant, factory, house, or other special wealth; it is wealth par excellence; who owns it, he is the master in the country ... Because no matter how wise a person is, the land still remains the main source of his food and satisfaction of his other needs. Both the person and the state are independent if the land is the basis of their wealth. And therefore, it is very important how landed property is distributed in society ... The method of land ownership gives the state its distinctive character, gives the main direction to its actions and decides a lot in its fate ... Every exclusivity causes its opposite, and consequently, struggle; common, reliable and significant prosperity can only be in the midst of peace and good harmony, which is possible only if the rights and benefits of various classes are balanced in all respects, and especially in relation to what constitutes wealth in the state par excellence ... As for the methods cultivation of the land, then it is determined in each country not so much by the requirements of the science of agriculture, but by the very structure of ownership, the life of the inhabitants, their customs and customs. This last circumstance is overlooked by some masters and political economists, who forget a man in the midst of worries about his wealth; but it is nonetheless omnipotent in its actions.”

Koshelev resolutely opposes those who preach the experience of the Baltic barons, who had great influence at court. In Estonia, society is clearly divided into masters and laborers, who do not even live in their homes and do not dine with their families.

Political economists demand, in the name of progress, the abolition of communal ownership of land, which does not exist in the West, as a remnant of barbarism, and which is the basis for all enterprises arranged in common. And most importantly, it eliminates the possibility of a proletariat, that greatest plague of European states. A community is not just an institution, it is a living organism. At the same time, the peasantry is the most faithful guardian of the traditional foundations of national, folk life: “All estates, to a greater or lesser extent, were fascinated by foreign thoughts, customs and customs, but not the peasants.” It is their fidelity to tradition that determines the strength of the Russian state.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Koshelev made a great contribution to the theoretical substantiation of the need for Russia to build extensive railways. At that time, public opinion was dominated by those figures who saw Russia as still mainly an agricultural country. Naturally, they proposed to build roads leading from the centers of grain production (Kursk or Orel) to the Black Sea and Baltic ports, from where it is exported. Koshelev resolutely objected to them, refuting "the opinion invented by foreign writers and repeated by our political economists that Russia is an agricultural state." We have half of Russia in terms of the nature of the soil, climate and location in the North - a territory unsuitable for agriculture. Moreover, “a black-earth estate, not even remote from the piers, will never give a real income if there is no factory or factory production in it or in its vicinity.” The peasants are in great need of money, which is extremely difficult to earn in purely rural areas, especially in winter. Without industry, the country will not be able to improve agriculture, without factories and plants there will be no welfare and education of the people.

Koshelev was opposed to the construction of roads designed exclusively for export - not only grain, but also industrial products: “Our market for manufactured goods is not foreign, but our own, domestic. Russia is not Belgium, not some German duchy, but a whole part of the world, the whole world, and if we do not export manufactured goods worth even a single ruble, then it still cannot be concluded that our factories and factories are insignificant ... Still a huge the future lies ahead for our industry before we feel the overflow of the market - the disease of Europe, forcing it to especially fuss about opening new foreign markets.

Koshelev showed a significant difference in the conditions of the folding of the railway network in Western Europe and in Russia. In Europe, railroads were built to meet the needs of an already developed industry; in Russia, the mines of material, mental, and moral capital have barely begun. In the USA, every state wants to be the first, Russia is a huge and autocratic state. In addition, Russia is a great state and a people new to world history, who have yet to seriously declare themselves in the international arena. After all, Europe is an old land and old people. USA - new land and old people (migrants from Europe). And Russia is a new land and new people. And we need not be equal to the old countries, but carefully look into the real needs of the state and society.

Largely thanks to Koshelev, Russian economic thought found a reasonable compromise between the benefits of private companies and national interests. According to him, not a single private company will build railways, guided only by the highest state considerations. But in Russia, we have a government over companies that has leverage over private traders. It would be a mistake to be guided in the construction of railways by exclusively higher considerations. Where there is no movement of goods and passengers, it is absurd to build railways there. It is unnatural to build roads through the desert, bypassing the cities. But if we compare two road options, of which one is commercially more profitable, but does not meet the requirements of the defense and security of the state, then the second option, which satisfies higher considerations, is preferable.

Koshelev looked at the experience of the West, to which his opponents referred, from a completely different angle: “Even in Europe, in countries predominantly commercial and industrial, they began to worry and talk about the fact that the predominance of material interests over other human needs is harmful, that worship one useful thing is not only not useful for people, but even fatal, and what is necessary for a person and for the state to have, in addition to material benefits, a different leader in his affairs. Shall we turn to the tasks of Europe, in order to reach the conviction, through sad, painful experience, to which Europe is now coming?

Koshelev was the only one of the "senior Slavophiles" who not only lived to see the abolition of serfdom, but also for more than twenty years was active in public activities in the conditions of post-reform Russia, worked in zemstvo and city self-government bodies. The reality of post-reform Russia turned out to be far from the ideals professed by the Slavophiles. Their work continued to be heavily censored and largely banned. Back in 1862, Koshelev wrote a long scientific article "What is the nobility and what should it be?", Published in the form of a pamphlet in Leipzig under the title "What is the outcome for Russia from its current situation?".

The article noted that dissatisfaction with the current situation in the country reigns in all strata of Russian society. The nobility lost possession of land and serfs, and this happened unexpectedly for him, and how it will live on, what to exist on, what place it will take in the life of the country is unknown. The peasants received freedom, but with such a noticeable decrease in land allotments that they could not even provide their own food, not to mention the payment of taxes. In addition, corporal punishment was left for them, and the rod became the main means of their admonition. Among them, there is a widespread belief that "the Tsar wanted to give us free rein, but the bars deceived him and enslaved us again." They do not believe that the Tsar could leave them homeless orphans. Merchants and philistines are dissatisfied with the new order. This does not mean that the country has become worse than it was. No, it has become better, but before everything was certain, but now confusion reigns everywhere, however, natural for any transitional period. Further, the article discusses the state of the peasant, noble, financial affairs, bureaucracy, etc. Of particular interest is the following passage from a characterization of the state of the Russian economy: “Our (foreign) trade proceeds in such a way that we constantly pay extra money for excess imports against exports. We spend little on improving communications, on spreading education, and on other productive expenditures, and yet our budget always presents deficits that must be covered either by loans or by new issues of banknotes. We mine annually a significant amount of silver and gold, and we do not have a single full-fledged ringing coin in circulation. Why all this?

The fact that our paper ruble could not be exchanged for gold, Koshelev considered a manifestation of state bankruptcy. “A private person is imprisoned for this, but the bureaucracy commits it and still demands that they continue to believe it ... The return of the ruble to its true dignity is an urgent and necessary matter in moral, political and economic relations. Both a private person and the state, first fulfill their duty and only then freely dispose of their money ... The most difficult loan is more profitable than insolvency, because it undermines, destroys credit, and in our time it is impossible to live without credit, like without air.

Koshelev criticizes the bureaucratic methods of managing the national economy, rightly noting that it is in many ways reminiscent of the times of serfdom.

"Our state economy still retains many similarities with our former landlord economy." “Officials and dignitaries of various kinds and ranks, like stars in the sky, there is no number; their salaries, for the most part, although moderate, however, with the inclusion of various additional and emergency appointments, they become both very significant and extremely difficult for the people; direct taxes, it is true, increase little and slowly, but on the other hand indirect taxes grow by leaps and bounds; in the absence of ordinary revenues, our financial management is not hindered by the taxation of future generations, that is, it enters into loans, despite the fact that we are at peace with the whole world and that we spend no more on improving communications than we will and must subsequently spend annually on various production costs. In a word, thrift and economy are not the hallmarks of our financial management.” The king is certainly not to blame for this. The intentions of the Sovereign are beautiful, but their execution, by the grace of the bureaucracy, is such that these good intentions remain in vain. Here is how the administration of state finances is carried out: “Estimates are compiled by each ministry separately, not in the sense of a general state economy, but as if each ministry were a completely separate unit (“a state within a state”). These estimates are reported to the Ministry of Finance and the State Audit Office, who write their comments on them; then everything is entered into the Department of State Economy, which employs two sailors, one engineer, one military officer and two civil dignitaries, none of whom has ever been involved in financial business. At the end of everything, the general state estimate is submitted to the general meeting of the state council, where everything ends in one or two meetings and is submitted for approval by the Highest. With such a course of affairs, can there be a real consideration of the state painting? We do not have a careful, thorough, self-interested and responsible analysis and discussion of the list of necessary expenses and incomes, and under the current circumstances cannot be. State control ... has become a pro forma institution.”

Such a system of government could more or less function under the conditions of serfdom, but it turned out to be completely inconsistent with the new conditions for the development of Russia: “In the old days, managing finance, like any other part of state administration, was not difficult: things were simple, serfdom fettered everyone and all; even doubting its legitimacy and the thought of its abolition were considered offenses and subjected to responsibility those who allowed themselves to do so. Under the shadow of general silence and all sorts of abuses, which everyone tried to use as much as they could, things went on, so to speak, by themselves, it only remained not to delay them and not to change their course by introducing any reformist ideas into it. Landlords, officials, and especially dignitaries had a free life; but who thought about peasants, philistines and other vile people? Then almost no one in the administration made any demands; and if any requests and complaints were submitted, they tried to satisfy them on the basis of the beloved Russian rule: "sin in half."

Now the circumstances have completely changed. Matters in general became extremely complicated, confused, and took a completely different turn; but financial affairs in particular, as for people the closest and most sensitive, and in their essence the most diverse, have undergone a particularly significant change. Credit, huge speculations, the rapprochement not only of people, but also of peoples among themselves, the rise in price of almost everything, the demand for equalization in the taxation of taxes, etc. - these are the subjects to which the financial administration paid almost no attention before and which are now demanded from their side. the most thorough study and the most watchful solicitude. Now every issue must be considered, discussed and resolved not one-sidedly - in the form of benefiting the treasury, but also with the observance of the interests of private individuals. Now people are not inclined to be silent and endure everything in the form of "messages from above"; but they demand from the rulers not only a wise arrangement of state affairs, but also such an arrangement that would correspond to the desires of the people. Who is now, I do not say one, but also surrounded by hundreds of advisers and assistants, placed, like himself, in the unilateral position of administrators, not experiencing the effects of these regulations, is able to conduct general financial affairs with success and with proper attention to the needs of the country and its many and varied actors? Now things are generally arranged in such a way that there is no way not only to manage them, but even to truly understand them without the help and assistance of people who are directly interested in them. Now the participation of the country in the conduct of its common affairs, through its elected representatives, has become an absolutely imperative necessity. And those act in bad faith who charge themselves and the officials appointed by them with the conduct of common affairs, without the assistance of society itself ...

Under the current circumstances, in the extremely critical state of private, public and state financial affairs, their one-sided bureaucratic management no longer meets the needs of our time and our country. With the abolition of the serfdom of people from their owners, their emancipation is inevitable in other respects as well. The cooperation of the whole society towards liberation from the abyss in which we find ourselves is absolutely necessary. The burdens now imposed on citizens can only be endured if one is convinced of their inevitability ... "

M. Antonov

Used materials from the site Great Encyclopedia of the Russian people - http://www.rusinst.ru

Read further:

Philosophers, lovers of wisdom (biographical index).

Compositions:

About the tests of English and American machines and guns in 1852. M., 1852;

Considerations regarding the construction of railways in Russia / / Russian conversation, 1856. Vol. 1, 3;

What is the outcome for Russia from its current situation? Leipzig, 1862;

About the all-estate volost / / Conversation. 1872. Prince. 3; Introductory speech//In memory of the book. V.F. Odoevsky. M., 1869;

On military service from a zemstvo point of view. M., 1871.

Notes. M., 1991 (introductory article and comments by N. I. Tsimbaev).

Literature:

Kolupanov N.I. Biography of A.I. Koshelev. T. 1–2. M., 1889–92;

Dudzinskaya E.A. At the origins of the formation of anti-serf views A.I. Kosheleva // Social movement in the central provinces of Russia in the 2nd half. XIX - n. XX centuries Ryazan, 1984;

Dudzinskaya E.A. Social and political activity of A.I. Koshelev in the post-reform period//Revolutionaries and liberals of Russia. M., 1990;

Popov I.N. Activities of A.I. Kosheleva in the field of public education//Public thought and class struggle in the central provinces of Russia in the 2nd half. 19th century Ryazan, 1988;

Pirozhkova T.F. "Chief manager" of the magazine "Russian conversation" (A.I. Koshelev) // Slavophil journalism. M., 1997;

Gornov V. A. I. Koshelev//Domestic history. Encyclopedia. M., 2000. T. 3.

Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev was one of the leaders of liberal Slavophilism, the author of projects for nationwide reforms, and the founder of newspapers and magazines. He moved in well-known literary circles, among prominent personalities, made friends, argued, created. He was loved and appreciated for his generosity of heart and breadth of soul. Koshelev wrote his memoirs, realizing how important it was: “May God help me to do a deed that can be useful in time.”

Alexander Koshelev was born in Moscow on May 9, 1806 (according to the old style). His father Ivan Rodionovich received an excellent education, spoke several languages, and was known in Moscow as a "liberal lord." Mother - Daria Nikolaevna Desjardins (Desjardins), the daughter of a French emigrant, born in Russia and baptized in the Orthodox faith - was an energetic and well-read woman.

At an early age, Koshelev was trained by his parents - his father studied Russian, history, geography with his son, and his mother studied French. Later, hired teachers appeared - A.F. Merzlyakov, from whom Koshelev, together with his peers, the Kireevsky brothers, took lessons in rhetoric and belles-lettres, and Kh. A. Shletser, Jr., who taught political economy. In 1822, Koshelev entered Moscow University, left it a year later, not wanting to obey the demands of his superiors, but continued to study the sciences of interest to him from university teachers. Moscow University made friends with young people whose works have become an adornment of Russian literature: Dmitry Venevitinov, Vladimir Odoevsky, the Khomyakov brothers, the Kireevsky brothers, Alexander Koshelev. In this environment of the "golden" youth, a society of wisdom was born.

In 1824, Koshelev took an exam at the university, which was required by decree of 1809, after which he entered the service of the Moscow Archive of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, a repository of diplomatic documents from the pre-Petrine era and the beginning of Peter's reign. Representatives of the “golden” youth already belonged to the Archive: Odoevsky, Venevitinov, S. P. Shevyrev, through whom Koshelev met the future Decembrists E. P. Obolensky, I. I. Pushchin, K. F. Ryleev, M. A. Fonvizin . The service was not burdensome, and the head of the archive A.F. Malinovsky, in order to somehow occupy the “archival youths”, forced them to describe the diplomatic relations of Russia with one state or another over the years. In their free time, the young men practiced not only wisdom and literary polemics, but also improved their riding and fencing skills: it seemed that these skills would be needed in the event of "decisive action." On the eve of the events of December 1825, the "wise men" took more radical positions, and Koshelev, at meetings held with his great-brother M. M. Naryshkin, even spoke of "the need to make a change of government in Russia."

The uprising on Senate Square excited Koshelev and his comrades: every day they expected new news, prepared for any development of events. However, enthusiasm soon gave way to disappointment and strengthened the confidence in the unacceptability of education and moral self-improvement.

In 1826, Koshelev was appointed to St. Petersburg, to serve in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Soon the brothers Venevitinov and Khomyakov, as well as the former "archival youths", moved to the northern capital. By the time of Koshelev's stay in St. Petersburg is the first acquaintance with A. S. Khomyakov, with whom he became especially close at the bedside of the dying Dmitry Venevitinov and who later had a decisive influence on his way of thinking.

In the summer of 1831, Alexander Koshelev went abroad. Germany, Switzerland, France, England - everything makes an indelible impression on him. In Weimar, he meets the great Goethe, in Geneva he meets his acquaintances - Stepan Shevyrev and Sergei Sobolevsky, and together they listen to an academic course of lectures: on botany from Decandole, on chemistry from Delarive and on criminal law from Rossi. About the influence of the latter, Koshelev would later write: “This man developed many new thoughts in me and established real liberalism in me, which, unfortunately, is rarely found in our country ... I owe a lot to this good influence on me of the famous Rossi liberation of our serfs…”.

Koshelev's life changed dramatically after he married Olga Petrovo-Solovova and in the same year acquired the village of Pesochnoye in the Sapozhkovsky district of the Ryazan province from Prince V.V. Dolgoruky. Things on the estate were in complete disarray, so Koshelev retired, moved to the estate and seriously engaged in agriculture. Here he introduced secular government: the world elected the headman, but Koshelev was against the usual unanimity. The headman and the world were given court along with the distribution of taxes. On the estate, Koshelev started several schools. The Koshelev distillery, located on the estate, involved him in farming operations. He held the ransom until 1848; practice convinced him of the inconvenience of this way of doing business, and he provided the Minister of Finance with a note on replacing the tax-farming system with the introduction of an excise tax. The note, however, was not given a move. Being the marshal of the nobility of Sapozhkovsky, Koshelev was a tireless pursuer of the abuses of serfdom, not hesitating to fight against the richest and most influential landowners. Reading the Holy Scriptures and the works of the Church Fathers led Koshelev to the idea of ​​the unconditional abolition of serfdom. In the autumn of 1847, Alexander Ivanovich proposed to reform the relationship between landowners and serfs. The governor did not dare to discuss this issue without the consent of St. Petersburg. In response to Koshelev's letter to the Minister of the Interior, L. A. Perovsky said that "His Majesty finds it inconvenient at the present time to subject this matter to a discussion of the nobility." However, the Zemledelcheskaya Gazeta published an abbreviated article by Koshelev "Hunting more than captivity." Even before its publication, the Ryazan landowners took the idea of ​​the farmer with hostility.

For the winter, the Koshelev family returned to Moscow, where preference was given not to secular amusements, but to literary evenings arranged in the houses of Elagina, the Sverbeevs and near Koshelev himself. It was there that the beginnings of the struggle between the emerging Slavophilism and the then dominant Westernism began to appear. As Koshelev himself notes in his Notes, at that time only Khomyakov belonged to the first direction, while both the Kireevsky brothers and Koshelev himself still belonged to the latter.

Koshelev's Slavophilism should be discussed separately. Three circumstances led him to the Slavophil circle: a long-standing closeness to Khomyakov and the Kireevsky brothers, the persistent efforts of the Slavophiles to promote the emancipation of the serfs, to which Koshelev greatly sympathized, and a craving for philosophy, which he studied seriously and deeply. In his youth, a Schellingian lover of wisdom, Koshelev valued Spinoza "above the gospel." In the 1840s - 1850s. he read the writings of the Church Fathers, reflecting on the fact that a Christian can be a slave, but should not be a slave owner. In Slavophilism, as a variety of liberal ideology, Koshelev was attracted by loyalty to the Orthodox tradition. On some issues Koshelev disagreed with the other members of the circle. The only one of the Slavophiles, he was sympathetic to the oligarchic claims of the nobility. His harsh criticism of the government bureaucracy was aimed at defending the privileges of the nobility, which was clearly manifested during his service in the Kingdom of Poland. Koshelev's idea of ​​a class Zemsky Duma contradicted the theory of a classless society, which was developed in the post-reform years by I. Aksakov, F. Chizhov and V. Elagin.

Koshelev parted ways with Slavophilism painlessly, being convinced that the time for Slavophiles and Westernizers had irrevocably passed. The departure from Slavophilism did not at all mean disappointment in Orthodox patristics, although it should be noted that the influence of positivism is noticeable in Koshelev's later pamphlets.

Koshelev argued that the Slavophiles were "the most zealous champions of the liberation of the peasants" - it was no accident that the government found an opportunity to invite Yu. Samarin, A. Popov and Prince Cherkassky to work on the Editorial Commission. In turn, in 1857 Koshelev single-handedly compiled a very voluminous note justifying the need to abolish serfdom and sent it to the sovereign.

In 1858, on the proposal of the Ryazan Governor M. K. Klingenberg (and in fact through the efforts of the Vice-Governor M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin), Koshelev was appointed a government member to the Ryazan Provincial Committee on Peasant Affairs. Koshelev was among the eighteen deputies from the provincial committees who demanded that the final draft of the peasant reform, developed by the Editorial Commissions, be submitted for their consideration.

In 1861, after the announcement of the manifesto of Alexander II, Koshelev had to call in a battalion of the Siberian Grenadier Regiment to pacify the peasant revolt in Pesochnya - this is how his former peasants reacted to the terms of the land purchase. The nobles of the Sapozhkovsky district, whom he had been convincing since 1847 of the need for reform, also began to hate their former leader. Friends - Slavophiles, with whom he had no differences on the peasant issue, accelerated Koshelev in excessive loyalty and desire for cooperation with the authorities, and were not far from the truth.

Back in 1854, in the conditions of the financial crisis caused by the war, Koshelev drew up a note “On Russia's funds in the present circumstances” and in 1855 submitted it to Alexander II. In 1859 - 1860s. he was a member of the commission on the drafts of the normative charter of land banks and mortgage regulations, in 1860 - chairman of the distillery subcommittee. In 1862, having become chairman of the Moscow Society of Agriculture, Koshelev came up with a project to convene the Zemstvo Duma. During the Polish uprising of 1863-1864. Koshelev approved of the actions of the Vilna Governor-General M. N. Muravyov, considered the existence of an independent Polish state impossible, and was appointed financial manager in the Kingdom of Poland. His (as well as Prince Cherkassky's) participation in the actions of the government in Poland caused a negative reaction among the Slavophiles. Koshelev answered: "I am in my soul for power ...".

As the richest of the Slavophiles, Koshelev financed many Slavophil publications, some of which he edited himself. In 1852, at his expense, the first volume of the Moscow Collection was published (edited by I. S. Aksakov), in 1856 the journal Russkaya Beseda was founded, in 1858 the newspaper Selskoe landscaping (until August 1858 Mr. Koshelev edited both editions himself). In 1861, Koshelev published the complete works of I. V. Kireevsky, in 1871 - 1872. subsidized the journal "Conversation" (editor S. A. Yuriev), in 1880 - 1882. - the newspaper "Zemstvo" (editor - V. Yu. Skalon).

From 1865 until the end of his days, Koshelev was a member of the Sapozhkovsky district and Ryazan provincial zemstvo assemblies, from the 1870s. - Vowel of the Moscow City Duma.

In recent years, he was mainly engaged in journalism, wrote and published dozens of articles in the journal "Russian Thought", the newspapers "Voice", "Ryazan Gubernskie Vedomosti", "Rus". He drew the attention of the reading public to the exorbitance of public spending, argued the need for austerity in the financial sector, developed the idea of ​​uniting the nobility with other estates in order to gradually overcome the omnipotence of the bureaucracy, criticized the zemstvo institutions for developing in them a "noble-serf and lawyer-liberal" direction, noted the weak representation of peasants in zemstvos.

Some of Koshelev's works, which, for censorship reasons, could not be published in Russia, were published in Berlin and Leipzig. He considered it his duty to warn the government against erroneous actions, even when it itself did not want to listen to him.

Koshelev's attitude to charity was unconventional for that time. He was rather cool about the activities of the church in the field of social assistance, critically assessed the practice of closed forms of charity (almshouses and invalid homes), preferring public medicine and zemstvo charitable institutions.

The terrorist attack on March 1, 1881 crossed out Koshelev's hopes for the realization of his political ideal - the Zemstvo Duma, and became a serious moral trauma for him. But he didn't stop working. On the day of his death, November 12, 1883, Koshelev managed to attend a meeting of the Moscow City Duma. He was buried in the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery next to the graves of his Slavophile friends.