Russian history from ancient times Shcherbatov 1774. Biography. Shcherbatov Mikhail Mikhailovich
- Moscow, Russian empire
- St. Petersburg, Russian empire
Encyclopedic YouTube
1 / 1
✪ Great Tartaria in Russian-language sources
Subtitles
Biography
| Prince, armchair man, writer, writes the history of Russia. He is very educated, and in all likelihood a philosopher, it is very interesting to talk with him. Both of them, with his wife, are people of poor health, the wife barely had time to recover from a number of births. This does not make their home cheerful, but they have a married daughter, Mrs. Spiridova, who warms the family with her presence. |
Shcherbatov as a historian
Shcherbatov was a historian and publicist, economist and politician, philosopher and moralist, a man of truly encyclopedic knowledge. In The History of Russia from Ancient Times (brought to 1610) he emphasized the role of the feudal aristocracy, reducing historical progress to the level of knowledge, science and the mind of individuals. At the same time, Shcherbatov's work is saturated with a large number of acts, chronicles, etc. Shcherbatov found and published some valuable monuments, including The Royal Book, The Chronicle of Many Rebellions, The Journal of Peter the Great, and others. According to S. M. Solovyov, the shortcomings of Shcherbatov’s works were the result of began to study Russian history when he began to write it, ”and he was in a hurry to write it. Until his death, Shcherbatov continued to be interested in political, philosophical and economic issues, expounding his views in a number of articles.
He began to study Russian history under the influence of Miller, about which he himself speaks in the preface to Vol. I. "Russian History". Based on 12 lists taken from different monasteries, and 7 of his own, without any preliminary preparation, he set about compiling history. At the same time, Shcherbatov's intensified publishing activity began. He prints: in 1769, according to the list of the patriarchal library, "The Royal Book"; in 1770, at the behest of Catherine II - "History of the Svean War", personally corrected by Peter the Great; in 1771 - "Chronicle of many rebellions"; in 1772 - "Royal Chronicler". His own history somewhat slowed down due to the need to add archival sources to chronicle sources, which had not been touched by anyone except Miller before him. In 1770, he received permission to use the documents of the Moscow archive of a foreign collegium, where the spiritual and contractual letters of the princes from the middle of the 13th century and the monuments of diplomatic relations from the last quarter of the 15th century were kept.
Shcherbatov had to defend his work from attacks, especially against Boltin. In 1789, he published a “Letter to a friend, in justification for some hidden and obvious blasphemy committed by Mr. Major General Boltin”, which caused Boltin’s answer and Shcherbatov’s rebuke, which was published after his death, in 1792, Boltin pointed out a number of Shcherbatov’s mistakes: 1) in reading the annals, such as turning the “banner” into a “stack”, “walk on it” into “go to the rescue”, etc. and 2) complete unfamiliarity Shcherbatov with historical ethnography and geography. Indeed, his history suffers greatly in this regard. Shcherbatov did not manage to navigate ancient ethnography, but limited himself to retelling the news from French sources, and even then “only vaguely and randomly, according to his own statement, that it is impossible to compose any consequence of history from this.” But the fact is that this question was the most obscure, and only Schlözer managed to bring some light there.
In processing the annals, Shcherbatov, despite the mass of blunders for which he was reproached, took a step forward compared to Tatishchev in two respects. Firstly, he introduced new and very important lists into scientific use, such as the synodal list of the Novgorod Chronicle (XIII and XIV centuries), the Resurrection Code, etc. Secondly, he was the first to correctly handle chronicles, without merging the testimony of different lists into a consolidated text and distinguishing his text from the text of the sources to which he made exact references, although, as Bestuzhev-Ryumin notes, his way of quoting by number takes away the possibility of verification. Like other Russian historians of the 18th century, Shcherbatov still does not fully distinguish the source from its scientific processing and therefore prefers, for example, Synopsis to chronicles. The choice of data is beyond Shcherbatov's strength; obediently following the sources, he clutters up his work with trifles. Shcherbatov brought a lot of good things to Russian history by processing and publishing acts. Thanks to his history and Novikov's Vivliofika, science has mastered sources of paramount importance, such as spiritual, treaty letters of princes, monuments of diplomatic relations and article lists of embassies; there was, so to speak, the emancipation of history from the annals, and the possibility of studying a later period of history, where the testimony of the annals was impoverished or completely stopped, was pointed out. Finally, Miller and Shcherbatov published, and partly prepared for publication, a lot of archival material, especially from the time of Peter the Great. Shcherbatov connects the material obtained from chronicles and acts pragmatically, but his pragmatism is of a special kind - rationalistic or rationalistic-individualistic: the creator of history is the individual. The course of events is explained by the influence of the hero on the will of the masses or an individual, and the hero is guided by the selfish motives of his nature, the same for all people in different eras, and the mass obeys him out of stupidity or superstition, etc. For example, Shcherbatov does not try to discard the chronicle story about the courtship of the Byzantine emperor (already married) - on 70-year-old Olga, but gives him his own explanation: the emperor wanted to marry Olga in order to conclude an alliance with Russia. He explains the conquest of Russia by the Mongols by the excessive piety of the Russians, which killed the former warlike spirit. According to his rationalism, Shcherbatov did not recognize the possibility of the miraculous in history and treats religion coldly. In terms of the nature of the beginning of Russian history and the general course of it, Shcherbatov is closest to Schlözer. He sees the goal of compiling his history in a better acquaintance with contemporary Russia, that is, he looks at history from a practical point of view, although in another place, based on Hume, he reaches the modern view of history as a science striving to discover the laws that govern the life of mankind. Among his contemporaries, the story of Shcherbatov was not successful: it was considered uninteresting and incorrect, and Shcherbatov himself was considered devoid of historical talent (emp. Catherine II).
Shcherbatov as a publicist
In the 1770s, Shcherbatov wrote a number of journalistic articles and notes, and at the end of the 1780s, the essay “On the Corruption of Morals in Russia”, where he sharply criticized government policy and the morals of the court environment. In 1783, he wrote the utopian novel Journey to the Land of Ophir, in which he outlined his ideal of a state, essentially a policeman, relying on the nobility, prospering at the expense of the labor of forced slaves.
Shcherbatov is interesting mainly as a staunch defender of the nobility. His political and social views are not far removed from that era. Of his numerous articles - “A Conversation about the Immortality of the Soul”, “Consideration of Human Life”, “On the Benefits of a Shortcoming”, etc. - his utopia is of particular interest - “Journey to the Land of Ophir, Mr. S., a Swedish nobleman” (not completed ). The ideal Ophir state is ruled by a sovereign whose power is limited to the highest nobility. The rest of the classes, even the ordinary nobility, have no access to higher power. Shcherbatov does not know the need for every citizen to take part in the government, to ensure personal freedom. The first estate is the nobility, entry into which is prohibited. It alone has the right to own inhabited lands; it is even recommended (in an article on the famine in 1787) to give all the land to the nobles.
He recommends organizing military service according to the type of military settlements, which was later done in Russia and suffered a complete fiasco. The rationality of the century left a strong imprint on him. His views on the religion of officers are especially characteristic: religion, like education, should be strictly utilitarian, serve to protect order, peace and tranquility, which is why police officers are clergy. In other words, Shcherbatov does not recognize the Christian religion of love, although this does not prevent him in his article “On the Corruption of Morals in Russia” from attacking rationalist philosophy and Catherine II as her representative in Russia. The extent to which Shcherbatov himself was imbued with rationalism, however, is evident from his opinion that it is possible to re-create the state in a very short time and establish an unshakable order for millennia, in which only some amendments will be needed.
SHCHERBATOV MIKHAIL MIKHAILOVICH
Shcherbatov (Prince Mikhail Mikhailovich) - historian. He was born into a very wealthy family in 1733. He received his primary education at home. Since 1750, he served in the Life Guards Semenovsky Regiment, but immediately after the manifesto on February 18, 1762, he retired. Early realizing the shortcomings of his education, he tried to fill them with independent reading. In the civil service, where he soon entered, Shcherbatov had every opportunity to become well acquainted with the then situation in Russia. In 1767, as a deputy from the Yaroslavl nobility, he participated in the commission to draw up a new code, where, in the spirit of the mandate given to him by the voters, he very zealously defended the interests of the nobility and fought with all his might against the liberal-minded minority. Somewhat earlier, Shcherbatov began to study Russian history, under the influence of Miller, as he himself speaks in the preface to Volume I of Russian History. In 1767, Shcherbatov was probably introduced to Catherine II, and she gave him access to the patriarchal and printing libraries, where lists of annals were collected, sent by decree of Peter I from various monasteries. On the basis of 12 lists taken from there, and 7 of Shcherbatov's own, without any preliminary preparation, he set about compiling a story. Despite the fact that in 1768 he was appointed to the commission on commerce and that he was instructed by the empress to sort out the papers of Peter I, his work went very quickly: by 1769 he had completed the first 2 volumes, until 1237. publishing activity of Shcherbatov. He prints: in 1769, according to the list of the patriarchal library, "The Royal Book"; in 1770, at the behest of Catherine II - "The History of the Svean War", personally corrected by Peter the Great; in 1771 - "Chronicle of many rebellions", in 1772 - "Royal chronicler". His own history somewhat slowed down due to the need to add archival sources to chronicle sources, which had not been touched by anyone except Miller before him. In 1770, he received permission to use the documents of the Moscow archive of a foreign collegium, where the spiritual and contractual letters of the princes from the middle of the 13th century and the monuments of diplomatic relations from the last quarter of the 15th century were kept. Energetically set to work on the development of these data, Shcherbatov in 1772 completed volume III, and in 1774 volume IV of his work. Not limited to some historical works, he in 1776 - 1777. composes a remarkable work on statistics, understanding it in the broad sense of the Achenwall school, that is, in the sense of state studies. His "Statistics in the Discourse of Russia" embraced 12 headings: 1) space, 2) borders, 3) fertility (economic description), 4) plurality (population statistics), 5) faith, 6) government, 7) strength, 8) income , 9) trade, 10) manufactory, 11) national character and 12) the location of neighbors to Russia. In 1778 he became president of the College of Chambers, and was appointed to attend an expedition of distilleries; in 1779 he was appointed senator. Until his death, Shcherbatov continued to be interested in political, philosophical and economic issues, expounding his views in a number of articles. Its history also moved very quickly. The last volumes, XIV and XV (before the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky) were published a year after his death (Shcherbatov died in 1790). At present, most of Prince Shcherbatov's works have already been published, and his personality, as a historian and publicist, can be fully clarified. Shcherbatov as a historian. Shcherbatov, during his lifetime, had to defend his work from general attacks, especially against Boltin. In 1789, he published a "Letter to a friend, in justification for some hidden and obvious blasphemy committed by his story from Mr. Major General Boltin", which caused Boltin's response and Shcherbatov's rebuke, which was published after his death in 1792 Boltin pointed out a number of Shcherbatov's mistakes: 1) in reading the annals, such as turning the "banner" into a "stack", "following it" into "going to help", and so on, and 2) Shcherbatov's complete unfamiliarity with historical ethnography and geography . Indeed, the history of Shcherbatov suffers greatly in this regard. Shcherbatov was unable to navigate ancient ethnography, but limited himself to retelling the news from French sources, and even then "so vaguely and disorderly, according to his own statement, that it is impossible to compose any consequence of history from this." But the fact is that this question was the most obscure, and only Schlozer managed to bring some light into it. In any case, Shcherbatov is often more knowledgeable and cautious than Boltin. In processing the annals, Shcherbatov, despite the whole mass of blunders for which he was reproached, took a step forward in comparison with Tatishchev in two respects. Firstly, Shcherbatov introduced new and very important lists into scientific use, such as the synodal list of the Novgorod Chronicle (XIII and XIV centuries), the Resurrection Code and others. Secondly, he was the first to deal correctly with the annals, not merging the testimony of different lists into a consolidated text and distinguishing his text from the text of the sources to which he made exact references, although, as Bestuzhev-Ryumin notes, his way of quoting by number takes away the possibility of verification . Like the rest of our historians of the 18th century, Shcherbatov still does not fully distinguish between a source and its scientific processing, and therefore prefers, for example, Synopsis to chronicles. Shcherbatov is still beyond his powers to select the data; obediently following the sources, he clutters up his work with trifles. Shcherbatov brought a lot of good things to Russian history by processing and publishing acts. Thanks to its history and Novikov's "Vivliofika", science has mastered sources of paramount importance, such as: spiritual, contractual letters of princes, monuments of diplomatic relations and article lists of embassies; there was, so to speak, the emancipation of history from the annals, and the possibility of studying a later period of history, where the testimony of the annals becomes scarce or completely stops, was indicated. Finally, Miller and Shcherbatov published, and partly prepared for publication, a lot of archival material, especially from the time of Peter the Great. Shcherbatov connects the material obtained from chronicles and acts pragmatically, but his pragmatism is of a special kind - rationalistic or rationalistic-individualistic: the creator of history is the individual. The course of events is explained by the influence of the hero on the will of the masses or an individual, and the hero is guided by the selfish motives of his nature, which are the same for all people in different eras, and the masses obey him out of stupidity or superstition, etc. For example, Shcherbatov does not try to discard annalistic story about the courtship of the Byzantine emperor (already married) to 70-year-old Olga, but gives him his own explanation: the emperor wanted to marry Olga in order to conclude an alliance with Russia. He explains the conquest of Russia by the Mongols by the excessive piety of the Russians, which killed the former warlike spirit. In accordance with his rationalism, Shcherbatov does not recognize the possibility of the miraculous in history and treats religion coldly. In his view of the nature of the beginning of Russian history and the general course of it, Shcherbatov stands closest to Schlozer. He sees the purpose of compiling his history in a better acquaintance with contemporary Russia, that is, he looks at history from a practical point of view, although in another place, based on Hume, he reaches the modern view of history as a science striving to discover the laws that govern the life of mankind. Among his contemporaries, Shcherbatov's story was not successful: it was considered uninteresting and incorrect, and Shcherbatov himself was considered devoid of historical talent (Empress Catherine II); but this, as can be seen from what has been said, is not true, and Karamzin found quite plentiful food for himself at Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov, as a publicist, is interesting mainly as a convinced defender of the nobility. His political and social views are not far removed from that era. Of his numerous articles - "Conversation about the immortality of the soul", "Consideration of human life", "On the benefits of a lack", etc., of particular interest is his utopia - "Journey to the Land of Ophir by Mr. S. Izvetsky nobleman" (not finished). The ideal Ophir state is ruled by a sovereign whose power is limited to the highest nobility. The rest of the classes, even the ordinary nobility, have no access to higher power. Shcherbatov does not know the need for every citizen to take part in the government, the need to ensure personal freedom. The first estate is the nobility, entry into which is prohibited. It alone has the right to own inhabited lands; it is even recommended (in an article on the famine in 1787) to give all the land to the nobles. But Shcherbatov also constrains the nobles with a whole mass of petty rules. Recognizing the importance of education, Shcherbatov demands an increase in the number of schools, but does not give educated people the rights of a nobleman. The regional administration, which Shcherbatov especially attacked, he builds, however, in the same spirit, hampering it even more with an increase in bureaucracy and formalism. He recommends organizing military service according to the type of military settlements, which was later done in Russia and suffered a complete fiasco. The rationality of the century left a strong imprint on Shcherbatov. His views on the religion of the Ophirians are especially characteristic: religion, like education, should be strictly utilitarian, serve to protect order, peace and tranquility, which is why police officers are priests. In other words, Shcherbatov does not recognize the Christian religion of love, although this does not prevent him in his article "On the Corruption of Morals in Russia" from attacking rationalist philosophy and Catherine II, as her representative in Russia. The extent to which Shcherbatov himself was imbued with rationalism, however, is evident from his opinion that it is possible to re-create the state in a very short time and that an unshakable order can be established for whole millennia, in which only some amendments will be needed. Literature. Edition of the works of Prince M.M. Shcherbatov is not finished yet (volumes I, II, 1 part of volume III have been published). See Ikonnikov "Reply of Major General Boltin to the letter of Prince Shcherbatov" (St. Petersburg, 1789) and "Critical Notes on the History of Shcherbatov" (St. Petersburg, 1793 - 94); CM. Solovyov "Archive" (vol. II, floor 2); "The current state of Russian history as a science" ("Moscow Review", 1859, 1); Ikonnikov "Experience of Russian historiography"; Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Russian History" (vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1872); Milyukov "Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought" (Moscow, 1898); Myakotin "Noble publicist of the Catherine era" ("Russian wealth", 1898; reprinted in the collection of articles "From the history of Russian society"); N.D. Chechulin Russian social novel of the 18th century. G. Luchinsky.
Brief biographical encyclopedia. 2012
See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what is SHCHERBATOV MIKHAIL MIKHAILOVICH in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:
- SHCHERBATOV MIKHAIL MIKHAILOVICH in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
Mikhail Mikhailovich (July 22, 1733 - December 12, 1790), prince, Russian society. and statesman, historian and publicist. In early childhood, he was recorded in ... - SHCHERBATOV MIKHAIL MIKHAILOVICH
(Prince) is a historian. He was born into a very wealthy family in 1733. He received his primary education at home. From 1750 he served in ... - SHCHERBATOV MIKHAIL MIKHAILOVICH
(1733-90) prince, historian, publicist, honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1776). Ideologist of corporate aspirations of the nobility. Proceedings: "On the damage to morals in Russia", (1858), ... - SHCHERBATOV MIKHAIL MIKHAILOVICH in the Modern Encyclopedic Dictionary:
- SHCHERBATOV MIKHAIL MIKHAILOVICH in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
(1733 - 90), prince, historian, writer. Ideologist of the corporate aspirations of the Russian nobility. He looked for ways of prosperity of the nobility and condemned his moral vices. Proceedings: ... - MICHAEL in the Dictionary of Gypsy Names:
, Michael, Miguel, Michel (borrowed, male) - “who is like God” ... - SHCHERBATOV in the Dictionary of Russian Surnames:
The patronymic from the naming is chipped, that is, with some kind of physical defect (see Shcherbakov). In the XVI century. Chipped - a composite ... - MICHAEL
(who, like God) ARCHANGEL whose name occurs three times in the book. Daniel, once - in the letter of St. Judas and one... - MICHAEL in the Bible Encyclopedia of Nicephorus:
Numbers 13:14 - father of Sephur, one of the 12 spies of the land of Canaan. 1 Chronicles 5:13 - one of the coll. Gadov, who lived in ... - MICHAEL in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
Michael - Metropolitan of Kyiv. It is mentioned for the first time in the Book of Powers and the Nikon Chronicle. According to the inscription on his cancer came to ... - MICHAEL in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
(d. 992) Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia (989), miracle worker. Memory in the Orthodox Church on June 15 (28) and September 30 (13 ... - SHCHERBATOV in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
(Prince Mikhail Mikhailovich) - historian. He was born into a very wealthy family in 1733. He received his primary education at home. Since 1750 ... - MICHAEL TEAR in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
a southern Russian typographer, by birth a Belarusian, settled in Lvov in 1633 and became in charge of a stauropegial fraternal printing house, then opened his own ... - MIKHAIL MONASTYREV in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Mikhail (Andrei Ivanovich Monastyrev in the world; 1815-1846) - a graduate of the Oryol Seminary and the Kyiv Akd., got his hair cut in 1841 and received ... - MIKHAIL LUZIN in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
I Michael (in the world Matvey Ivanovich Luzin; 1830-1887) - theologian. He studied at the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary and the Moscow Theological Academy, where he ... - MICHAEL KOPYSTENSKY in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
since 1591 the bishop of Przemysl and Sambir, a champion of Orthodoxy, comes from a noble noble family (Leliv coat of arms). When the union was approved ... - MICHAEL KOZACHINSKY in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Mikhail (in the world - Manuil Ivanovich Kozachinsky) - a pupil of the Kyiv Akd. He traveled a lot in the Slavic lands and Germany, started schools ... - MICHAEL DESNITSKY in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Mikhail (in the world Matvey Desnitsky) is the son of a sexton, b. in 1762. He received his education at the Trinity Seminary and in the philological ... - MIKHAIL GRIBANOVSKY in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Bishop of Pryluky (since 1894); He received his education at the St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy. (1884). Left with academician, M., after defending his dissertation ... - MICHAEL in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Mikhail Yaroslavich - leader. prince of Tver. Born in 1271, table took about 1285; in 1286 he successfully pursued the Lithuanians, ... - SHCHERBATOV
SHCHERBATOV Mikh. Mich. (1733-90), prince, historian, publicist, post. h. Petersburg. AN (1776). Ideologist of corporate aspirations of the nobility. Tr.: "On the damage to morals ... - MIKHAILOVICH in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MIKHAILOVICH Draza (1893-1946), Serbian. general (1942), in 1941-45 the head of the Chetnik formations. In 1942-45 military. min. Yugoslav emigrant pr-va. Executed by… - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MIKHAIL YAROSLAVICH (1271-1318), prince of Tver from 1285, grand. prince of Vladimir in 1305-17. Struggled with the bike. Prince of Moscow Yuri Danilovich for ... - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MIKHAIL YAROSLAVICH Khorobrit (? -1248), Prince of Moscow from 1247, led. prince of Vladimir (1248), brother of Alexander ... - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MIKHAIL SHISHMAN (?-1330), Bulgarian. tsar from 1323. In 1324 he married a Byzantine granddaughter. imp. Andronikos II; concluded a military … - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MIKHAIL FYODOROVICH (1596-1645), tsar from 1613, the first tsar of the Romanov dynasty. Son F.N. Romanov (see Filaret) and K.I. Shestovoy … - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MICHAEL PSELL (before being tonsured a monk - Constantine) (1018 - c. 1078 or c. 1096), Byzant. polit. activist, writer, scientist, ... - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MIKHAIL PAVLOVICH (1798-1849), great. prince, ml. brother imp. Alexander I and Nicholas I. From 1819 General Feldzeugmeister, from 1825 General Inspector for ... - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MIKHAIL OBRENOVICH III (1823-68), Serb. prince in 1839-42 and from 1860, from the Obrenović dynasty. He continued the absolutist policy of his father Milos... - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MIKHAIL NIKOLAEVICH (1832-1909), great. prince, fourth son of the emperor. Nicholas I, general - feldm. (1878), post. h. Petersburg. AN (1855). Since 1852 ... - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MICHAEL KIRULARIUS (c. 1000-58), Patriarch of Constantinople from 1043. Byzant defended the independence. churches from imperial power, from the papacy. Conflict in 1054... - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MIKHAIL VSEVOLODOVYCH (1179-1246), Prince of Chernigov. In the 20s. 13th c. several once was a prince in Novgorod. From 1238 led. prince ... - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MIKHAIL BORISOVICH (1453 - c. 1505), the last great. Prince of Tver (1461-85). Participated in the campaigns of Ivan III to Novgorod and in ... - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MIKHAIL ALEKSANDROVICH (1878-1918), great. prince, brother of imp. Nicholas II, Lieutenant General (1916). In 1898-1912 for the military. service. To the 1st world. war... - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MIKHAIL ALEKSANDROVICH (1333-99), great. Prince of Tver since 1368. He fought unsuccessfully with Moscow. book. Dmitry for leading reign of Vladimir, received ... - MICHAEL in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
MICHAEL VIII (1224-82), emperor of Nicaea from 1259 (co-ruler of the emperor John IV until 1261), from 1261, after conquering Lat. empires... - SHCHERBATOV
(Prince Mikhail Mikhailovich)? historian. He was born into a very wealthy family in 1733. He received his primary education at home. Since 1750 ... - MIKHAILOVICH in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
(Eustace)? Serbian writer of the early 19th century, author of the novel "The Color of Innocence, or Dobriva and Alexander" (Budin, 1827) and the book ...
Early realizing the shortcomings of his education, he tried to fill them with independent reading. In the civil service, where he soon entered, Shcherbatov had every opportunity to become well acquainted with the then situation in Russia. In 1767, as a deputy from the Yaroslavl nobility, he participated in the commission to draw up a new code, where, in the spirit of the mandate given to him by the voters, he very zealously defended the interests of the nobility and fought with all his might against the liberal-minded minority. Somewhat earlier, Shcherbatov began to study Russian history, under the influence of Miller, as he himself speaks in the preface to Volume I of Russian History. In 1767, Shcherbatov was probably introduced to Catherine II, and she gave him access to the patriarchal and printing libraries, where lists of annals were collected, sent by decree of Peter I from various monasteries. On the basis of 12 lists taken from there, and 7 of Shcherbatov's own, without any preliminary preparation, he set about compiling a story. Despite the fact that in 1768 he was appointed to the commission on commerce and that he was instructed by the empress to sort out the papers of Peter I, his work went very quickly: by 1769 he had completed the first 2 volumes, until 1237. publishing activity of Shcherbatov. He prints: in 1769, according to the list of the patriarchal library, "The Royal Book"; in 1770, at the behest of Catherine II - "The History of the Svean War", personally corrected by Peter the Great; in 1771 - "Chronicle of many rebellions", in 1772 - "Royal chronicler". His own history somewhat slowed down due to the need to add archival sources to chronicle sources, which had not been touched by anyone except Miller before him. In 1770, he received permission to use the documents of the Moscow archive of a foreign collegium, where the spiritual and contractual letters of the princes from the middle of the 13th century and the monuments of diplomatic relations from the last quarter of the 15th century were kept. Energetically set to work on the development of these data, Shcherbatov in 1772 completed volume III, and in 1774 volume IV of his work. Not limited to some historical works, he in 1776 - 1777. composes a remarkable work on statistics, understanding it in the broad sense of the Achenwall school, that is, in the sense of state studies. His "Statistics in the Discourse of Russia" embraced 12 headings: 1) space, 2) borders, 3) fertility (economic description), 4) plurality (population statistics), 5) faith, 6) government, 7) strength, 8) income , 9) trade, 10) manufactory, 11) national character and 12) the location of neighbors to Russia. In 1778 he became president of the College of Chambers, and was appointed to attend an expedition of distilleries; in 1779 he was appointed senator. Until his death, Shcherbatov continued to be interested in political, philosophical and economic issues, expounding his views in a number of articles. Its history also moved very quickly. The last volumes, XIV and XV (before the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky) were published a year after his death (Shcherbatov died in 1790). At present, most of Prince Shcherbatov's works have already been published, and his personality, as a historian and publicist, can be fully clarified. Shcherbatov as a historian. Shcherbatov, during his lifetime, had to defend his work from general attacks, especially against Boltin. In 1789, he published a "Letter to a friend, in justification for some hidden and obvious blasphemy committed by his story from Mr. Major General Boltin", which caused Boltin's response and Shcherbatov's rebuke, which was published after his death in 1792 Boltin pointed out a number of Shcherbatov's mistakes: 1) in reading the annals, such as turning the "banner" into a "stack", "following it" into "going to help", and so on, and 2) Shcherbatov's complete unfamiliarity with historical ethnography and geography . Indeed, the history of Shcherbatov suffers greatly in this regard. Shcherbatov was unable to navigate ancient ethnography, but limited himself to retelling the news from French sources, and even then "so vaguely and disorderly, according to his own statement, that it is impossible to compose any consequence of history from this." But the point is that it
The question was the darkest, and only Schlozer managed to bring some light into it. In any case, Shcherbatov is often more knowledgeable and cautious than Boltin. In processing the annals, Shcherbatov, despite the whole mass of blunders for which he was reproached, took a step forward in comparison with Tatishchev in two respects. Firstly, Shcherbatov introduced new and very important lists into scientific use, such as the synodal list of the Novgorod Chronicle (XIII and XIV centuries), the Resurrection Code and others. Secondly, he was the first to deal correctly with the annals, not merging the testimony of different lists into a consolidated text and distinguishing his text from the text of the sources to which he made exact references, although, as Bestuzhev-Ryumin notes, his way of quoting by number takes away the possibility of verification . Like the rest of our historians of the 18th century, Shcherbatov still does not fully distinguish between a source and its scientific processing, and therefore prefers, for example, Synopsis to chronicles. Shcherbatov is still beyond his powers to select the data; obediently following the sources, he clutters up his work with trifles. Shcherbatov brought a lot of good things to Russian history by processing and publishing acts. Thanks to its history and Novikov's "Vivliofika", science has mastered sources of paramount importance, such as: spiritual, contractual letters of princes, monuments of diplomatic relations and article lists of embassies; there was, so to speak, the emancipation of history from the annals, and the possibility of studying a later period of history, where the testimony of the annals becomes scarce or completely stops, was indicated. Finally, Miller and Shcherbatov published, and partly prepared for publication, a lot of archival material, especially from the time of Peter the Great. Shcherbatov connects the material obtained from chronicles and acts pragmatically, but his pragmatism is of a special kind - rationalistic or rationalistic-individualistic: the creator of history is the individual. The course of events is explained by the influence of the hero on the will of the masses or an individual, and the hero is guided by the selfish motives of his nature, which are the same for all people in different eras, and the masses obey him out of stupidity or superstition, etc. For example, Shcherbatov does not try to discard annalistic story about the courtship of the Byzantine emperor (already married) to 70-year-old Olga, but gives him his own explanation: the emperor wanted to marry Olga in order to conclude an alliance with Russia. He explains the conquest of Russia by the Mongols by the excessive piety of the Russians, which killed the former warlike spirit. In accordance with his rationalism, Shcherbatov does not recognize the possibility of the miraculous in history and treats religion coldly. In his view of the nature of the beginning of Russian history and the general course of it, Shcherbatov stands closest to Schlozer. He sees the purpose of compiling his history in a better acquaintance with contemporary Russia, that is, he looks at history from a practical point of view, although in another place, based on Hume, he reaches the modern view of history as a science striving to discover the laws that govern the life of mankind. Among his contemporaries, Shcherbatov's story was not successful: it was considered uninteresting and incorrect, and Shcherbatov himself was considered devoid of historical talent (Empress Catherine II); but this, as can be seen from what has been said, is not true, and Karamzin found quite plentiful food for himself at Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov, as a publicist, is interesting mainly as a convinced defender of the nobility. His political and social views are not far removed from that era. Of his numerous articles - "Conversation about the immortality of the soul", "Consideration of human life", "On the benefits of a lack", etc., of particular interest is his utopia - "Journey to the Land of Ophir by Mr. S. Izvetsky nobleman" (not finished). The ideal Ophir state is ruled by a sovereign whose power is limited to the highest nobility. The rest of the classes, even the ordinary nobility, have no access to higher power. Shcherbatov does not know the need for every citizen to take part in the government, the need to ensure personal freedom. The first estate is the nobility, entry into which is prohibited. It alone has the right to own inhabited lands; recommended even (in a hundred
tie about the famine in 1787) to give all the land to the nobles. But Shcherbatov also constrains the nobles with a whole mass of petty rules. Recognizing the importance of education, Shcherbatov demands an increase in the number of schools, but does not give educated people the rights of a nobleman. The regional administration, which Shcherbatov especially attacked, he builds, however, in the same spirit, hampering it even more with an increase in bureaucracy and formalism. He recommends organizing military service according to the type of military settlements, which was later done in Russia and suffered a complete fiasco. The rationality of the century left a strong imprint on Shcherbatov. His views on the religion of the Ophirians are especially characteristic: religion, like education, should be strictly utilitarian, serve to protect order, peace and tranquility, which is why police officers are priests. In other words, Shcherbatov does not recognize the Christian religion of love, although this does not prevent him in his article "On the Corruption of Morals in Russia" from attacking rationalist philosophy and Catherine II, as her representative in Russia. The extent to which Shcherbatov himself was imbued with rationalism, however, is evident from his opinion that it is possible to re-create the state in a very short time and that an unshakable order can be established for whole millennia, in which only some amendments will be needed. Literature. Edition of the works of Prince M.M. Shcherbatov is not finished yet (volumes I, II, 1 part of volume III have been published). See Ikonnikov "Reply of Major General Boltin to the letter of Prince Shcherbatov" (St. Petersburg, 1789) and "Critical Notes on the History of Shcherbatov" (St. Petersburg, 1793 - 94); CM. Solovyov "Archive" (vol. II, floor 2); "The current state of Russian history as a science" ("Moscow Review", 1859, 1); Ikonnikov "Experience of Russian historiography"; Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Russian History" (vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1872); Milyukov "Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought" (Moscow, 1898); Myakotin "Noble publicist of the Catherine era" ("Russian wealth", 1898; reprinted in the collection of articles "From the history of Russian society"); N.D. Chechulin Russian social novel of the 18th century. G. Luchinsky.
July 22, 1733 – December 12, 1790 (aged 57) Russian historian, publicist, philosopher, statesman and public figure.
Prince Shcherbatov Mikhail Mikhailovich was born not only into a very prosperous family, but into a princely family - the Arkhangelsk governor and associate of Peter I M.Yu. Shcherbatov. This family belonged to the ancient Russian family of Rurikovich, ascending to the grandson of the Kyiv prince Vladimir Svyatoslav of Chernigov (Shcherbatov himself considered himself the 37th tribe from Rurik). He received a good home upbringing and education: he acquired extensive and deep knowledge in the field of history, statistics, economics, philosophy, natural science and literature. His home library contained more than 15,000 books.
Then M.M. Shcherbatov served in the Semyonovsky Life Guards Regiment, but after the manifesto on February 18, 1762, he retired. In the civil service, which he entered in 1767, Shcherbatov had every opportunity to become well acquainted with the then state of affairs in Russia, participating in the work of the Free Economic Society and in the commission for drafting the new Code, where in a sharp polemic with representatives of the merchants and peasantry he represented the position aristocracy. He spoke, in particular, for the revision of Peter's "Table of Ranks", against equality in the rights of the noble and bureaucratic nobility, against the expansion of the economic activities of the merchants and the blurring of class boundaries, and was a resolute opponent of limiting the power of the landowners over the peasants.
Under the influence of Miller, as he himself says in the preface to the first volume of "History of Russia", he began to constantly study Russian history. In 1767, Shcherbatov was probably introduced to Catherine II, and she gave him access to the patriarchal and printing libraries, where lists of annals were collected, sent by decree of Peter I from various monasteries. On the basis of 12 lists taken from there, and 7 of his own, Shcherbatov, without any preliminary preparation, set about compiling Russian history. Not limited to historical works alone, in 1776-77 he compiled a remarkable work on statistics, understanding it in a broad sense - as a science of state studies (such statistics would not interfere with modern Russia, in which there is no unified and integral statistics at all). His, Shcherbatov, "Statistics in the Reasoning of Russia" embraced 12 headings: 1) space, 2) borders, 3) fertility (economic description), 4) plurality, 5) faith, 6) government, 7) strength, 8) income, 9) trade, 10) manufactory, 11) national character and 12) the location of neighbors towards Russia (it is clearly seen that such statistics are much deeper and more fundamental than their modern understanding). In 1778 he became president of the College of Chambers and was appointed to be present on an expedition of distilleries; in 1779 he was appointed senator.
Until his death, Shcherbatov continued to be interested in political, philosophical and economic issues, expounding his views in a number of articles. His writing of his History of Russia also progressed very quickly - its last volumes, XIV and XV (before the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky) were published a year after his death. Note that he saw the main goal of compiling his history not so much in the study of the past, but in a better acquaintance with contemporary Russia. Among his contemporaries, Shcherbatov's story was not successful: it was considered uninteresting and incorrect, and he himself was devoid of historical talent (such an opinion was, for example, Empress Catherine II). But this is profoundly wrong, since the authority in this area, Karamzin, found quite ample food for thought in Shcherbatov precisely as a historian.
MM. Shcherbatov was also very interesting as a publicist, especially as a convinced defender of the nobility. His political, social and philosophical views are presented in a concentrated form in the well-known utopia - “Journey to the Land of Ophir by Mr. S., an Izvetsky nobleman” (not finished), written in 1783. Ophir (translated from Arabic as “wealth”) is a fabulously rich country in Eastern India known from the books of the Old Testament. In the Bible (III Kings IX, 28; X, 11; II Chronicles. VIII, 18; Job, XXII, 24; XXVIII, 16) we find that the Jews traded with Ophir in the time of Solomon (965-928 BC). H.), brought gold, precious stones, spices and mahogany from there. It was assumed that Ophir was inhabited by the descendants of Joktan, one of the descendants of the biblical Shem (Gen. X, 29). Coptic Offir is the Egyptian name for India. According to Flavius, Ophir was called the Golden Chersonese, which belongs to India. Shcherbatov himself borrowed the name of his utopia, as established by N.D. Chechulin, from the book of an unknown German author "Konigreich Ophir", published in Leipzig in 1699.
Ophir, M.M. Shcherbatov, is the name of a fictitious country located "near the Antarctic Pole" and inhabited by a people who "will never agree to enter into trade" so as not to attract "European self-interest." So the Russian thinker begins to sound the key topics for Russian conservatism of isolationism in Russia and anti-Europeanism in order to prevent “damage to morals”. Before us in a utopia appears a constitutional monarchy with an all-estate Supreme Government, consisting of noble, merchant and petty-bourgeois deputies; estate hierarchy; organized on the basis of "true Christianity" education and enlightenment. The author, in fact, refers to Russian reality and tries to draw an ideal image of public government. Here he outlined his ideal of a state, essentially a policeman, relying on the nobility, prospering at the expense of the labor of forced slaves. The ideal Ophir state is ruled by a sovereign whose power is limited to the highest nobility. The rest of the classes, even the ordinary nobility, have no access to higher power. Shcherbatov does not know the need for every citizen to take part in the government, the need to ensure personal freedom. The first estate is the nobility, entry into which is prohibited. It alone has the right to own inhabited lands; it is even recommended (in an article on the famine in 1787) to give all the land to the nobles. But Shcherbatov also constrains the nobles with a whole mass of petty rules. Recognizing the importance of education, Shcherbatov demands an increase in the number of schools, but does not give educated people the rights of a nobleman. The regional administration, which Shcherbatov especially attacked, he builds, however, in the same spirit, hampering it even more with an increase in bureaucracy and formalism. He recommends organizing military service according to the type of military settlements, which was later done in Russia and, as you know, suffered a complete fiasco. The rationality of the century left a strong imprint on Shcherbatov, his views on the religion of officers are especially characteristic: religion, like education, should be strictly utilitarian, serve to protect order, peace and tranquility, his utopia even states that clergymen should be ... police officers.
At the end of the 80s. Shcherbatov “secretly composes” the sharpest of his works - the pamphlet “On the Damage of Morals in Russia. Notes of the Senator Prince. Mikhail Mikhailovich Shcherbatov from the 16th century. to 1762", published for the first time by Herzen in 1858 in London. In the last years of his life, he wrote philosophical works: “Consideration of human life”, “Reflections on selfhood”, “Reflections on the hour of death”, “Conversation about the immortality of the soul” (1788) and others. A noble oppositionist of a conservative persuasion, Shcherbatov rejected the principle of absolute monarchy as leading to despotism, legal chaos, social "disorders" and a decline in morality. In this he agreed even with the "left" currents of the political thought of the Enlightenment. The power of the monarch must be limited by "wise" legislation, the guarantor of which is the noble nobility, possessing an enlightened mind and "hereditary virtue." From Shcherbatov's point of view, it was this estate, endowed with a code of honor, that wrote the most glorious pages in the history of Russia. Recognizing the great economic efficiency of free labor, Shcherbatov, however, opposed the abolition of serfdom in Russia on the grounds that the harm from this outweighs the benefit: due to the difference in climate, many areas of the empire will become desolated, as the liberated peasants migrate to fertile lands . Shcherbatov also believed that the poor state of domestic legal proceedings, low agricultural culture would lead to the impoverishment of the bulk of the "farmers", the fragmentation of land, and finally to the ruin of the nobility - the backbone of the autocratic state. The harmful "chimera of equality of states" underlies the democratic type of state. Nature itself, which does not tolerate monotony, rebels, Shcherbatov believes, against democracy. Hence, this type of state is characterized by instability, the struggle of parties, the too slow "flow of state affairs", etc. Based on the ideas of J. J. Rousseau, as well as European conservatives, Shcherbatov criticized the optimistic reliance on the "natural light" of reason, characteristic of the Enlightenment. , science, to the triumph of socio-historical progress. From Shcherbatov’s point of view, “damage to morals” is too high a price to pay for raising material production and satisfying the socio-political ambitions of the “third estate”, and only, mainly, precisely it (we emphasize the last remark of the thinker - it is very deep). For the same reason, Shcherbatov, like Golitsyn, Lopukhin, Fonvizin, was against the scale and pace of transformations in Russia, which were planned and carried out in a cruel way by Peter I.
In general, Shcherbatov's worldview is an organic combination of the fruits of enlightenment and science with a far from idealization, but a vivid feeling of pre-Petrine Russia. G.V. Plekhanov called him one of the most intelligent and educated ideologists of the nobility of his time. It should be noted that Shcherbatov's social ideal is not at all in the future, but exclusively in the past - in pre-Petrine Russia, where, in his opinion, everything ideal for Russia already existed: the simplicity of customs, the lack of luxury and wealth, the balance of power of Moscow tsars with restrictions from the Boyar Duma, admission to the highest government positions through recognition of the decisive role of noble birth ... Why did Shcherbatov insist on this condition? The answer is quite simple: this kind of procedure for the formation of power is the only way to exclude its bribery, flattery and servility. Note: the thought is not at all devoid of its deepest meaning, especially in our time, when anyone can come to power and in any way ... So, since the orientation of the social ideal is to the past, or rather, to the pre-Petrine time, Shcherbatov’s social utopia can be called retrospective utopia, although the prince's attitude to pre-Petrine Russia was devoid of illusions, and his design of the “new” Russia included, along with borrowings, many elements of some kind of novelty.
In Shcherbatov's social philosophy there are many values that can be confidently called the beginnings of "Russian conservatism": an organic understanding of society and recognition of the decisive role of national and cultural traditions in historical development; the desire to present the future of Russia in patriarchal tones; defense of the estate monarchy and criticism of the "chimera of equality"; the priority of the interests of the state over the interests of the individual; the need for the institution of the church (though reformed in the Masonic spirit) for the people; idealization of the social mores of pre-Petrine Russia; anti-Westernism and heightened attention to historical memory; rejection of violent upheavals as "disastrous", opposition to "Peter's upheavals" of gradual transformations that do not offend people's dignity; criticism of individualistic values (“selfishness”); justification for the need to transfer the capital of the state from St. Petersburg to Moscow; patriotism, heightened attention to historical memory and the problems of education. According to Shcherbatov, the highest subject of philosophizing turns out to be the person himself in the unity of “higher” and “lower”, spiritual and bodily, and each person has only one path to this unity - through persistent and gradual self-education for the sake of improving “human nature” and public morality.
Let us note that Shcherbatov defends representative monarchy in the context of sharp criticism of the democratic form of government. And here, too, the arguments that the thinker gives to prove his case are important. Democratic government, he writes in his work “Different Discourses on Government”, contributes to inciting popular passions, gives rise to the desire for a “chimera of equality” and “equality of conditions”, which leads to riots, rebellions, the destruction of statehood and “shameful obedience to foreign powers” (we turn attention to the last thesis - it has always been extremely relevant, but especially lately). These, the philosopher believes, are the fruits of "unbridled people's power." In his works, he cites a number of arguments against democracy: the difficulty of forming the state budget, since the people do not want to “impose new burdens on themselves”; the instability of this form of government, since it "devours its bowels, divided into different parties, which are set on fire by various vague ones, like a ship on a rough sea"; slow resolution of cases due to the participation in their discussion of a large number of persons; incompetence and self-interest of elected persons and others. As you can see, the arguments are quite weighty and you can’t just discard them.
Russia will never become Europe, Shcherbatov argues, but it may cease to be itself, it may lose itself. Peter I, he concludes, how an unskilled gardener cut the branches of a tree too short, the roots of which were weak. “Pruning the old branches,” as Shcherbatov notes, led to “the complete destruction of all good morals” and the threat of “the fall of the state.” The "damage to morals" turned out to be too high a price to pay for the development of sciences and arts, "successes in humanity" and "correction of our appearances", for the rise of material production and the satisfaction of the socio-political ambitions of the "third estate". Under Catherine II, according to the philosopher, the process of “moral damage” only accelerated. In 1789, a year before his death, the philosopher writes with pain: "Despoticism, regardless of laws, or prudence, or even decency, plays with the life and honor of its subjects." Laws are drawn up without taking into account information about the "state", "benefit" and "needs of the people." All this "tends to take away the security, tranquility and well-being of citizens." The thinker understands well that his words "do not help people's misfortunes, despotism works no less." “I know all this,” he continues, “but I know that all this comes from our slavish and vile patience; and my desire is, showing firmness, to try to breathe it into others who are dissatisfied with the yoke weighing down on them. Shcherbatov hoped that the "philosophical sciences" would serve "to correct our very morals." To this end, in 1788, two years before his death, he wrote a series of works that touched upon the ultimate issues of human existence - the problems of the immortality of the soul and the meaning of life (we have already mentioned this above).
Especially sharply M.M. Shcherbatov advocated the revision of Peter's "Table of Ranks" (1714), defending the rights of the hereditary nobility, the class structure of society, seeing in it a guarantee of the strength of the state. The legal and social status of the estates was determined by the corresponding range of occupations: for the nobles - justice, military service and agriculture; merchants - trade and crafts. As a representative of the highest nobility, he sharply criticized the assignment of noble titles to wealthy merchants. Pointing to examples of the dishonorable sources of the wealth of the new Russian nobles, Shcherbatov wrote: “When the grandfather stole, the son robbed, and the grandson robbed, is he worthy of a hereditary reward?” The question for the prince, but for all sane people, is quite rhetorical. Note: Shcherbatov considered the nobility not the “best”, but a “special” class with a sense of historical continuity, duty and class honor inherent only to him.
He also considered the liberation of the peasants to be premature, since he believed that the peasants were unenlightened, morally unprepared for a free life and could "fall into laziness." In a footnote to Article 256 of Catherine's "Order", he defends the need to preserve serfdom and notes that in the Russian Empire "the connection between subjects and their masters is such that the slightest destruction of them can produce untold harm." And further: “Peasant freedom” is “such a difficult problem that it was hardly possible to fulfill it in Russia.” In one of his works, he compares the peasants, "according to their little enlightenment," with a fast baby who still has to be led on the harness. Letting him go free, the Russian aristocrat continues, "will bring him slaughter, mutilation, and perhaps even death." This “heartfelt thought” of the Russian conservative will be comprehensively developed in the “prophecies” of another debunker of the egalitarian process and defender of the idea of social rank, philosopher Konstantin Nikolayevich Leontiev (our separate article will be about him).
At the end of his life, Shcherbatov thinks a lot about the meaning of life, about immortality, and his reasoning about these matters is of lasting value. “All people are equal to death,” Shcherbatov remarks philosophically, “and only the memory of their deeds and the benefits they rendered to society remains.” Human affairs, Shcherbatov wrote in his social utopia, "become clear through the test of time." The size of the tombstone is determined by the People's Assembly: on the grave of the "Keeper of the Laws", who did almost nothing useful during his lifetime, there is a "simple stone", and the best monument "made of white marble" was erected to a man who firmly resisted the tyrant and was killed by him. Thus, in Shcherbatov's social utopia, historical memory and responsibility for the future of the Fatherland replace philosophical and theological arguments in defense of the immortality of the soul. Shcherbatov was deeply convinced that upbringing and education are an important means of shaping the moral character of a person and a citizen. That is why, in his social utopia, education and upbringing are considered a matter of national importance: the state maintains schools and determines the curriculum. Education should be universal, free, but class-based. The education of the nobility was supposed to be distinguished by its encyclopedic character and depth, the "petty-bourgeois" one - by mastering the "useful sciences" and practical skills, for the peasants it was proposed to master the literacy and catechism - the foundations of the dogma. The philosopher considered useful only true knowledge, leading to wisdom and moral perfection. False knowledge, in his opinion, does more harm than good, because it creates the illusion of knowledge ("Deceptiveness" and "Arrogance"), and this cannot be the basis for making the right decisions by the ruling class. In the allegorical Journey to the Lands of True Science and Vain Teaching, the rivers of Delusion and Prudence are described: the waters of the first flow to the West, the second to the East. Whoever swims the first river, the philosopher writes, “will reach the reign of a certain Monster, calling himself Vain Science, but low, harmful and corrupting morals and thoughts, and whoever swims the second will reach the reign of the goddess True Science.” It should be noted here that the path of knowledge for Shcherbatov is at the same time the path of moral perfection: true knowledge makes one wise, and wisdom (“Right Thinking” and “Sane Reason”) leads to virtue, which is so necessary for “philosophers on the throne”. The essay “On the Methods of Teaching Various Sciences” provided for a thorough study of mathematics, physics, chemistry, anatomy, botany, mineralogy, astronomy and philosophical sciences. History, geography, statistics, political and legal disciplines came to the fore in the course of social sciences. After studying grammar and beginning mathematics at the age of 12-13, one should proceed to the “philosophical sciences”, first logic, then metaphysics, which “dispose our mind to draw direct conclusions, they give us knowledge about various wonderful properties of nature. They elevate us, great and small, to the knowledge of the Most High — the th Nature, only wisely arranged everything, and therefore not only serve to adorn our mind, to help us in many things that happen, but also to correct our very morals. Next comes the study of the law and "offices" of man.
Concluding this short article about our great thinker, a few words should be said about his family. In it, M.M. Shcherbatov had two sons and six daughters. The eldest son Ivan died in 1789, a year before the death of his father. The second son, Dmitry, had an only son, Ivan, who was associated with the Decembrists and died in exile in 1829 without issue. One of the daughters of M.M. Shcherbatova - Natalya - married Ya.Ya. Chaadaev, the father of the future philosopher P.Ya. Chaadaeva.
Died M.M. Shcherbatov in Moscow in 1790, buried in the village of Mikhailovsky near Yaroslavl.
There are always flowers on his grave.
Baturin V.K. , Doctor of Philosophy, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, honorary doctor and member of the Expert Council of the Center for World Systems ResearchTo be continued…
A prominent statesman, historian, publicist and philosopher Mikhail Mikhailovich Shcherbatov (1733-1790), was one of the most prominent representatives of the emerging Russian conservatism of the second half of the 18th century.
His most famous works were: the multi-volume "History of Russia from ancient times", "On the damage to morals in Russia", "Journey to the Land of Ophir", "On the Turkish War", "A Brief Tale of the Impostors who were in Russia", etc. M. M. Shcherbatov received a good education at home, knew history, philosophy, literature, and medicine; collected by the end of his life a library of 15,000 volumes. Like all educated people of that time, he knew French, but in addition, he also mastered German, Italian and other languages. From 1767 until the end of his life, Shcherbatov was in the public service. He was a deputy of the Legislative Commission from the Yaroslavl nobility (1767), a member of the Private Commission on the middle gender of people, a chamber junker; member of the Commission on Commerce (1770), chamberlain (1773); President of the Chamber College, Senator (1779).
In 1768 he received the position of historiographer and was appointed king of arms of the Senate. The political ideal for Shcherbatov was the English limited monarchy with the idea of separation of powers. He found a certain analogue of this ideal in pre-Petrine Russia, when, in his opinion, autocracy was limited in favor of such an aristocratic body as the Boyar Duma. The assessment of the personality of Peter I in the works of Shcherbatov was ambiguous. In the essay "Review of the Vices and Autocracy of Peter the Great" (1782), he did not agree with the "detractors of the great monarch", who believed that what Peter had done could be done with fewer losses and more humane means, although for a longer period. According to Shcherbatov, without "foreign borrowings and the autocracy of Peter" Russia would have needed much more time to enlighten, and foreign policy opponents, meanwhile, could have conquered the country. In addition, the personal vices, rudeness and cruelty of the autocrat were due to the cruelty of the time. Peter "need forced to be a despot." In his work "On the Corruption of Morals in Russia," Shcherbatov criticized the massive abuses committed by the authorities: bribery, embezzlement, servility. The methods of Peter I, who promoted "ignorant people", were also criticized, which led to a state crisis. Shcherbatov tried to show both positive and negative sides of Peter's modernization. He wrote about the changes that the reforms of Peter I made in Russia, while paying attention not only to changes in the political or military fields, but also in the field of culture, noting that, thanks to Europeanization, "we are truly in humanity and in some other things , one might say, they had amazing successes and marched with gigantic steps to improve our appearance.
After the accession of Catherine II, Shcherbatov took part in the work of the Legislative Commission of 1767–1771. He spoke out for the abolition of the provision of the Table of Ranks and for the expansion of the rights of the Russian nobility. However, he was by no means a purely "noble" ideologue who cared, as some Soviet scholars tend to think, only about his "narrow estate interests." With regard to the ascribed peasants belonging to merchants and working in their factories, he considered it necessary, after rewriting, to leave in their places, but not to allow buying anymore. As for those peasants who were listed at the factories, he suggested "little by little try to make them free, giving freedom as a reward for good morals and for the best knowledge of art." Shcherbatov advocated the preservation of serfdom, arguing that the peasants, being uneducated, would not be able to dispose of the freedom granted to them. Shcherbatov believed that the problems associated with serfdom could be solved, but not by destroying it, but by changing the attitude towards the peasants on the part of the landowners.
Shortly before his death, Shcherbatov creates works that reflect his views on the state structure: "Different Discourses on Government" and "Reflections on Legislation in General". He distinguishes four forms of government: monarchical, despotic (or autocratic), aristocratic and democratic. Considering the monarchical method of government as the most acceptable, Shcherbatov notes that the ideal monarch is one who “considering himself the father of the people, does not try, rejecting laws, to introduce autocracy, does not share his interests with the interests of the state, knows the great art of electing such people as advisers, who combine zeal for their sovereign with love for the fatherland and laws. However, most rulers, being subject to various "passions", cannot meet this characteristic. Aristocratic rule is not acceptable for Russia. The inability or unwillingness of people to suppress excessive ambition and selfishness in themselves, as well as the thirst for power, "gives rise to intrigues, parties, hatreds and other evils, which are not separated from these passions." Democratic government "devours its bowels, dividing into different parties, which are set on fire by various vague ones, like a ship on a rough sea - although it often avoids sinking by the skill of a helmsman, but more often it also dies sometimes at the very pier." Rejecting the autocratic method of government, Shcherbatov wrote that this "is torment, in which there are no other laws and other rules, except for the insane waywardness of a despot (self-ruler)". The views on Russian legislation outlined in the second work were the result of Shcherbatov's practical work in various government institutions. Since the creation of new laws requires a thorough study of the subject, then, Shcherbatov believes, the best way is "for the laws to be composed by a few honest people, reasonable, full of information, hardworking and experienced in business." Comparing the laws under various forms of government, Shcherbatov emphasizes the advantage of the monarchy, which, "having its own fundamental laws and preserving all established ones, ... preserves the life, honor, estate and tranquility of its citizens."
Ideas about the state system were developed in the utopia created by Shcherbatov "Journey to the Land of Ophir by Mr. S ... a Swedish nobleman." The Ophir state is monarchical. It is based on "immutable laws" based on moral foundations. A citizen of this state "honours, firstly, virtue, and then - the law, and after - the king and nobles." All people of the state are divided into "natural" and "civilian". In addition to natural freedoms, a person has certain obligations in relation to society. The people in Ophir must honor and obey the laws; relations within society are built on the principles of respect for each other and, above all, for the monarch. At the same time, you need to remember about your own dignity: "Honor and love your sovereign, but so that your respect and love for him does not consist in vain servility and not in the hope of receiving a reward from him, but in the good that you expect from him to the whole society" . Society is divided into several hierarchical estates, and the life of each citizen is regulated. At the top of this pyramid is the king, who among the rest of the nobles is only "first among equals." Next - the middle landlords and merchants. The lowest class were the peasants. Although they are not free, the legislation of the utopian state prescribes to treat them humanly: "Do not be cruel to your servants; do not leave those who serve you without sufficient food and clothing; do not burden those living on your lands with excessive taxes and work, and do not offend them harsh punishments...
Shcherbatov's legacy today is increasingly attracting the attention of domestic and foreign researchers of Russian conservative thought, who devote books and articles to him, and his state activity has recently become the subject of the first special dissertation research.
LITERATURE
1. Brikner A.G. Prince M.M. Shcherbatov as a member of the Big Commission // Historical Bulletin. 1881. No. 9;
2. Pypin A.N. Half-forgotten writer of the XVIII century // Bulletin of Europe. 1896. No. 11;
3. Fedosov I.A. From the history of Russian social thought of the XVIII century. MM. Shcherbatov. M., 1967;
4. Artemyeva T.V. Mikhail Shcherbatov. SPb., 1994;
5. Shansky D.N. What should the historian: M.M. Shcherbatov and I.N. Boltin // Historians of Russia. XVIII - early XX century. M., 1996;
6. Musikhin G.I. Traditionalism and Reforms: A Comparative Analysis of the Views of M. Shcherbatov and Yu. Mezer // Studies in Conservatism. Reforms: political, socio-economic and law. Materials of the international scientific conference. Perm, 1997. Issue. four;
7. Gavrilova L.M. Russian historical thought and medal art in the era of Catherine II. St. Petersburg, 2000;
8. Artemyeva T.V. New Atlantis by Mikhail Shcherbatov // Questions of Philosophy. 2000. No. 10;
9. Dmitrieva I.A., Shcherbatov Mikhail Mikhailovich // Historians of Russia. Biographies. M., ROSSPEN, 2001;
10. Kalinina S.G. Problems of reconstruction of the biography of Prince M.M. Shcherbatova // Archive of Russian history. 2002. Issue. 7;
11. Polskoy S.V. Philopatris and Fenelon (to the question of the origins of the political views of Prince M.M. Shcherbatov) // Evolution of conservatism: European tradition and Russian experience: Proceedings of the international scientific conference. Samara, April 26-29, 2002. Samara, 2002;
12. Kalinina S.G. Unpublished documents about the work of M.M. Shcherbatov in the King of Arms Control // Genealogy in the Russian North: History and Modernity. Collection of articles of the international scientific conference dedicated to the 5th anniversary of the Arkhangelsk regional public organization "Northern Historical and Genealogical Society". Arkhangelsk. September 15-18, 2003. Arkhangelsk. 2003.
13. Kalinina S.G. State activity of M.M. Shcherbatova: ideas and practice. 1767 - 1790 // Dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. M., 2004.
14. Kalinina S.G. Shcherbatov M.M. // Public thought of Russia XVIII - early XX century: Encyclopedia. Rep. ed. V.V. Zhuravlev. Rep. sec. A.V. Repnikov. M.: ROSSPEN, 2005.
© All rights reserved
Search
We may notify you of new articles,