Do you know how Hegel and Kant are similar? Few people have read both,” says Igor Odintsov, director of the State Unitary Enterprise “Cathedral.” - Do you know how they differ? Thanks to the Marxist-Leninist theory, people raised in the USSR know all the errors of Hegel's theory, but do not see any in the works of Kant. Although there are certainly mistakes in his work. For example, in one of his monographs he argued that sturgeon is a bottom-dwelling fish that feeds on stones. In another - that near Orenburg there live dwarf people with small ponytails.

However, all these amusing absurdities are either forgotten or written off as excusable eccentricity for the thinker. Odintsov speaks about the great Koenigsberger with undisguised reverence.

Kant is a genius who prescribed all the norms of human morality, says the historian.

Biographers of the philosopher state: Kant was not only a model of morality, but also of punctuality. Based on his daily walk, the Koenigsbergers synchronized their watches.

Coming from a poor family, there were times when he had to earn his living by playing cards and billiards, which Kant saw nothing wrong with. However, he refused promising marriage alliances. There is a rather typical example. In 1847, in search of income, young Kant, who worked in the field of tutoring, moved to the village of Yudshen. A local pastor saw great prospects in the young teacher and began to marry his daughter to him. So active that Kant was forced to quit teaching and return to Königsberg.

When, in adulthood, the philosopher received recognition and achieved the corresponding state, he did not dare to force the local beauties into marriage with himself, the old man, although there was no end to those who wanted it. However, the Koenigsberg recluse always admired female beauty. Already in old age, during dinner parties, Kant, who was blind in his left eye, always insistently asked that the most beautiful lady of the evening be seated on his right side.

Kant’s attitude to religion is interesting,” continues Igor Odintsov. - No one could accuse him of atheism. However, being a believer, Kant remained an adept of science. He declared this to his students, without fear of falling into disgrace: “In the realm of reason, there was no evidence of His existence and there cannot be.”

And here is another paradox from the life of the world's most famous Koenigsberger.

For some reason, few people note that Kant lived and died as a Russian citizen,” says Igor Odintsov. - During the Seven Years' War, East Prussia voluntarily became part of the Empire. At the same time, every resident of Königsberg took an oath of allegiance to Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. When the political situation changed and the province seceded from Russia, Kant refused a new oath, saying that oaths and vows are given only once. And this was also a manifestation of his Kantian morality.

He died as a subject of the Russian Empire, whom the whole of Königsberg saw off on his last journey for several days.

Daniel's Parsonage

In the anniversary year for the philosopher, the Kaliningrad authorities made an attempt to save one of the few objects directly associated with the name of Immanuel Kant. We are talking about the house of pastor Daniel Ernst Andersch, the same one who wanted to marry his daughter to a budding tutor.

Everyone knows that the philosopher was a homebody, never traveled outside of East Prussia, for which even during his lifetime he was called the Koenigsberg recluse,” Governor of the Kaliningrad Region Nikolai Tsukanov told Culture. - Today in the region, and therefore in the world, there are not many places associated with Kant. The building in the village of Veselovka (formerly called Yudshen, and later Kanthausen) is just one such place. Only the basement and foundation remain from the previous building, however, we are sure that this house must be preserved for posterity.

In order to take ownership of a crumbling private building, the regional authorities had to turn on administrative resources. Now that the delicate legal issue has been resolved, the regional authorities plan in the very near future to turn Veselovka into a real mecca for Kant’s admirers and philosophy lovers. The state examination, completed at the end of March, once again confirmed: the house in Veselovka is directly connected with the name of the genius.

The restoration of the building will be carried out by specialists,” famous cantologist Vadim Chaly explained to Culture. “They will take it apart brick by brick, they will be numbered, and then everything will be restored.” The necessary surroundings will be created around - a creative house with living rooms and a reading room, a summer dining room for students.

In the pastor's house itself, it was decided to make a Kant museum, and there will also be a conference room where philosophical readings are planned to be held.

Time will tell whether Veselovka, thanks to this project, will become another tourist center in the region. However, it should be noted that, in general, Kant’s descendants did not indulge him in gratitude. Just six months after the death of the philosopher, the house where he lived was demolished, and in its place... a hat salon was built. So today only two places in the region are associated with the most famous native of Königsberg - the building in Veselovka and Kant’s grave itself.

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

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

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

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

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

The events of the end of 1825 were a shock to the imperial state system and had a strong impact on the mindset of contemporaries both in Russia and abroad. Just recently it seemed that the power of the kings stood firmly and indestructibly, that it was bypassed by the winds of social change and political upheavals that shook Western Europe since the end of the 18th century. During this period, European conservative thought began to perceive Russia as a reliable defender of Christian tradition and historical order.

In 1811, the famous French Catholic philosopher Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821), who had previously been the envoy of the Sardinian king in St. Petersburg, concluded: “I am increasingly convinced that a government organized according to modern standards is not suitable for Russia.our model, and that the philosophical experiments of His Imperial Majesty (meaning Emperor Alexander I - A.B.) will end inthe return of the people to their original state - in essence, this is not such a great evil. But if this nationwill accept our false innovations and will resist any violation of what he wants to call his constitutional rights, if some university Pugachev appears and becomes the head of the party, if the whole people comes into motion and instead of Asian expeditions starts a revolution in the European style, then I will not I find words to express all my concerns about this."

The December rebellion of 1825 showed that the philosopher’s vague fears were not groundless, and that in Russia forces were also revealed that were committed to radical social reforms. Nothing like this has ever happened in Russian history. Over the centuries, all direct or indirect protests against the authorities, numerous conspiracies, uprisings and rebellions, in one way or another, revolved around the eternal Russian dilemma: a bad tsar - a good tsar. And only Decembrism in its extreme version (P.I. Pestel) for the first time posed the problem in a completely different way, excluding the figure of a crowned autocratic ruler from the future state structure.

Although the “university Pugachevs” were not literally the leaders of the rebellion on Senate Square, the main theorists and leaders of Decembrism clearly felt the impact of anti-Christian “philosophism” that crushed church authorities and social ranks in the West. And if for Western Europe the affirmation of utilitarian bourgeois philosophy, actualized in political action under the slogan of egalitarianism, was historically conditioned, then in Russia, where similar historical conditions did not exist, the proclamation of such ideas was perceived by people of a state mentality as not only unacceptable, but also criminal. relation to Russia. The most prominent intellectual of that time, N.M. Karamzin, expressed this perception most clearly. He called the speech of the Decembrists “an absurd tragedy of our crazy liberalists” and admitted that during the events he, “a peaceful historiographer, was hungry for cannon thunder, being sure that there was no other way to stop the rebellion,” since “neither the cross nor the metropolitan acted ". It is impossible to imagine what kind of historical path Russia would have moved if the “absurd tragedy” of 1825 had not happened, but it is impossible to doubt that its echo was felt for quite a long time and determined a lot in the next thirty years, when Emperor Nicholas I was the head of the Russian Empire.

The confrontation between the historical tradition of social hierarchy and liberal democratic unification began to gradually crystallize into a political confrontation between Russia and Western Europe, personified primarily by Great Britain and France. These ideas were very accurately reflected in 1848 by the statement of the poet, diplomat and thinker F.I. Tyutchev: “For a long time in Europe there have been only two forces - revolution and Russia.” Similar ideas were held at that time by many representatives of the Russian establishment, and first of all by the tsar himself, who soon after ascending the throne declared: “The revolution is on the threshold of Russia, but I swear, it will not penetrate it as long as the breath of life remains in me, for now, God’s By grace, I will be emperor."

Despite the victory over Napoleon and the formal existence of the Holy Alliance, Russia had to increasingly feel its political loneliness in Europe. The monarchical allies of the tsarist empire - Prussia and Austria - rather acted as dynastic partners, pursuing their own goals in politics, which often not only did not correspond with the interests of Russia, but were sometimes hostile to them.

Already in the 18th century, with the development of civil liberties and the spread of uncensored publications in a number of European countries, criticism of the tsarist empire became one of the hallmarks of liberalism and democracy. Such sentiments could coincide with the views of those in power in a particular country at a given period or not, but in most cases a “symphony of ideas” was observed. The war with Napoleon and his defeat at some point almost stopped criticism of the “Russian monster,” but a little time passed, and it flared up with renewed vigor. Russophobia is turning into a fact of political life, primarily in England.

It was from the late 20s, but especially in the 30s of the 19th century in England and France that attacks on “despotic”, “aggressive”, “insidious” and “cruel” Russia became generally accepted. A typical example of Western European ideas of that time was provided by the widely known book of the traveler and writer Marquis de Custine (1790-1857) “La Russe en 1839”. Having spent several weeks in Russia, where he was received with sincere cordiality, the Marquis wrote an essay in which he mercilessly criticized not only the dignitary and court world, but also defamed the entire cultural image of Russia, its historical and spiritual values. The verdict of moral condemnation in de Custine is indisputable: “Russia, it seems to me, is the only country where people have no concept of true happiness. In France we also do not feel happy, but we know that happiness depends on ourselves; in Russia it is impossible ". This was written by a man whose grandfather and father laid down their heads on the guillotine. The famous American historian of Russian origin Georgy (George) Vernadsky (1887-1973), speaking about the Marquis’s book, concluded that it is “an embittered pamphlet directed against Russia, the Russian Church, the Russian State, the Russian People.” In the commercial success of this book, the American professor saw “one of the links in the great chain of European Russophobia.”

Russophobia is becoming not just a fact of public life, but is also turning into a factor of political action. Russia remained, both in fact and in its national-state identity, an Orthodox country, which has long been the object of its defamation in the countries of the Catholic world. Both from the pages of the press and from the lips of political figures, voices were constantly heard “about an aggressive course” in world affairs, although, it would seem, who else but Russia, having become the main force that crushed Napoleonic despotism, alone actually gained nothing as a result of this victories. She did not demand new territories, property compensation, or financial indemnity for herself. The most amazing thing is that not only was this not remembered in London, but such nobility, unparalleled in world politics, was very quickly forgotten in Paris.

The events of the first decade of the reign of Nicholas I - the establishment of Russia in Transcaucasia and the liquidation of the broad autonomy of Poland - gave Western European anti-Russian fears and prejudices a new powerful impetus, despite the fact that Russian diplomacy, both in writing and orally, tirelessly assured the Western powers that there were no expansionist intentions in Europe It has. An indicative exchange of views in this sense occurred between the Tsar and the US Ambassador to St. Petersburg, Dallas, at the end of 1837. In response to Nicholas I’s remark that “he never sought to benefit from the predicament of another power, and yet everyone accuses him of a policy of violence,” the ambassador of the North American republic remarked: “You are so powerful that it is quite natural to inspire envy.” To this, the ruler of Russia replied: “Yes, we are powerful, but we need strength for defense, not for attack.” But they did not believe Russian assurances, rejecting in advance all Russian proposals aimed at stabilizing the world situation.

When, during a visit to England in 1844, the Russian Tsar proposed to Her Majesty’s government to conclude an international pact regarding the future of Turkey in order to “avoid a world war,” and, as proof of Russia’s lack of expansionist intentions, he specifically proposed in writing to “renounce any claims to the territory of Turkey” , - this proposal did not cause any response.

Despite the obvious and secret dislike towards itself, during the reign of Nicholas I, Russia simply, with some kind of manic persistence, sought to establish friendly relations with Great Britain. For this, she was ready to go incredibly far along the path of political and diplomatic concessions on the most controversial and most important issue of world politics, concerning the fate of the Turkish Empire. The Russian idea of ​​creating a national Turkish state in Asia Minor under the tutelage and support of the great powers, primarily Great Britain and Russia, invariably ran into hostile opposition in London, where support for the decaying Ottoman Empire was one of the cornerstones of English policy. The hostile perception of Russia ultimately resulted in the fact that by the end of the 19th century, Great Britain suddenly realized that its real and most powerful global enemy was not Russia, but the rapidly growing German Empire; all the long-term anti-Russian inspirations of London led only to its political isolation. The fallacy of such a course was bitterly admitted by the British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury. Speaking in the House of Lords on 19 January 1897, he said: “I am forced to say that if you ask me to look back and explain the present in terms of the past, to place on these shoulders the responsibility for the difficulties in which we now find ourselves, I will say that the alternative was in 1853, when the proposals of the Emperor Nicholas were rejected, many members of this House will keenly feel the essence of the mistake we made if I say that we put all our money on a lame horse." But the “lame horse” continued to participate in the world race, now recognizing as its new masters not long-time patrons from the shores of Foggy Albion, but new contenders for world leadership from the banks of the Spree.
Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich was born on June 25, 1796 in Tsarskoe Selo. He was the third of four sons of Emperor Paul I.

Nikolai Pavlovich lost his father when he was not even five years old. Of course, he did not know about the conspiracy and did not have any personal impressions about that event. But from a young age, he knew one thing for sure: as the second brother of reigning Alexander I, he had no chance of becoming king. He never thought or dreamed about this. Only in the summer of 1819 did an unforeseen event happen: during a family conversation, Alexander I told Nicholas that he would eventually become king. This conversation turned out to be completely unexpected and shocked the young Grand Duke, who began to passionately convince the emperor that he “did not feel the strength and spirit” to serve such a great cause, and eventually burst into tears. Alexander I turned the conversation on this topic and never returned to it. Gradually, Nikolai Pavlovich calmed down and did not think about the possibility of his accession to the throne.

He liked military affairs, and other subjects did not arouse much interest. For example, classes in political economy and jurisprudence only brought boredom. Later, Nicholas I recalled that during these lessons “we either dozed off, or drew some nonsense, sometimes their own caricature portraits, and then for the exams we learned something by rote, without fruition or benefit for the future,” and believed that “general subjects are either forgotten or do not find application in practice.”

Although Nicholas was not listed as an heir, Alexander I involved his younger brother in government affairs from his early youth. In 1814, the seventeen-year-old Grand Duke, together with the emperor, entered Paris, and then attended the Vienna Congress of the four great powers - the winners of Napoleon. Later, he accompanied his crown-bearing brother on his visits to England, Austria, and Prussia. It was in Prussia, back in 1814, that Nicholas met and fell in love with the young daughter of King Frederick William III, Charlotte (full name Frederica-Louise-Charlotte-Wilhelmina), whom he married three years later. The wedding took place on July 1, 1817 in the Church of the Winter Palace, and on April 17 of the following year, their first-born Alexander, the future Emperor Alexander II, was born.

The Prussian princess converted to Orthodoxy and received the name Alexandra Feodorovna (1798-1860) in Russia. She was the sister of the first emperor (since 1871) of the German Empire, Wilhelm I. Nikolai Pavlovich’s mother, Empress Maria Feodorovna, was also German by birth (Princess of Württemberg), and family ties linked Nicholas I inextricably with Germany. However, he had no special disposition towards the Germans. During his childhood, his nanny was an Englishwoman, who instilled in him a taste and interest in English norms and habits. The future king showed interest in England from an early age.

In the winter of 1816-1817, Nikolai Pavlovich spent several months in England. Here he led the life of a socialite, touchingly patronized by King George III and the hero of the war with Napoleon, the Duke of Wellington. However, even then, in addition to balls, evening receptions, gala dinners and horse races, the future king also showed a craving for serious activities. He visited arsenals, shipyards, coal mines, industrial plants, prisons and hospitals. Nikolai showed genuine interest in these “boring things,” which puzzled the owners. The Duke of Wellington, who became a voluntary guide for the Grand Duke, once could not resist and jokingly remarked that, obviously, “His Highness is preparing for the role of ruler.” In fact, the Russian guest did not even think about such a thing.

Nikolai Pavlovich loved all sorts of technical devices, machines, and in general everything that was then called “technology,” and the generally recognized “workshop of the world” at that time was England. All reports of new inventions and technical improvements invariably attracted his attention. When the first railways began to be built in England, Nikolai Pavlovich immediately decided that “smart hardware” should appear in his kingdom. Already in 1837, the first railway was opened for traffic in Russia, connecting St. Petersburg with Tsarskoe Selo, with a length of 27 kilometers. Under him, the longest railway for its time (more than 600 kilometers) was built from Moscow to St. Petersburg. It took about ten years to build, and traffic began on it in 1851. After the king’s name, the road was named Nikolaevskaya. Even earlier, in 1831, at the request of the emperor, a higher technical educational institution was opened in St. Petersburg - the Technological Institute, which became the largest center for training technical specialists in Russia.

A number of other initiatives and institutions were carried out thanks to the will of the king. In 1826, the Rumyantsev Museum was opened in St. Petersburg (since 1861 - in Moscow), in 1832 - the Zoological Museum, and in 1834, the University of St. Vladimir in Kyiv began to operate. A few years later, in 1839, the world's largest Nikolaev (Pulkovo) Observatory was opened near St. Petersburg.

From childhood, Nikolai Pavlovich was distinguished by one characteristic feature, which determined much in the politics of the empire: extreme accuracy, even pedantry, in the implementation of all norms and rules. He knew by heart all the military regulations, strictly followed them, mastered the art of secular behavior to perfection, and observed all the requirements of written and unwritten rules to the smallest detail. He demanded the same from others. But this, as it seemed to many, “pettiness” irritated and outraged. After the reign of the soft and lenient Alexander I, the reign of his younger brother seemed to many to be “too harsh.”

The king thought differently and did not make exceptions for anyone when fulfilling the law. A typical case in this regard occurred in 1830, when a cholera epidemic broke out in some areas of the empire. Out of respect for the rules approved by him, the monarch, returning from a trip around Russia to St. Petersburg, like a “mere mortal,” meekly sat in quarantine for 11 days in Tver.

The accession of Nicholas I was accompanied by turmoil and bloody events, and this misfortune was forever etched in his memory. Soon after his accession, the emperor, referring to December 14, 1825, told the French ambassador Count Laferrone: “No one is able to understand the burning pain that I experience and will experience all my life when remembering this day.” During his reign, he made a lot of efforts to prevent any activity directed against the government.

Nicholas I never doubted that the autocratic, “God-given” power of the tsar was a necessary form of government in Russia. Unlike his older brother Alexander I, he never felt any attraction to fashionable European theories of the social structure of life, and could not stand “all sorts of constitutions and parliaments,” which only led to chaos and violated the ancient principle of the legal, legitimate power of crowned rulers. However, this did not mean that the tsar did not see the imperfections of the autocratic system, which he sought to eradicate not by introducing fundamentally new governing bodies, not by radically reforming institutions, but, as it seemed to him, the only correct way - by improving the existing state mechanism.

He was able to show concern, condescension and support a talented endeavor. In 1826, during the coronation, A.S. Pushkin was summoned from exile to Moscow, from whom the Tsar had previously removed his disgrace, remarking to him: “You will send me everything you write, and from now on I will be your censor myself.” Later, a lot of speculation arose about this, but in that era such a statement indicated that the poet was recognized by the sovereign, by the authorities, which immediately increased the interest of the entire “reading public” in him.

And in the biography of another Russian artistic genius, Nicholas I left a noticeable mark. When N.V. Gogol wrote the comedy “The Inspector General” in 1836, which caustically ridiculed the morals and way of life of provincial bureaucrats, many saw in it a “seditious” work that undermined the “foundations of power.” The Tsar allowed the play to be staged on stage, watched it himself and remarked that “I got the most out of it.”

Two sad milestones outline the reign of Nicholas I: the revolt on Senate Square - at the beginning and the unsuccessful Crimean campaign - at the end. Between them lies the almost thirty-year period of Russia’s existence, when its supreme earthly ruler was a man who unshakably believed in Providence and bowed before the sometimes inexplicable and incomprehensible will of the Creator.

Nicholas I himself repeatedly formulated his worldview in general and his understanding of power in particular, always invariably giving absolute priority to the will of the Almighty. After Peter I, he was, perhaps, not just a “religiously minded” ruler, but a religiously minded ruler. The emperor also announced the initial principles of his life understanding publicly, for example in 1844 before the Catholic clergy. “I know enough,” exclaimed Nicholas I, “how far my imperial power extends and how far it can go without violating your confession, and that is precisely why I demand commitment and obedience, and even more so I must demand that God Himself commands this to you, before whom I will have to answer for the well-being of the people entrusted to me."

The monarch's worldview was distinguished by that clear simplicity that is generally so characteristic of the consciousness of a traditional Orthodox Christian. Honoring family and state traditions, unconditional submission to the absolute moral Law was not just a norm of behavior for Nicholas I. This was the organic nature of his personality.

The personality of Nicholas I, not “by position,” but in reality was the focus of the traditional worldview at a turning point in everyday social consciousness, when signs of his dispersed orientation began to appear quite clearly. The emperor fully accepted the national-state tradition, those values ​​that were such in the past and, as it seemed, should remain the same in the future. This was not the reception of an unconscious reflex; it was a completely conscious choice. Hence the tsar’s admiration for N.M. Karamzin as a man who wrote history “worthy of the Russian people.” Hence the tears of the autocrat at the sounds of the national anthem “God Save the Tsar!”, written on his order, in accordance with his desire: the work created should contain music close to prayer.

The Christian worldview determined a supra-mundane understanding of royal service, which was literally perceived as sacred service. When the fateful hour came for Nikolai Pavlovich, the approach of which he never wanted, but the possibility of which he was aware of - the occupation of the ancestral throne, he perceived it as a severe test. “Pray to God for me, dear and kind Marie,” he wrote on the very day of December 14, 1825 to his elder sister Maria Pavlovna (1786-1859), “have pity on the unfortunate brother - the victim of the will of God and his two brothers! I removed this cup from myself While I could, I prayed to Providence, and I fulfilled what my heart and my duty commanded me. Constantine, my Sovereign, rejected the oath that I and all of Russia took to him. I was his subject, I had to obey him. ".

One of the famous statesmen of the era of Nicholas I, Count P.D. Kiselev (1788-1872), cited in his memoirs extremely revealing statements of the emperor, fully revealing the “royal philosophy”: “No one can imagine how difficult the duties of the Monarch are, what kind of thankless work, but it must be done, since it is God’s will... I am, first of all, a Christian and I obey the dictates of Providence; I am a sentry who has received an order, and I try to fulfill it as best I can.”

The Orthodox worldview, organically inherent in Nicholas I, manifested itself constantly, determining his attitude towards affairs and people, even in those cases when some persons caused nothing but disgust in his soul. The execution of five Decembrists, which took place in July 1826, was for the tsar the end of the “horror” that he and his relatives experienced after he assumed the crown. The rebellion on Senate Square has never faded from memory, but especially strong feelings prevailed not only at the time of the December events, but also in the subsequent months of the inquiry and trial. When autocratic justice was accomplished, the tsar, without doubting his rightness to execute unrepentant criminals, was able to discern signs of piety even in such a person as P.G. Kakhovsky (1797-1826) - not only a criminal “by intent,” but and murderers. It was he who, during the December events, mortally wounded the famous general Count M.A. Miloradovich and Colonel N.K. Sturler. In a letter to his mother on July 13, 1826, Nicholas I admitted: “The details regarding the execution, no matter how terrible it was, convinced everyone that such hidebound creatures did not deserve any other fate: almost none of them showed remorse. The five executed before their death showed much more repentance, especially Kakhovsky. The latter said before his death that he was praying for me! I only feel sorry for him; may the Lord forgive him and rest his soul!”

The Emperor did not hide his joy when he was able to see manifestations of the depth of Orthodox feeling in people whose full affiliation with Orthodoxy did not seem completely obvious. Particularly noteworthy here are the words from a letter in February 1837 to his younger brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich (1798-1849), which the monarch said to the deceased A.S. Pushkin: “Pushkin died and, thank God, died a Christian.”

The idea of ​​rank and admiration for authority has always been inherent in Nikolai Pavlovich’s worldview. In this capacity, he perceived not only the sacred law, but also the formal law, which he not only affirmed himself, but also which he inherited from previous reigns. The tsar clearly demonstrated such reverence during a “discussion” with Pope Gregory XVI during his visit to Rome in 1845. Objecting to the complaints of the Roman high priest about the restrictions of the Catholic Church in Russia, the autocrat said: “Your Holiness, you can be sure that if your information is indeed fair, then appropriate measures will be taken. I am ready to do everything within my power. However, there are laws that are so closely related to the basic laws of my state that I cannot change the first without becoming in conflict with the second."

Any public “willfulness” was in no case considered acceptable. This view was captured in concentrated expression in a handwritten note by Nicholas I, compiled during the revolutionary upheavals in Prussia in 1848. “Isn’t it clear,” the emperor exclaimed, “that where they no longer command, but allow reasoning instead of obedience, discipline no longer exists; therefore, obedience, which until then was a managerial principle, ceased to be obligatory there and became arbitrary. Hence comes confusion in opinions, contradiction with the past, indecision about the present and complete ignorance and bewilderment about the unknown, incomprehensible and, let’s be honest, impossible future.”

The desire of Nicholas I to bring the appearance of power into full compliance with popular, that is, Orthodox, ideas was as sincere as it was unattainable. The autocratic romanticism of the monarch inevitably had to overcome the eternal antinomy of the “desirable” and “ought”, on the one hand, and the “possible” and “permissible”, on the other, which made itself felt in the Muscovite kingdom, but to an even greater extent in the Russian era. empires. Even such a strong Ruler was beyond the power to solve this moral super-task. Nicholas I, as a “victim of the will of God,” was awarded a “heavy cross,” receiving for himself the control of a huge empire that existed in the earthly world, for the powerful of which the Incarnate Word either meant very little or meant nothing at all. Trying not only in his personal life, but also in state affairs and in the sphere of international politics to be guided by Christian principles, the tsar inevitably put his power in an often very vulnerable position. Believing in the word of the rulers “by the grace of God,” striving to support them, sometimes in defiance of the course of events, trying in everything and everywhere to affirm the patriarchal order of seniority, to introduce everywhere the principle of submission to authority, Nicholas I sometimes inevitably found himself a loser in a morally imperfect world. These mistakes sometimes turned out to be large and unforgivable - for example, armed support for the dying Austrian monarchy in 1849. But, recognizing the failures of the emperor, it is impossible not to pay tribute to the Christian king, one of the last such crowned rulers in world history.

"Empire as Russia's path to Europeanization." The famous historian, philosopher and writer Vladimir Karlovich Kantor made such a report at the seminar of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy. A video of the performance can be viewed at the bottom of the post.

I will give the most interesting thoughts of the discussion participants.

The Soviet Union was not an empire!

European civilization is a mutation of Asian structures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The empire unites many peoples, and the task is to introduce these peoples into the legal and civilizational space.
The Empire is supranational and supraconfessional.

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

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

Russia became a nation without including the people into the nation. This is why the Russian Empire perished.

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

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

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

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

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

Empire is an open system.

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

To create an empire, it does not matter which monotheistic religion is used.

You cannot ask to go to Europe, you can enter Europe “under the roar of guns and ships under construction,” as Pushkin wrote.

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

The Bolsheviks, having broken the empire, moved the capital to Moscow. Instead of the Russian empire, Moscow despotism appeared.

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

Modern Russia is not an empire.

Orthodoxy now really holds the Russian state together.

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

Russia has imperial qualities.

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

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

World diasporas associated with the metropolis form imperial structures that extend beyond national borders. This is a new type of state, based not on a set of territories, but on a set of citizens. Citizenship becomes the main thing. This is a new version of imperial existence.

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

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

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

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

The meaning of the existence of an empire is that there is always a certain beginning for which it is worth living, without deriving practical benefit from it - something turned into eternity.

I ASKED TWO QUESTIONS:
1 Today we see two empires: the European Union and the United States of America. What is Russia’s place between these two empires – between the “hammer” and the “hard place”?
2 If the city structures consciousness, then how has the government changed with the presence of St. Petersburg residents in it?

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

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

What does empire mean to ordinary people? This is the absence of borders and customs, a single space for the dissemination of information and culture, a single labor market, freedom of movement, and the same rules for everyone.

National elites destroyed the country of the USSR. Now everyone has their own Ministry of Foreign Affairs, their own embassies, their own ambassadors. And it’s up to the common man to feed all these parasites.

Nation states are an invention of national elites to exercise their dominance within their state.
Elites fight, but people die!

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

To avoid the sad experience of the collapse of the USSR, Russia is being built as a national state. The division into seven federal districts and the United Russia party serve this purpose.

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

All empires were based on religious tolerance. But even in the Roman Empire there was religious hostility. This is well illustrated in director Alejandro Amenábar's new film, Agora.

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

What will the global empire of the future be like?

The idea of ​​globalism is the idea of ​​uniting the world. But on what principles will it be built?
Rejection of the principles of globalization leads to the opposite effect – gloCAliza- tion.

No one himself will give up his advantages to please others. Inequality will continue and always will. There will always be servers and there will always be managers, just as there will always be those who find it easier to execute than to think and make decisions. And the work of a manager will never cost less than the work of a performer. Hence the inequality. This, however, does not mean that everyone will want to become a leader.
So everything again comes down to individual differences, which were, are and will always be.

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

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

We need a new paradigm as an alternative to the consumer economy; altruistic consumption as opposed to “simulative” consumption.

In fact, we are talking about a future fair world order based on fair social communities.

The question is who will offer a social model that is more fair and satisfies as many different strata of society as possible and has the greatest potential for development. A model in which global goals will be linked to individual goals and meanings of existence, taking into account religious and ethnic characteristics.

Or is this just another utopia, and the war for the dominance of some over others will separate humanity into ethnic “corners”?

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

Patriotism is love for one's own, and nationalism is hatred of strangers.
We must love all people, and not selectively Russians or Americans.

While remaining a citizen of your country, you must be a citizen of the world in your soul.
I am a Russian citizen of the world!