Peter's reforms, historically justified and creating the Russian Empire out of Muscovite Russia, meant too sharp a break with the former Muscovite tradition. High society began to Europeanize, while the merchants, peasants and clergy continued to live in the pre-Petrine way. This led to a new great split between society and the people, and later between society and the state, in which one must see the historical background of the possibility of revolution. To deduce the Bolshevik revolution only from Russian conditions of life, to regard Bolshevism as an inner-Russian phenomenon, is a great mistake. After all, Marxism is still the dominant doctrine in the USSR, and Marxism is clearly a Western product, a poison prepared in the laboratory of the West. Even such a historian as Toynbee, whose judgments about Russia, generally speaking, leave much to be desired, nevertheless always emphasizes the fact of the Western origin of Bolshevism.

However, the schism between society and the people, which had been brewing since the time of Peter, created favorable prerequisites for the possibility of a new Pugachevism, as in his time it created the prerequisites for the emergence of the first Pugachevism. Peter's reforms were necessary for Russia, for its entry into the path of historical life. And it is not for nothing that the St. Petersburg period of our history – the period of the Russian Empire – was the most brilliant period in Russian history. Without Peter, there would be no Lomonosov, no Pushkin, no Dostoevsky. There would have been no later flowering of the Russian culture. But Russia's entry onto the path of history and culture was bought at a high price. And Vladimir Solovyov is right: "When Muscovite Russia was in danger of misunderstanding its destiny and becoming an exclusively Eastern kingdom, Providence laid on it the heavy hand of Peter."

By Peter's reforms and a number of later schisms, we had to pay for the separation from Byzantium and the West, which we noted at first.

Therefore, without understanding the meaning of the events that took place in Ancient Russia, it is impossible to understand the later Russian history and, in particular, it is impossible to understand the emergence of Russian thought in its Slavophile and Western key in the 19th century. The themes of the meaning of history, of the separation of secular civilization from spiritual culture, which occupied Russian thought in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, were historically suggested by the whole of Russian history. The review I have made does not yet give a history of Russian thought—it is not for nothing that I have made a reservation that I shall first speak of the precursors of Russian thought, of the historical and cultural subsoil of its origin and development. But these preludes, this subsoil, are extremely important for understanding what follows. And in this regard, I would like to conclude this brief review with the words of Klyuchevsky, said by him just about the events of the 17th century: "Russia is an untidy, rustic cradle, in which the world future restlessly fusses and shouts."

Essay Two EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

The Moscow period of Russian history ended with Peter the Great's reforms, which led Russia to the path of historical life from centuries-old stagnation. But the crisis of Muscovite Rus was brewing long before the reforms. In the 17th century, the Moscow tsars had to use the services of German mercenaries, who were more versed in "military affairs" than the difficult Moscow archers. The superiority of Western technology, not yet so noticeable in the fifteenth century, now made itself felt. The influence of the then higher Polish culture also slowly seeped in, despite hostile political relations with Poland. (Under Tsar Fyodor Alexeyevich (1676-1682), Polish morals and Polish books were very influential at the royal court.) Finally, the church schism itself was caused by Greek and Little Russian influences, for it was precisely the orientation towards the Greeks and Little Russians, who were more learned than the Moscow clergy, that served for Nikon as the main reason for the revision of rites and church translations. The influence of higher Western enlightenment, Western mores, freer, knocked irresistibly at the door of Moscow, frozen in a semi-Asiatic sleep. The idea of the Russian sacred kingdom, the idea of "Holy Russia" as the Third Rome, although it was not officially abolished, was burned at the stake of self-immolating schismatics. Under Mikhail and Alexei, the first renegades of Moscow culture were already appearing. Thus, under Michael, the trial of a certain Khvorostinin took place, who asserted that the Moscow people were "stupid" and that in Moscow "there was no one to live with." Under Alexei, the embassy clerk (secretary) Grigory Kotoshikhin deserted to Sweden, who then wrote a lampoon on Moscow morals, which he ridiculed. These, of course, were the national-cultural deserters of Moscow, from whom such figures as Nashchokin or Matveyev, who respected Western enlightenment, but adhered to the religious and everyday relations of Moscow morals, differed favorably. In the 16th century, the first Russian emigrant, Prince Kurbsky, protested only against the excesses of Ivan the Terrible, while he himself remained a Muscovite in his way of life and culture and, as is known, did a lot for the cause of Orthodoxy in Western Russia. The need for Europeanizing reforms was prompted by life itself, and if it had not been for Peter's reforms, Russia would probably have faced the fate of India or China. On the other hand, there is no doubt that many reforms are harsh and excessive, especially in the ecclesiastical question. If under Nikon and Stefan Yavorsky there was a certain Catholic influence, then Theophan Prokopovich was more Protestant in spirit than Orthodox. In his writings, his lack of understanding of the nature of the Church as the mystical body of Christ is striking, and his excessive obsequiousness to secular power is also striking. Peter himself sympathized with Protestantism, although he remained Orthodox, and it is not surprising that later Catherine, who was not very versed in religious affairs, claimed that she saw "almost" no difference between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy. In general, the situation of the Orthodox Church almost throughout the entire 18th century left much to be desired. In theological seminaries, predominantly Western Russian, Little Russian scholars prevailed, because they did not yet have their own. And the Little Russians, being Orthodox, nevertheless brought with them a significant share of the Catholic spirit (emphasis on Latin, on catechisms compiled according to Catholic models, although claiming to be Orthodox). At the top of the Orthodox hierarchy, a mixed Protestant-Catholic influence was established, which was in contradiction with the Orthodox church spirit and way of life. Theological seminaries reeked of scholastic boredom, and the low clergy lost the art of preaching, confining themselves only to church Orthodoxy. It is no accident, therefore, that during the second half of the eighteenth century, numerous sects were formed—the Molokans, the Khlysts, the Skoptsy, etc.—who fell out of Orthodoxy. Prof. Florovsky correctly characterizes this period as a gap between theological scholarship and living church experience. A turn for the better occurred at the end of the XVIII century, mainly due to the renewal of the influence of Athos and the tradition of the Trans-Volga elders. This religious renaissance was the work of two remarkable elders, Paisius Velichkovsky and St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, who served, among other things, as the main prototype of the image of Zosima in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. But we will talk about this later. Now let's deal with the development of secular culture in Russia in the XVIII century. Secular Western culture was implanted by Peter the Great, mainly from the practical, military-technical side. Nevertheless, Peter understood that the practical use of technology was impossible without a culture of scientific thinking, and therefore the Academy of Sciences was founded in Russia before universities, which was supposed to train future Russian scientists. The fact that Peter also understood the benefits of secular literature is proved by the support he gave to the first Russian secular writer, Kantemir. Lomonosov could appear and make his way to glory only in the post-Peter the Great conditions. However, it took Russian society almost half a century for us to finally have cadres of the intelligentsia, to have an environment conducive to the development of thought and literature. Such an environment in the era of Catherine the Great was the nobility, which until the beginning of the 19th century was the only bearer of Russian culture of that time. The noble intelligentsia was highly patriotic, and at the same time culturally they adhered to a Western orientation - after all, at that time Catherine the Great, an admirer of Voltaire and Western enlightenment, was on the throne. Interestingly, her "Mandate" was banned in pre-revolutionary France as an overly liberal book. The alliance between the (noble) intelligentsia and the government was broken later, by the end of the reign of Alexander I and especially after the Decembrist uprising. But the very patriotism of the Russian intelligentsia of the Catherine the Great era was already recularized. "Catherine's Eagles" were inspired not so much by "Holy Russia", "the Third Rome", as by "Great Russia", the pathos of imperial construction. The very mission of the Russian Empire was understood as the affirmation of the political greatness of Russia, its transformation into an enlightened power. These cultural claims of Russia were well expressed by Lomonosov in his famous poems about the fact that "the Russian land can give birth to its own Platons and quick-minded Newtons." Lomonosov himself (1711-1767), as is known, was a brilliant scientist who, among other things, anticipated the law of conservation of matter and energy before Lavoisier. His knowledge was encyclopedic in nature, and it was not for nothing that Pushkin said about him that he not only founded the first Russian university (under Elizabeth in 1755), but was also our "first university". At the same time, Lomonosov was a religious man, although he was more of an enlightened deist than an Orthodox in spirit. But it is characteristic that he no longer saw the contradiction between science and religion. "A mathematician is wrong if he wants to measure God's will with a compass, but a theologian is also wrong if he thinks that astronomy and chemistry can be learned from the Psalter," he wrote. For him, the scientific study of nature and the Gospel are two ways of revealing the Godhead: one is external, the other is internal. In this, Lomonosov followed the tradition of the Western rationalists, Descartes and Leibniz, for whom science, philosophy, and religion do not exclude each other, but complement each other. True, here God turned into a philosophical Absolute and ceased to be the living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

But in the middle of the eighteenth century, Voltaire lived and acted in the West, sharply criticizing the superstitions and vices of the clergy and the church, although he was not yet an atheist, but a deist. If for Voltaire there was also no contradiction between religion and science, then for him there was already a contradiction between church Christianity and enlightenment. Voltaire's ridicule of the church and religious prejudices thundered throughout Europe. Therefore, it is not surprising that Voltaire's laughter was heard and echoed in Russia, which was then greedily catching the "last word" of the enlightened West, especially since Catherine herself was known as his "student". Thus, a new version of Russian Westernism was born - Russian Voltaireanism or "freethinking". It began as an imitation of the latest cry of Western fashion, but soon developed into a very influential frame of mind. It is then that ridicule of the church and "priests" becomes especially popular. But it is interesting that the Russian "Voltairians" very soon went further than Voltaire. The positive side of Voltaire's teachings, his humanism and his preaching of tolerance, have been assimilated to us less than his skepticism. Therefore, the Russian Voltairians soon became atheists. The historian Klyuchevsky speaks well of this: "Having lost their God, the Russian Voltairians not only left His church, but, remaining in the church, blasphemed and blasphemed it." The harmony between Russian patriotism and the worship of Western enlightenment soon began to be lost, giving way to a blind imitation of everything French, for France was then the center of the intellectual life of the West. The Russian satirist Fonvizin exposed this blind worship of everything French in his "Brigadier", where Ivanushka says: "My body was born in Russia, it is true, but my spirit belonged to the crown of France." These words could have been repeated by very many of the "Westernizers" of that time, who often spoke French better than Russian. But, in addition to Voltairean freethinking, other Western influences penetrated into Russia, which were in some way a reaction to Voltairianism. First of all, Freemasonry must be included here, and then sentimentalism, which was more than just a literary trend. Freemasonry in the West was a reaction against the one-sided rationalism and soul-draining skepticism of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists. It sought to reconcile reason and faith, science and religion through the "purification" of religion from superstition. At the same time, the Masonic movement itself acquired the character of some kind of esoteric new church, with sacraments, with initiations, with its own discipline. Freemasonry did not deny Christianity, but valued its primarily moral content. In fact, it sought to replace traditional church Christianity (with a religion of a more "enlightened" type).

In Russia, the main representatives of the Freemasons were Novikov, Lopukhin, Gamaleya and some others. But we will talk only about Novikov. Novikov was the first prominent Russian publicist of the polemical style, who waged a struggle on two fronts: against superstitions, prejudices and abuses of power by landlords, on the one hand, and against blind imitation of Western mores, on the other. He did a great deal of educational work, was the editor of the first Russian magazines ("Drone" and others), polemicized with Catherine herself, who at first favorably encouraged such freethinking. He later became a moderate Freemason and preached Freemasonry with great skill and caution. When, after the French Revolution, the Empress became suspicious of any unorthodox freethinking, she put Novikov on trial and imprisoned him in the Spisselburg fortress. By the way, before that, she had asked Metropolitan Platon to "check" his religious views.

Митрополит  Платон дал отзыв, что он в жизни не встречал лучшего христианина, чем Новиков. (Но нет сомнения, что если бы митрополит лучше разбирался в богословии, он должен был бы заклеймить взгляды Новикова — не его поведение — как не православные.)

А. Н. РАДИЩЕВ

Но самым значительным из радикалов екатерининской эпохи является, безусловно, Радищев (1749—1802). Интересно, что он в числе других молодых людей был послан императрицей для обучения в Германию, где и кончил Лейпцигский университет. Он хорошо усвоил идеи Лейбница и впоследствии французских энциклопедистов, крайние из которых были материалистами и атеистами. Он усвоил  «западные идеи» не только с их критической, отрицательной, но и с положительной стороны. Он был первым  полноценным русским гуманистом и рационалистом. Усвоив дух западного гуманизма, он резко критиковал недостатки русского быта и особенно крепостное право. В этом он был союзником Новикова. Но если Новиков разоблачал только злоупотребления крепостным правом, то Радищев подверг осуждению сам принцип рабовладения, как несовместимый с достоинством человека, в своем знаменитом «Путешествии из Петербурга в Москву». Книга эта начинается характерными словами: «Я взглянул окрест меня — и душа моя страданиями человечества уязвлена стала» — слова, которые русская интеллигенция могла бы взять своим «мотто». Если бы эта книга появилась до пугачевщины и до Французской революции, то она вряд ли вызвала столь резкую реакцию со стороны императрицы, которая ведь и сама в молодости увлекалась просветительными идеями. Но книга Радищева вышла в 1790 году, когда всякий либерализм стал для Екатерины пугалом. Императрица, прочитав книгу, пришла в ужас от радикализма автора, характеризовала книгу как «рассеяние французской заразы» и устроила суд, который приговорил автора к смертной казни, замененной 10-летней ссылкой в Сибирь. Русская интеллигенция зачислила многострадального автора в свой мартиролог как первого мученика. Впрочем, в 1796 году Павел освободил Радищева, который покончил жизнь самоубийством при Александре. Для нас интересно, что значение Радищева не исчерпывается его обличительным «Путешествием». Изпод его пера вышел также замечательный философский трактат «О смертности человека и его бессмертии». Составлен этот трактат с большим искусством, основательностью и некоторой самостоятельностью мысли. В нем Радищев подробно приводит аргументы материалистов против бессмертия души и затем опровергает эти аргументы, выступая в качестве защитника бессмертия, понимаемого им в духе учения Лейбница о перевоплощениях («метаморфозе»). Большевики изображают теперь Радищева в качестве первого русского материалиста и атеиста, что совершенно неверно. Радищев, правда, с сочувствием приводил некоторые взгляды французских энциклопедистов, но в то же время критиковал их. Он признавал реальность материи, отрицаемую спиритуалистами, но отрицал первичность материи по отношению к духу. Радищев был реалистом и дуалистом, а не материалистом. Изображать его защиту бессмертия как самозащиту против цензуры, как это делают большевики, — значит извращать факты. Радищевская концепция бессмертия далека от христианского учения и могла уже поэтому подвергнуться давлению цензуры, если бы цензура в то время была столь строгой, как в позднейшие, николаевские времена. Но трактат Радищева появился до Французской революции, когда цензура была еще достаточно либеральной. В своей этике Радищев также выступает как последовательный  гуманист. Он ратует за подчинение страстей разуму, во имя человеческого достоинства и свободы духа, но он — против всякого аскетизма. «В человеке... никогда не иссякают права природы, — пишет он, — совершенное умерщвление страстей —уродливо». Трактат Радищева написан в высшей степени зрело.Это — первая русская философская работа, стоящая вполне на уровне тогдашней философской культуры, не потерявшая интереса и по сегодняшний день. В лице Радищева русская мысль еще не научилась летать, но она уже расправила крылья. Как известно, Радищева высоко ценил Пушкин, и одна из редакций «Памятника» гласит: «Вослед Радищеву  восславил я свободу». Большевики без достаточного основания причисляют его к своим предшественникам. «Друг свободы» не мог быть предтечей рабства.

Радищев —  первый из крупных представителей дворянской интеллигенции, который  предвосхитил позднейший   разрыв интеллигенции с  правящим слоем. Говоря словами историка Федотова, русская интеллигенция, в ее целом, в эпоху Екатерины II и Александра 1 шла вместе с правительством — с тем, чтобы впоследствии перейти во враждебный лагерь. И Радищев был застрельщиком этой вражды, этого раскола между правящим слоем и большинством интелгенции.

* * *