Kovalevsky, Pavel Ivanovich. P

Professor Pavel Ivanovich Kovalevsky (1849–1931) - a famous Russian scientist, psychiatrist, psychologist, publicist, ideologist of Russian nationalism, public figure, who worked for a long time at the Saburova dacha - a former Saburyan who belonged to the galaxy of intellectual doctors formed in the last third of the 19th century century and did a lot for the development of domestic psychiatry, including for the Kharkov psychiatric school. P. I. Kovalevsky - Doctor of Medicine, Professor, founder of the first Russian psychiatric journal “Archive of Psychiatry, Neurology and Forensic Psychopathology”, author of an original concept on the role of blood circulation and metabolism in the central nervous system, the first Russian manual on psychiatry, organizer at Kiev University the first independent department of psychiatry in Ukraine and one of the first experimental psychological laboratories, a member of the Russian Assembly, the All-Russian National Club and the All-Russian National Union. Pavel Ivanovich was one of the leading Russian psychiatrists of the early 20th century, his was rightly called the best psychiatrist in the capital and even “the father of Russian psychiatry” .

The name of Pavel Ivanovich is still little known today. As a rule, only historians of medicine know about it, for P. I. Kovalevsky was one of the leading Russian psychiatrists of the early 20th century, and a few experts on the ideology of Russian nationalism, since P. I. Kovalevsky was rightfully considered the ideologist of this direction of Russian thought, actively who took part in such organizations as the All-Russian National Club and the All-Russian National Union 1. Before the revolution, in right-wing circles his name was no less famous than the recently returned name of the major nationalist publicist M. O. Menshikov. However, in the subsequent seventy years of Soviet power, these names were deliberately consigned to oblivion. Little by little, the works of patriotic thinkers are beginning to be republished, and special studies are being devoted to their authors. But unlike M. O. Menshikov, about whom a whole monograph has already been written, Pavel Ivanovich was less fortunate - the political biography of this prominent ideologist of Russian national thought, superficially reflected in several small articles dedicated to him, essentially remains unknown.

P.I. Kovalevsky was born in 1849 (according to other sources - in 1850) in the town of Petropavlovka, Pavlograd district, Ekaterinoslav province (now an urban-type settlement in the Dnepropetrovsk region of Ukraine) in the family of a priest. In the sixth week of his life, having lost his father, Pavel grew up with his brother, two sisters and a widowed mother in extremely cramped material conditions - the main source of existence for the Kovalevsky family was a ten-ruble annual pension. At the age of nine, following family tradition, the boy was sent as a half-boarder to a theological school, in the senior classes of which, through tutoring, “he not only earned money for himself, but also spent something from it for household use.”

Having successfully completed his studies at the school, P.I. Kovalevsky entered the Ekaterinoslav Theological Seminary, from which he graduated as the first student in 1869. However, being passionate about natural science, the young man did not follow the spiritual path, but decided to continue his education at the Faculty of Medicine of Kharkov University.

In 1869, P.I. Kovalevsky entered the medical faculty of Kharkov University. Since his second year, he has been engaged in scientific research in the laboratory of the Department of General Pathology, headed by I. N. Obolensky. The future doctor pays the greatest attention to nervous and mental diseases. Having graduated with honors from the university in 1874 and received a degree in medicine and the title of district doctor, P. I. Kovalevsky, due to his demonstrated abilities, was left at the faculty to prepare his doctoral dissertation in psychiatry, which he soon successfully defended on the topic “On changes in skin sensitivity in melancholic people.” "in 1877.

Pavel Ivanovich, trying to thoroughly study modern methods of treating mental illness, repeatedly traveled abroad, worked in Kazan with Professor A. U. Frese, who received training from the same teachers as S. S. Korsakov (after A. U. Frese, the Department of Psychiatry in Kazan was taken by V. M. Bekhterev).

At the same time, the theoretical work of P. I. Kovalevsky was closely intertwined with practical work. The young scientist combined his scientific research with the work of a supernumerary resident in the department of the mentally ill at the Kharkov provincial zemstvo hospital (Saburova Dacha). It is appropriate to note here that before the intervention of Pavel Ivanovich, who was shocked to the core by what he saw in the insane asylum, their situation in the existing system of attitude towards the mentally ill was very difficult. This is how a contemporary describes him: “A warden armed with a whip was placed over the unfortunate people. In case of any disobedience, the deserving one received a reminder of maintaining decency with a full blow of the whip. If the whip did not have the desired effect, the madman was chained, and if this did not calm the brawler, he was simply shackled!” .

P.I. Kovalevsky boldly spoke out in defense of the mentally ill, proposing a number of measures to reorganize the institution (his idea of ​​​​creating workshops for the mentally ill and introducing them to physical labor was an innovation). Thanks to his works and the works of his students, the painful situation of the patients of the institution came to an end - the chains and shackles disappeared, and the insane received the right to be considered sick.

After defending his doctoral dissertation, Pavel Ivanovich successively served as a private assistant professor (1877), associate professor (1878), extraordinary (1884) and ordinary (1888) professor of the Department of Psychiatry at Kharkov University, and was the initiator of the First Congress of Psychiatrists and Neuropathologists of Russia (1887).

In 1877, the first independent department of psychiatry and neurology in Ukraine was organized at Kharkov University, headed by private associate professor P. I. Kovalevsky, a student of A. U. Frese, who began his scientific work at Saburova’s dacha. Clinical demonstrations were carried out initially in the Kharkov provincial zemstvo hospital (Saburova Dacha), and subsequently in the hospital of I. Ya. Platonov, where a laboratory was organized and, to the extent possible, everything necessary for the most successful teaching was created due to the fact that Saburova Dacha was outside of Kharkov and there was no paved road there.

In 1889, P.I. Kovalevsky was appointed dean of the medical faculty of Kharkov University, and then rector of the University of Warsaw (1892–1897). Unfortunately, a serious illness suffered in the summer of 1896 forced him to leave the university. From 1903 to 1906 - head of the department of psychiatry at Kazan University, after which he taught a course in forensic psychopathology at the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University and worked as a senior doctor in the psychiatric department of the Nikolaev Military Hospital in St. Petersburg - an advanced medical institution of that time. At this time, Pavel Ivanovich continued to publish magazines, was engaged in translations of the works of foreign psychiatrists F. Pinel, T. Meinert, K. Wernicke and others, taking an active part in the work of a number of public organizations (Institute of Brothers of Charity, Committee of the Red Cross, etc.).

The implementation of mature innovations in psychiatry and the attraction of wide public attention to them gave rise to the need to create a special printed organ in Russia. In 1893, P.I. Kovalevsky became the founder and editor of the first psychiatric journal in Russian, called “Archive of Psychiatry, Neurology and Forensic Psychopathology” (the journal ceased to exist in 1896). The title of the publication reflected the versatile aspirations of the editor, who announced that the journal “will pursue the study of abnormalities in human nervous life, diseases, crimes, the conditions for their development and means for their eradication.” He has published a number of foreign monographs and manuals on the most important issues of psychoneurology. To him, domestic psychiatrists owe their acquaintance with the clinical lectures of T. Meinert, whose ideas were especially close to P. I. Kovalevsky, lectures by J. M. Charcot, books by W. R. Gowers, O. L. Bienswanger, Ch. Richet and others. In addition, he published the “Journal of Medicine and Hygiene”, “Russian Medical Bulletin”, “Bulletin of Idiocy and Epilepsy”, “Bulletin of Mental Illnesses”, and for 15 years he was co-editor of the European Psychiatric Journal published in Germany. Pavel Ivanovich was rightly called the best psychiatrist in the capital and even “the father of Russian psychiatry”- he is the author of a large number of scientific works on various issues of psychiatry, including forensic psychiatry, psychology, neurology and a large number of translations of the works of foreign psychiatrists.

In his scientific research, Pavel Ivanovich, relying on the anatomical and physiological knowledge of that time, in particular, on the reflex theory of I.M. Sechenov, developed materialistic ideas about the essence of mental phenomena in normal and pathological conditions. He created an original concept about the role of blood circulation and metabolism in the central nervous system, believing that the basis of any mental illness is a malnutrition of the nervous elements and that the degree of their anatomical destruction depends on the duration of this disorder. In the etiology of psychoses, P.I. is of great importance. Kovalevsky attributed the combination of hereditary factors with external agents causing the disease to both somatogenic and psychogenic nature. A number of his works are devoted to the study of syphilitic lesions of the nervous system, issues of forensic psychiatry, childhood neuropathology, etc. Pavel Ivanovich created a classification of mental illnesses, where the predominance of disorders in one or another area of ​​mental activity was taken as the basis for the division.

During his half-century of medical practice, P. I. Kovalevsky wrote over 300 books, brochures, and journal articles on various issues of psychiatry, neuropathology and psychology. These include the books “Psychiatry”, “General Psychopathology”, “Guide to the Proper Care of the Mentally Ill”, “Forensic Psychiatry”, “Forensic Psychiatric Analysis” (3 editions), “Primary Insanity”, “Mental Illnesses for Doctors and lawyers”, “Psychology of gender”, “Psychology of women”, “Degeneration and rebirth. The criminal and the fight against crime: Social and psychological sketches”, “Psychology of the criminal” (there is also a French edition), “Hygiene and treatment of mental and nervous diseases”, “Fundamentals of the mechanism of mental activity”, “Fundamentals of human psychology”, “Drunkenness, its causes and treatment”, “Textbook of psychiatry for students” (4 editions), “Cerebral syphilis and its treatment”, “Puerperal psychoses”, “Migraine and its treatment”. Professor I. A. Polishchuk (1976) appropriately emphasized that Pavel Ivanovich published what he wrote the first domestic manual on psychiatry.

In addition to scientific and teaching activities, P. I. Kovalevsky was an active participant in the national-monarchist movement. For some time he was a member of the oldest St. Petersburg elite monarchist organization “Russian Assembly”, participated in the activities of the Russian marginal society that arose on the basis of the Assembly, which set as its goal the study of the national borderlands of the Russian Empire and the fight against peripheral separatism. With the formation of the All-Russian National Union (VNS) in 1908, Pavel Ivanovich became one of its leading ideologists. He also took an active part in the activities of the All-Russian National Club (VNK), a cultural, educational and political organization created to promote the ideas of Russian nationalism. Within the framework of the All-Russian National Club, P. I. Kovalevsky repeatedly gave reports, was a member of the editorial board of the Izvestia of the All-Russian National Club, and for some time served as chairman of the publishing commission of the All-Russian National Club.

According to P.I. Kovalevsky, the VNS was called upon “to warm up the national feeling among the masses of dark people” and “to destroy the depraved indifference and denationalism” of the educated classes. At the same time, Pavel Ivanovich saw the composition of the Supreme National Assembly as quite broad, although not limitless: “The National Party will only be national when it is people’s. It will comprise... the intelligentsia and the people - the basis of the nation - as well as other nationalities... not only Orthodox Christians will follow this party, but also Catholics, Mohammedans, Russians, Poles, Armenians, and Tatars...” He also emphasized that the Russian people have the right “to be proud of our nation within their state,” “for we can safely say to the eyes of all our subjects that we defeated them, but did not destroy them. We have preserved their religion, their language, their morals and customs." P.I. Kovalevsky’s view of the revolution of 1905 was also very characteristic: the Russian revolution, he emphasized, “is not Russian, but foreign, because this revolution is nothing more than a rebellion of foreign people... against Russia and the Russian people.”

Soon P.I. Kovalevsky established himself as a recognized theorist of Russian nationalism, who gave the most comprehensive formulations of the basic concepts of this ideology. In his opinion, a nation (from love for which healthy nationalism actually flows) is a phenomenon of a common language, faith and destiny. And such a community, the scientist believed, was developing among the Russians by the end of the 9th century. And although the Tatar yoke called into question the sovereignty of the Russian nation, and the Time of Troubles threatened the complete elimination of the Russian state, the Russian nation was revived at the beginning of the 17th century and took a leading position among the most prominent nations of the world. At the same time, Pavel Ivanovich emphasized that it is necessary to distinguish between the existence of a nation and its formation, to see the historical conditionality of the features of a nation.

Thus, the scientist wrote, a nation is “a certain group of people, united by a single territory, a single faith, a single language, common physical and mental properties, the same culture and the same destinies.” However, P.I. Kovalevsky believed that among the listed conditions that make up a nation, some are mandatory, while others are conditional. It is very characteristic that, like many nationalists of the early 20th century, Pavel Ivanovich believed that optional the conditions for the formation of a nation are territory, religion and language, while he considered the physical and mental properties of the people, their culture and historical destinies to be the conditions mandatory.

As for such a concept as “nationality,” it was interpreted by P. I. Kovalevsky as “a collection of properties and qualities inherent in a particular nation” and distinguishing it from other nations. But, unfortunately, P. I. Kovalevsky was not really able to determine the relationship between the concepts of “nation” and “people”. As modern researcher D. A. Kotsyubinsky rightly notes, the interpretation proposed by Pavel Ivanovich was internally contradictory and logically indigestible. According to his interpretation, “the essence and basis of the nation is given precisely by the people, their mass, for the intelligentsia and the enlightened part of the Russian people consists more than half of foreigners of the non-Russian nation,” therefore, the characteristic features of the nation are given by the common people, and if the nation is a “military institution”, “founded by the sword and living by the sword” from peasants and soldiers, then the people are the state.

As a modern researcher of the work of P. I. Kovalevsky, the famous patriotic politician A. N. Savelyev notes, Russian nationalism according to P. I. Kovalevsky is “a saving means of reunifying nationality and citizenship, a means of establishing a modern political nation, in which patriotism must give way to Russian nationalism, and the parochial “nationalism” of the non-Russian indigenous peoples of Russia will develop into Russian patriotism. For the existence of Russia, it is important to have a common civil understanding that Russia was created by Russian people, and Russian nationalism is the nationalism of a great nation, which, of course, must be nurtured and ascend to higher forms, eliminating the dark element of the people. Other nationalisms in Russia may be worthy of respect if combined with loyalty and allegiance to the Russian state. From here arises the formula of the hierarchy of the empire, which is a union of friendly nationalisms with primacy, leadership and patronage from Russian nationalists. Not only the Russian, but also the Slavic community can exist only under Russian leadership. For for the world and world history, the Slavs are perceived only through Russians and Russian history... Russian nationalism contrasts the vile undertakings of liberals with Russian solidarity, which draws into its orbit all patriots of Russia - even if they are non-Russian by blood.”

“Nationalism,” wrote P.I. Kovalevsky in one of his works, “is a manifestation of respect, love and devotion to the point of self-sacrifice, in the present - reverence and admiration for the past and the desire for prosperity, glory, power and success in the future - of that nation. the people to which the person belongs." And in the book “The Significance of Nationalism in the Modern Movement of the Balkan Slavs” (1913) he developed the concept of nationalism as follows: “Nationalism is the essence of the life of a nation - it is a manifestation of that internal essence of the nation, due to which its individual members gravitate towards each other, help each other friend, bring their lives to the benefit of their community and live in its glory and greatness.”

P.I. Kovalevsky, speaking about nationalism, noted that the latter consists of national identity and national feeling. Under national feeling the scientist understood “the unconscious gravitation and heartfelt attraction of people of one nation to each other,” that is, an unconscious, instinctive, and therefore organic phenomenon. National identity But, Pavel Ivanovich emphasized, “there is an act of thinking by virtue of which a given person recognizes himself as part of his native whole, comes under its protection and carries himself to the defense of his native, the whole, his nation.” And if national feeling is a “lower, animal manifestation,” then national self-consciousness is a “higher, spiritually intelligent” manifestation.

At the same time, realizing that nationalism as an ideology was borrowed from the West (which many nationalists did not hide, noting that the growing popularity of nationalism is a phenomenon of recent European development), P. I. Kovalevsky was in a hurry, in order to avoid accusations of “ Westernism" and imitativeness, make a reservation that Russian nationalism has its own specifics. Pavel Ivanovich saw the main difference between Russian nationalism and its European “brother” in the more active role of the government, led by P. A. Stolypin, in the development and implementation of the national idea: “The Great National Outburst” came in Russia “not from the bottom up (i.e. i.e. like in Europe - highlighted by A. Ivanov), and from top to bottom"; thanks to which, P.I. Kovalevsky wrote, Russian nationalism should be qualified not as a mechanically imitative “Westernism,” but as a “living, natural phenomenon.” Proving the “true progressiveness” of nationalism, Pavel Ivanovich, however, emphasized that nationalism is still a type of conservatism, but a “healthy” conservatism, that is, ensuring creative activity.

Analyzing in detail in his works such concepts as “nationalism”, “nation”, “national feeling”, “national identity”, P. I. Kovalevsky could not help but dwell on the phrase “Russian nationalists”, which was already reviled by the “progressive public” even then. .

“Russian nationalists” are cannibals... that’s what foreigners say who hate Russia and wish it harm. This is also what some Russians say, either those who have sold their souls to the enemies of the fatherland or uneducated and stupid people,” wrote Pavel Ivanovich in one of his most famous works, “Russian Nationalism and National Education.” “Russian nationalists” are people who, in fact, love their homeland and their nation with all their souls, respect its past and wish it glory, power and greatness in the future.” At the same time, P.I. Kovalevsky further noted, “those were purely Russians and Russians from foreigners, like Tsitsianov, Chavchavadze and many others. They gave their entire lives to serving their homeland and belonged to it undividedly. But only such Russians have the right to be called Russians, sons of Great Russia and to enjoy all the rights of Russian citizens. Those Russians who dare to slander their mother Russia, who wish her harm, who decide, while living in her, to act to her detriment - these are no longer Russians. These are the enemies of Russia... Russia is for Russians in the broadest sense of the word.”

Further defending the preferential rights of Russians (in the broad sense of the word) in the Russian state, P. I. Kovalevsky noted that they stem from the “right of blood” shed by our ancestors; property rights, “arising from the expenses of our ancestors” and “the rights of the historical destinies of the homeland...”.

It should be noted that in wide circles of the Russian intelligentsia the authority of Kovalevsky the historian was quite high. Such historical and journalistic works as “Peoples of the Caucasus”, “Conquest of the Caucasus by Russia”, “History of Little Russia”, “History of Russia from a national point of view”, “Russian nationalism and national education in Russia”, “Fundamentals of Russian nationalism”, “ Science, Christ and His teaching”, “John the Terrible and his state of mind”, “Psychology of the Russian nation. Education of youth. Alexander III - Tsar-Nationalist" enjoyed great reader interest and went through more than one publication in pre-revolutionary Russia. At the same time, Pavel Ivanovich was one of the first to use historical analysis for the development of practical psychiatry. His famous “Psychiatric Sketches from History,” which combined rigor and reliability of analysis, ease of style, originality and imagery of presentation, using specific examples from the lives of Ivan the Terrible, Peter III, Mohammed, Joan of Arc, Paul I, Napoleon, Cambyses, Ludwig II , Emanuel Swedenborg and others reveal the dynamics of various mental states, show the role of environment and heredity in the genesis and clinical course of diseases. It should be emphasized that the essays written by P. I. Kovalevsky at the beginning of the 20th century are still relevant today. Very often, the fate of a people or a state depends on the will and character of the leader of a given people or state.

But especially interesting in the context of this article is the work of P. I. Kovalevsky “History of Russia from a national point of view.” Although this work of a psychiatrist does not pretend to be a serious scientific work, it is notable for the fact that P. I. Kovalevsky, in contrast to the growing indifference to his native past, tried to consider its history with love for his people. “I do not at all dare,” he wrote in the preface to the book, “to write a new history of Russia. My desire is to try to consider the events of our history from a national point of view." The final conclusion of P.I. Kovalevsky’s “History...” is also noteworthy: “The main essence of the Russian people is that the Russians are Slavs, a completely unique and original people. His being is completely different from that of Western peoples. It is united by a mutual national connection, ancestral and natural, saving each other and everyone together, connected in times of adversity and hard times. His faith is the Orthodox faith, for it is in his spirit, in his being, in his Slavic nature. This people must inevitably have at its head a tsar, a tsar of the same faith with the people, a tsar-father who rules in this great Slavic family like a good father in any family - a tsar-master, guardian of the integrity of the entire Russian state, the entire Russian family. Orthodoxy, autocracy and autocracy there are the main features, the foundations of the existence of the Russian people." It should be clarified that by “unique power” the scientist understood the confession of the idea “that the Russian land under no circumstances can be divided, nor reduced in volume, nor dismembered into the component parts from which it originated.”

For P.I. Kovalevsky, the ideal of the Russian tsar was Emperor Alexander III, whose main merit was that “he was the father of his people. This tsar knew his people, understood their spirit, lived by their needs and loved them... He was truly a Russian people’s tsar, a nationalist tsar.” “He was flesh of the Slavic people and blood of the blood of the Slavic nation.”

As can be seen from the above quotes, P.I. Kovalevsky represented a kind of integral Slavic nation, with the development of which he pinned his hopes for a happy future for all of Europe, if not all of humanity. Thus, in one of his works, a nationalist professor wrote: “Nowadays the European peoples hate us. They surpass us in their knowledge, their technical and other improvements. But true perfection consists in the development of the greatest morality, the crown of which is: love, mercy, compassion and self-sacrifice - but, - P.I. Kovalevsky further noted, - I believe that the moment will come when all European peoples will achieve this degree of moral perfection. Then they will understand us. Then they will see that the Slavs, who bore the great and heavy cross in their lives, a symbol of suffering and redemption, a symbol of the teachings of the God-man, shed their blood not because of material benefits, but in the name of their national morality. And then the second prophecy will be fulfilled. The Slavs will conquer the world. And then all human national streams will merge into the Slavic sea. And the Slavs will win not with fire and sword, but with love, mercy, compassion and self-sacrifice. Then freedom, equality and brotherhood will reign under the Slavic symbol of the Cross, the symbol of the Divine Teacher Christ.”

However, although P.I. Kovalevsky was a consistent defender of the famous triad of Count S.S. Uvarov "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality", the idea of ​​a nationality-nation, as for most Russian nationalists (not to be confused with the Black Hundred monarchists, who looked at nationalists as “heretics”, covering up Western nationalist ideas with monarchical and Orthodox ideology) was in his main place. “...Outside the nationality there is no art, no truth, no life, nothing!”, believed P. I. Kovalevsky. From the above quotes it is clearly evident that Orthodoxy and monarchy were understood by Pavel Ivanovich not as values ​​in their own right, but as forms of faith and power most suitable for the Russian people. That is, P.I. Kovalevsky viewed them through the prism of nationalism, believing that they stem from the national properties of the Russian people, and not the other way around. At the same time, the very value of the institution of autocratic monarchy seemed to Pavel Ivanovich to be quite conditional: “Unified autocratic power in Russia follows directly from the nature of the national properties of the Russian people. From the organic inability of the Slavs to unite themselves and self-government.” “Autocracy in Russia is an organic national need, without which Russia cannot exist.” for the time being", he noted in one of his works.

Regarding the teachings of the Orthodox Church, P.I. Kovalevsky allowed himself free judgments and interpretations bordering on heresy. In particular, for the views on the Old Testament he outlined in the brochure “The Bible and Morality” (1906), the scientist almost ended up in exile - the censorship committee declared the book criminal, and put its author on trial for “blasphemy and insulting the sacred.” The court, however, acquitted P.I. Kovalevsky, finding no blasphemy in the work, and the brochure subsequently went through as many as 14 editions. However, as for the court’s decision to release the brochure from arrest, and not to punish the author, it does not at all speak of “the impartiality, intelligence and honesty of our judges,” as Pavel Ivanovich himself believed, but rather indicates that “those who tried him brochure, lawyers, armed with knowledge of the laws... [were] completely ignorant of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, accidentally turned out to be indifferent people and as ignorant in these matters as Mr. Professor himself.” In this work, P.I. Kovalevsky sharply criticized the Old Testament, considering it sacred only for Jews, and allowed himself attacks against the God of Israel and the Old Testament prophets that were unacceptable for a Christian. The conclusion of the brochure was that Jehovah and Christ are two different Gods, and the Holy History of the Old Testament is not Holy History for Christians. Based on this, a political conclusion was drawn: “ A people whose religion sanctifies and encourages theft and fraud does not have the right to expect equal rights with peoples whose religion considers these acts to be crimes". We believe that there is no need to dwell in detail on this opus of Pavel Ivanovich, because almost every quotation given from it will border on blasphemy, although the professor himself, who considered himself a Christian, apparently did not understand this. He separated for himself the New Testament from the Old and, in exaltation of Christ’s teaching, began to criticize all the acts of God the Father, whom he considered too far from the ideal of the Christian God, and the Old Testament Jewish people, including Moses, King David and other righteous people. “I always thought,” wrote P.I. Kovalevsky, “that there is nothing sacred in it (the Sacred History of the Old Testament) - its examples are not worthy of imitation - you can read it only in order not to do as it is written there, - and reading the Bible is immoral and corrupting."

It is worth recalling the words of the authoritative church and monarchist figure Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky), who in his article “A word of truth to our anti-Semitic patriots” revealed this misconception so widespread in the patriotic environment: “For a long time, conscience has demanded to say a word of truth to our venerable patriots in defense of the Holy Bible ... Yes, we have to not just say, but shout to some of them: “Do not touch the Bible, do not touch our Holy Scripture, in which we, believers, see and know only the word of God!... Our patriots do not spare Abraham, whom the Apostle calls “ friend of God,” nor David, whom the Church calls the “Godfather,” that is, the forefather of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, nor other great patriarchs and holy men of the Old Testament, whom our zealous anti-Semites do not hesitate to put on a par with modern “Jews” and attribute to them the same qualities that are observed in modern, God-rejected Jews. To tell the truth: it becomes scary for these respectable people who set off into the sea of ​​​​interpretation of the Scriptures without a helmsman and allow themselves to boldly treat the Holy Scriptures as with the most ordinary book... Unfortunately,... our patriots do not write random articles in newspapers, they do not only manifest themselves in speeches such a frivolous attitude towards the Bible, but they also write entire books... All this happens because they do not want to put a sharp line, set by God himself, between the Old Testament Jew and our modern Jew, the descendant of the crucifiers and the sworn enemy of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

It should be noted that it was the Black Hundreds who gave a rebuke to P.I. Kovalevsky’s pamphlet. The Moscow monarchist newspaper "Bell", published by the prominent church missionary V. M. Skvortsov, published a special brochure by a certain Elizaveta Heptner, containing criticism of the religious views of P. I. Kovalevsky. As the brochure rightly noted, “the sympathy of many, even well-intentioned people, enjoys the fashionable misconception and extremely seductive tendency that a Christian does not need to believe the holy books of the Jewish people,” and that it is a mistake to believe that the books of the Old Testament “were created by the national Jewish genius and can be considered as national Jewish books." Further relying on the interpretation of the Old Testament by the authoritative fathers of the Church, the author easily smashed all the arguments of P.I. Kovalevsky and, not without reason, accused the scientist (by the way, who at one time graduated from a theological seminary with honors) of “conceit and proud self-delusion.” Therefore, when modern authors, carried away, write that “for Professor P. I. Kovalevsky there was no other formula for the Russian idea except Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality", it is necessary to remember that P. I. Kovalevsky’s view of the first for a member of the Uvarov triad was unique and differed from the views of orthodox Russian monarchists.

“Russia for Russians” - this formula of Alexander III is revealed and justified in the works of Professor P. I. Kovalevsky. To the chagrin of slanderers who are looking for a reason to accuse the Russian national movement of all its sins, “Russia for the Russians” acts as the most promising formula of statehood not only for the Russians themselves (we share P.I. Kovalevsky’s confidence that the Russians are a trinity of Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians ), but also for the non-Russian peoples of Russia, connected with the Russians by a common destiny. Pavel Ivanovich perfectly saw the diversity of “Russianness,” which today we sometimes stop noticing, reducing Russian exclusively to generic characteristics. In “Russianness” there is unity in the Orthodox faith, there is unity in the memory of the greatness of Russia, there is unity in the Russian language and Russian culture, in love for the Fatherland, there is a connection between Russians in the space of the Russian world - not only holders of citizenship of the Russian Federation, but also compatriots .

For Professor P.I. Kovalevsky there was no other formula for the Russian idea except Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality. Taking a lesson of intellectual honesty and scientific depth from an outstanding thinker and the greatest Russian scientist, we must internalize this formula and be imbued with it to the very depths of our souls. To save Russia from oblivion, which has come so close that the imminent death of the Fatherland and the dissolution of the Russian people in waves of migration no longer surprises or frightens many. We should be afraid exclusively of this - the death of our Motherland, the extinction of the Russian family. In the Russian Idea of ​​Russian thinkers of the early 20th century, we have a detailed ideological doctrine with which we will save Russia and continue our race until the end of time.

The best national qualities of a people can be strengthened through awareness of the unity of language, faith, traditions, beliefs, the unity of physical and mental qualities and culture, as well as a common historical destiny. Reading the works of P.I. Kovalevsky and projecting them onto today, you understand that the main conditions for the revival of the deformed Russian soul are the restoration of its dignity, conciliarity and unity, the elimination of feelings of inferiority, enlightened nationalism and patriotism. Advocating for enlightened healthy nationalism, P.I. Kovalevsky, as noted above, states: “Nationalism is a manifestation of respect, love and devotion to the point of self-sacrifice in the present, reverence and admiration for the past and the desire for prosperity, glory, power in the future of that nation , the people to which a person belongs.” Speaking about the dignity of Russia and Russians, Pavel Ivanovich raises the question of national equality and the national infringement and subsequent humiliation of Russians planned in the 20th century: “... Russia is a great and powerful state, and Russians are honorably its worthy sons... All nationalities that are part of Russia - its subjects. They can be equal to us only insofar as they deserve it with their devotion and willingness to serve Russia, like its real, true children.”

It is rightly noted that the classic of Russian ethnopolitical science P.I. Kovalevsky distinguishes between the concepts of “nationalism” and “patriotism”: “It is clear: nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing. Rather, patriotism is a more general concept, and nationalism is a more specific concept. Each state can have only one patriotism and several nationalisms. One of the cornerstone internal pillars on which the strength and vitality of the state is based, one of the powerful strongholds that preserve its integrity and well-being is the people’s love for their Fatherland, people’s patriotism.” At the same time, Pavel Ivanovich distinguishes between different types of nationalism (folk, bureaucratic, Christian, which is industrial, labor, production in nature, etc.).

A large place in the works of P. I. Kovalevsky is occupied by reflections on the education of patriotism, which should begin with instilling love for one’s village, one’s land based on the study of their traditions, their culture. Patriotic feelings and beliefs are supported by knowledge of the native history, its victories, outstanding figures and heroes. Moreover, the history of Russian and Russian heroes, which will protect Russia from foreignness and admiration for the West.

The students of P. I. Kovalevsky were: E. I. Andruzsky, Z. V. Gutnikov, M. N. Popov (professor in Tomsk), N. I. Mukhin (professor in Warsaw, Kharkov), D. B. Frank ( professor in Dnepropetrovsk), I. Ya. Platonov, Ya. Ya. Trutovsky, N. V. Krainsky (professor in Warsaw, Belgrade), A. I. Yushchenko (professor in Warsaw, Vinnitsa, St. Petersburg, Yuryev, Voronezh, Rostov- on-Don, Kharkov, later academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR), A. A. Govseev and many others.

Pavel Ivanovich’s student, Professor N.V. Krainsky rightly writes in the introduction to his work “Damage, cliques and the possessed” warm words addressed to Pavel Ivanovich: “I dedicate this clinical essay to my dear and highly respected teacher, Professor Pavel Ivanovich Kovalevsky, on day 25 -year anniversary of his scientific and practical activities. At the same time, I consider it my duty to declare that I, like most of Pavel Ivanovich’s numerous students scattered throughout Russia and employees of Russian psychiatry in university departments, in government and zemstvo hospitals, am deeply confident that in everything that I will be able to do at for the benefit of science and for the benefit of the numerous mentally ill people who pass through my hands, I am entirely obliged to those strictly scientific and humane principles that we have always heard from our teacher. With deep respect and gratitude I remember the strict scientific discipline that has always been a distinctive feature of Pavel Ivanovich’s school, and his unconditional demand from his students to fulfill their duty, devoid of any condescension, while not allowing any compromises with their convictions and conscience, makes it much easier his students faced the difficult task of struggling in the practical activities and lives of Russian psychiatrists.

Being a student of Pavel Ivanovich; Ten years after he left that position, where the best years of his activity passed, where Pavel Ivanovich’s personality developed and was formed as an activist and scientist, I had the honor of entering this psychiatric institution as a doctor, and later holding the position of my teacher. Here I could see how colossally fruitful was the work and energy that Pavel Ivanovich put into the business. Despite all sorts of distortions to which everything done by Pavel Ivanovich was subjected, despite the most unsightly distortions of his activities by some individuals, his ideas and principles were not smoothed over even by the ten-year anarchy of Saburova's dacha (author's italics - P.P.). The same Saburova dacha convinced me that a true assessment of his activities will sooner or later not be long in coming, and I publicly affirm that, 12 years after Pavel Ivanovich left the Saburova dacha, I heard words of justice and honor addressed to his activities from his personal enemies and enemies, and the highest praise is difficult to achieve. I do not mourn the fact that Russian life, society - everything except the impartial field of science - lost Pavel Ivanovich too early as an energetic figure in the struggle of life. This is the common lot of major figures in public life. Pure science and practical psychiatry in the person of Pavel Ivanovich’s numerous students will show Russian society that its principles and teachings will not be drowned out by the thorns with which Russian, especially zemstvo, psychiatric activity is so full. I think that if you weigh the successes that Russian psychiatry owes to P.I. Kovalevsky, who was one of the first to remove the chains from the insane in Russia, - from the impossible clinical Saburova dacha, he built, albeit temporarily, an exemplary institution, founded the first Russian psychiatric journal, created in a short time a numerous school of students, and with his brilliant lectures until recently attracted recruits to the ranks of Russian psychiatrists - moreover, he did all this completely alone, without help, rather with interference from many, then we will have to admit the situation “that there is only one warrior in the field.”

I am glad that at present Pavel Ivanovich, far from the struggle of life, will lead Russian psychiatry for a long time, devoting all his time to pure science and, as an ideal clinician, will supplement us with his brilliant writings with what his students previously heard through the medium of the living words in the clinic. If the official Fatherland does not always appreciate the dignity of its figures, then one only needs to remember whether there can be the highest reward for a scientist and clinician when he is no longer in the former toga of a rector and state dignitary, but in the form of a modest private person - seen weekly at his lectures in the ceremonial hall of the university - a large crowd of honest, alien to extraneous considerations and, nevertheless, the strictest judges. In this, and not in the toga of a state dignitary, I imagine the highest award and crown with which the anniversary of the 25-year scientific activity of my dear teacher is crowned.”

It should be emphasized that zemstvo medicine played a significant role in the development of medical deontology in our country. From the very beginning of its development, zemstvo psychiatry had a clinical basis and a social orientation. This focus allows us to say that the emergence of social psychiatry and rehabilitation of the mentally ill began in our country at the end of the 19th century. At the same time, attention is drawn to the combination of a truly humane attitude towards the fate of the patient, constant respect for the dignity of his personality and the desire to use the remaining mental abilities for the highest possible social readaptation. An example is the statements of P.I. Kovalevsky, who is rightfully considered an outstanding humanist doctor. In the repeatedly reprinted “Guide to the Proper Care of the Mentally Ill,” he wrote: “The treatment of patients in a hospital should always be humane, gentle, meek and patient. First of all, you need to gain the trust of your patients; and they acquire it only through warm sympathy, patience, affectionate treatment, fulfillment of reasonable desires, readiness to show kindness and strict justice to all patients. Lies, deceit and cunning have no place in dealing with these patients. They are too sensitive even to artificiality and really dislike a person who only pretends to be kind.”.

The instructions of Pavel Ivanovich, made by him long before the very concept of “medical deontology” appeared, can serve as excellent illustrations of the proper medical attitude towards patients in psychiatry. In the same “Manual” he wrote: “Just as a good surgeon probes a wound only as a last resort, so a good psychiatrist should touch a patient’s mental wound only for the purpose of research.”. P.I. Kovalevsky emphasized that “the main task in this case is to give this person the means for further existence, restore his independence, and instill in him the trust of the society in which he becomes a member.” The cited “Manual” provides for almost everything that doctors need to do to ensure that the patient returns more easily and fully to life outside the hospital: from how to feed and clothe him, to how to simplify the resolution of administrative and legal issues problems arising after discharge from the hospital, and provide the necessary social and medical care to the patient.

It is noteworthy that the organizing committee for the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the Kharkov City Clinical Psychiatric Hospital No. 15 (Saburova Dacha), with the full approval of the scientific and practical psychiatric community of the region, decided to make a bas-relief depicting a portrait of Professor P. I. Kovalevsky on one of the sides of the memorial anniversary medal dedicated to the mentioned significant event in the history of Ukrainian medicine, which was done.

On the eve of the revolution, P. I. Kovalevsky taught a course in forensic psychopathology at the Faculty of Law of Petrograd University. We do not know how the ideologist of Russian nationalism perceived the February and then the October Revolution. It is only known that after the revolution, the elderly professor P.I. Kovalevsky, as a highly qualified physician, was mobilized into the Red Army as the chief physician of a military detachment (already in exile, in a private letter to a former fellow party member, Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky), P.I. Kovalevsky wrote that the Reds forced him into this cooperation). After the end of the Civil War until 1924, the scientist worked, as mentioned above, as a senior doctor in the psychiatric and nervous department of the Nikolaev Hospital in Petrograd and even consulted with the seriously ill V.I. Lenin, being the first to identify his progressive paralysis.

This moment became a turning point in his fate. In 1924, Pavel Ivanovich almost died as a result of persecution from the Soviet authorities, but in December 1924, having somehow received permission to travel abroad, P. I. Kovalevsky left the USSR. He lived the rest of his life in the small Belgian resort town of Spa, in the province of Liege in Wallonia, continuing to engage in scientific and journalistic activities. In 1925, the professor wrote to Metropolitan Evlogy with a proposal to teach a psychology course at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, but Pavel Ivanovich, apparently, never had to return to teaching. The emigrant period of P.I. Kovalevsky’s life is very little known, and this letter allows us to expand the knowledge of researchers about the author’s stay in Belgium. This extraordinary scientist, outstanding psychiatrist, publicist, public figure, staunch Russian nationalist and, without any doubt, a patriot who wished only the best for his Fatherland and people, died on October 17, 1931 in Liege (Belgium).

Thus, P.I. Kovalevsky made a significant contribution to the development of domestic scientific and practical psychiatry, including the Kharkov psychiatric school and other disciplines. Without a doubt, the biography and scientific heritage of Pavel Ivanovich needs further careful research, especially his Ukrainian period of life and scientific work.

Literature

1. Ivanov A. Professor-nationalist (on the 75th anniversary of the death of P.I. Kovalevsky) [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.rusk.ru/st.php?idar=104584.
2. Platonov K.K. My meetings on the great road of life (memoirs of an old psychologist) / Ed. A. D. Glotochkina, A. L. Zhuravleva, V. A. Koltseva, V. N. Loskutova. - M.: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2005. - 312 p. - (Series “Outstanding Scientists of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences”).
3. Kovalevsky Pavel Ivanovich [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://lib.e-science.ru/book/78/page/100.html.
4. Afanasyev N. I. Contemporaries. Album of biographies. - St. Petersburg, 1909. - T. 1.- P. 133.
5. Petryuk P. T. Pavel Ivanovich Kovalevsky - a famous domestic psychiatrist // History of Saburova's dacha. Advances in psychiatry, neurology, neurosurgery and narcology: Collection of scientific works of the Ukrainian Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Neurology and Psychiatry and the Kharkov City Clinical Psychiatric Hospital No. 15 (Saburova Dacha) / Under the general direction. ed. I. I. Kutko, P. T. Petryuk. - Kharkov, 1996. - T. 3. - P. 57–61.
6. Tatar encyclopedic dictionary / Ch. ed. M. Kh. Khasanov. - Kazan: Institute of the Tatar Encyclopedia of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan, 1999. - P. 280.
7. Kannabikh Yu. History of psychiatry. - M.: TsTR MGP VOS, 1994. - P. 383–410.
8. Kotsyubinsky D. A. Russian nationalism at the beginning of the 20th century. The birth and death of the ideology of the All-Russian National Union. - M., 2001.
9. Kovalevsky P. I. The significance of nationalism in the modern movement of the Balkan Slavs. - Rostov-on-Don, 1913. - pp. 2–6.
10. Savelyev A. N. Nation: Russian formula of Professor Kovalevsky [Electronic resource] // Golden Lev. - 2005. - No. 69–70. - Access mode: http://www.zlev.ru/69_50.htm.
11. Kovalevsky P. I. Russian nationalism and national education of Russia. - St. Petersburg, 1912. - pp. 7–8.
12. Kovalevsky P. I. History of Russia from a national point of view. - St. Petersburg, 1912.
13. Geptner E. The Bible and Morality. In defense of the Word of God (response to Prof. P.I. Kovalevsky regarding his brochure “The Bible and Morality”). - St. Petersburg, 1913. - P. 6.
14. Kovalevsky P. I. Alexander III. Nationalist Tsar. - St. Petersburg, 1912.
15. Nikon (Rozhdestvensky), archbishop. Orthodoxy and the future destinies of Russia / Comp. Ya. Shipov. - M., 1994. - S. 397, 400.
16. Belashkina L. F. Book about the Russian soul [Electronic resource] // Slavic peoples in the North Caucasus: modern demographic processes. Supplement to the “South Russian Review”. - 2006. - No. 5. - Access mode: http://www.kavkazonline.ru/csrip/elibrary/appendix/app_05/app_05_p_01.htm. - Rec. on the book: Kovalevsky P.I. Psychology of the Russian nation. Education of youth. Alexander III - nationalist tsar / Comp. E. S. Troitsky. - M.: AKIRN: Granitsa, 2005. - 237 p.
17. Savelyev A. Preface to the re-edition of P. I. Kovalevsky’s book “Nationalism and National Education in Russia” [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.savelev.ru.
18. Krainsky N.V. Damage, cliques and demoniacs [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://pathographia.narod.ru/new/KLIKUSHY.htm.
19. Morozov G.V. Deontology in psychiatry // Deontology in medicine: In 2 volumes - Volume 2: Private deontology / E. M. Vikhlyaeva, V. P. Gamov, S. Z. Gorshkov and others; Ed. B.V. Petrovsky. - M.: Medicine, 1988. - P. 145–162.
20. Letter from P.I. Kovalevsky to Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky) dated April 5/19, 1925 - GARF. F. R–5919 // Fund of Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky). Op. 1. D. 66.

Note

1. The author, being a psychiatrist by profession, did not set out in this work to evaluate the political views of the hero of the day, but only cites his works on this issue and provides critical statements on some of them from other researchers.

Pavel Ivanovich Kovalevsky(- October 17, Liege) - famous psychiatrist, publicist and public figure. Rector of the University of Warsaw (1894-1897).

Biography

This book, which combined scientific and popular style, using specific examples from the lives of Ivan the Terrible, Peter III, the Prophet Muhammad, Joan of Arc, Paul I, the Persian king Cambyses, Ludwig II of Bavaria, Emanuel Swedenborg and others, reveals the dynamics of various mental phenomena, shows the role of environment and heredity in the formation of personality.

P.I. Kovalevsky was a foreman of the Russian National Club, a member of the Council of the All-Russian National Union and a member of the Russian Assembly.

Essays

• Kovalevsky P.I. Peter the Great and his genius. - St. Petersburg. , publication of the "Russian Medical Bulletin": printing house of M. Akinfiev and I. Leontiev, 1900.
• Kovalevsky P.I. Conquest of the Caucasus by Russia. Historical essays. - St. Petersburg. , 1911.
• Kovalevsky P.I. History of Russia from a national point of view. - St. Petersburg. , 1912.
• Kovalevsky P.I. Fundamentals of Russian nationalism. - St. Petersburg. , 1912.
• Kovalevsky P.I.. - St. Petersburg. , 1912.
• Kovalevsky P.I. History of Little Russia. - St. Petersburg. , 1914.
• Kovalevsky P.I. Psychology of the Russian nation. - St. Petersburg. , 1915.
• Kovalevsky P.I. Psychiatric sketches from history. In two volumes. - M.: Terra, 1995. - ISBN 5-300-00095-7, 5-300-00094-9.
• Kovalevsky P.I. Ivan the Terrible and his state of mind. Psychiatric sketches from history. - M.: Librocom, 2012.
• Kovalevsky P.I.. Forensic psychiatry. St. Petersburg, 1902

Write a review of the article "Kovalevsky, Pavel Ivanovich"

Notes

Literature

• Petryuk P. T. // Mental health. - 2009. - No. 3. - P. 77-87.
• Ivanov A.
• Afanasyev N. I. Contemporaries. Album of biographies. - St. Petersburg, 1909. - T. 1.- P. 133.
• Kotsyubinsky D. A. Russian nationalism at the beginning of the 20th century. The birth and death of the ideology of the All-Russian National Union. - M., 2001.
• Sadivnichy V. Pavlo Kovalevsky - editor and veteran of medical periodicals / Volodymyr Sadivnichy // Journalism. - VIP. 11 (36). - 2012. - P. 114-123.
• Savelyev A. N. // Golden Lion. - 2005. - No. 69-70.

Links

• Sidorchuk I.V., Rostovtsev E.A.

Excerpt characterizing Kovalevsky, Pavel Ivanovich

Mavra Kuzminishna offered to carry the wounded man into the house.
“The gentlemen won’t say anything...” she said. But it was necessary to avoid climbing the stairs, and therefore the wounded man was carried into the outbuilding and laid in the former room of m me Schoss. The wounded man was Prince Andrei Bolkonsky.

The last day of Moscow has arrived. It was clear, cheerful autumn weather. It was Sunday. As on ordinary Sundays, mass was announced in all churches. No one, it seemed, could yet understand what awaited Moscow.
Only two indicators of the state of society expressed the situation in which Moscow was: the mob, that is, the class of poor people, and the prices of objects. Factory workers, courtyard workers and peasants in a huge crowd, which included officials, seminarians, and nobles, went out to the Three Mountains early in the morning. Having stood there and not waiting for Rostopchin and making sure that Moscow would be surrendered, this crowd scattered throughout Moscow, into drinking houses and taverns. Prices that day also indicated the state of affairs. The prices for weapons, for gold, for carts and horses kept rising, and the prices for pieces of paper and for city things kept going down, so that in the middle of the day there were cases when the cabbies took out expensive goods, like cloth, for nothing, and for a peasant's horse paid five hundred rubles; furniture, mirrors, bronzes were given away for free.
In the sedate and old Rostov house, the disintegration of previous living conditions was expressed very weakly. The only thing about people was that three people from a huge courtyard disappeared that night; but nothing was stolen; and in relation to the prices of things, it turned out that the thirty carts that came from the villages were enormous wealth, which many envied and for which the Rostovs were offered huge amounts of money. Not only were they offering huge sums of money for these carts, but from the evening and early morning of September 1st, orderlies and servants sent from the wounded officers came to the Rostovs’ yard, and the wounded themselves, who were placed with the Rostovs and in neighboring houses, were dragged along, and begged the Rostovs’ people to take care of that they be given carts to leave Moscow. The butler, to whom such requests were addressed, although he felt sorry for the wounded, resolutely refused, saying that he would not even dare to report this to the count. No matter how pitiful the remaining wounded were, it was obvious that if they gave up one cart, there was no reason not to give up the other, and give up everything and their crews. Thirty carts could not save all the wounded, and in the general disaster it was impossible not to think about yourself and your family. This is what the butler thought for his master.
Waking up on the morning of the 1st, Count Ilya Andreich quietly left the bedroom so as not to wake up the countess who had just fallen asleep in the morning, and in his purple silk robe he went out onto the porch. The carts, tied up, stood in the yard. Carriages stood at the porch. The butler stood at the entrance, talking with the old orderly and the young, pale officer with his arm tied. The butler, seeing the count, made a significant and stern sign to the officer and orderly to leave.
- Well, is everything ready, Vasilich? - said the count, rubbing his bald head and looking good-naturedly at the officer and orderly and nodding his head to them. (The Count loved new faces.)
- At least harness it now, your Excellency.
- Well, that’s great, the countess will wake up, and God bless you! What are you doing, gentlemen? – he turned to the officer. - In my house? – The officer moved closer. His pale face suddenly flushed with bright color.
- Count, do me a favor, let me... for God's sake... take refuge somewhere on your carts. Here I have nothing with me... I’m in the cart... it doesn’t matter... - Before the officer had time to finish, the orderly turned to the count with the same request for his master.
- A! “Yes, yes, yes,” the count spoke hastily. - I'm very, very happy. Vasilich, you give orders, well, to clear one or two carts, well... well... what is needed... - the count said in some vague expressions, ordering something. But at the same moment, the officer’s ardent expression of gratitude already cemented what he had ordered. The count looked around him: in the courtyard, at the gate, in the window of the outbuilding, the wounded and orderlies could be seen. They all looked at the count and moved towards the porch.
- Please, your Excellency, to the gallery: what do you order about the paintings? - said the butler. And the count entered the house with him, repeating his order not to refuse the wounded who asked to go.
“Well, well, we can put something together,” he added in a quiet, mysterious voice, as if afraid that someone would hear him.
At nine o'clock the countess woke up, and Matryona Timofeevna, her former maid, who served as chief of gendarmes in relation to the countess, came to report to her former young lady that Marya Karlovna was very offended and that the young ladies' summer dresses could not stay here. When the countess questioned why m me Schoss was offended, it was revealed that her chest had been removed from the cart and all the carts were being untied - they were removing the goods and taking with them the wounded, whom the count, in his simplicity, ordered to be taken with him. The Countess ordered to ask for her husband.
– What is it, my friend, I hear things are being removed again?
- You know, ma chere, I wanted to tell you this... ma chere countess... an officer came to me, asking me to give several carts for the wounded. After all, this is all a gainful business; But think about what it’s like for them to stay!.. Really, in our yard, we invited them ourselves, there are officers here. You know, I think, right, ma chere, here, ma chere... let them take them... what's the rush?.. - The Count timidly said this, as he always said when it came to money. The Countess was already accustomed to this tone, which always preceded a task that ruined the children, like some kind of construction of a gallery, a greenhouse, arranging a home theater or music, and she was used to it and considered it her duty to always resist what was expressed in this timid tone.
She assumed her obediently deplorable appearance and said to her husband:
“Listen, Count, you’ve brought it to the point that they won’t give anything for the house, and now you want to destroy all of our children’s fortunes.” After all, you yourself say that there is a hundred thousand worth of goods in the house. I, my friend, neither agree nor agree. Your will! The government is there for the wounded. They know. Look: across the street, at the Lopukhins’, they took everything away just three days ago. That's how people do it. We are the only fools. At least have pity on me, but on the children.
The Count waved his hands and, without saying anything, left the room.
- Dad! what are you talking about? - Natasha told him, following him into her mother’s room.
- Nothing! What do you care? – the count said angrily.
“No, I heard,” said Natasha. - Why doesn’t mummy want to?
- What do you care? - the count shouted. Natasha went to the window and thought.
“Dad, Berg has come to see us,” she said, looking out the window.

Berg, the Rostovs' son-in-law, was already a colonel with Vladimir and Anna around his neck and occupied the same calm and pleasant place as assistant chief of staff, assistant to the first department of the chief of staff of the second corps.
On September 1, he arrived from the army in Moscow.
He had nothing to do in Moscow; but he noticed that everyone from the army asked to go to Moscow and did something there. He also considered it necessary to take time off for household and family matters.

In recent decades, Russian education has been building a system of spiritual and moral education aimed at the spiritual improvement of society, strengthening the morality of the generation of young people entering life, and the formation of the most important moral categories rooted in Russian traditions; introducing students to the spiritual origins of their traditional culture.

As you know, issues of spiritual and moral education have attracted the attention of scientists of different specialties and directions and in different years of Russia, therefore we consider it important to turn to the works of Russian scientists who either directly dealt with issues of pedagogy or came to issues of education through life’s quests. From this point of view, the example of Pavel Ivanovich Kovalevsky (1849-1923), a psychiatrist, publicist, and ideologist of Russian nationalism, seems interesting and illustrative.

Kovalevsky P.I. - founder of the first Russian psychiatric journal, professor, member of the Russian Assembly, member of the All-Russian National Union. In the fate of Professor Pavel Ivanovich Kovalevsky, science, social activities and political journalism are closely intertwined. Pavel Ivanovich Kovalevsky was born in 1849 in the city of Petropavlovsk, Pavlograd district, Ekaterinoslav province, into the family of a priest. He graduated from theological school and then from the Ekaterinoslav Theological Seminary. His passion for the natural sciences prompted him to choose a different path. In 1874 he graduated from the medical faculty of Kharkov University. In 1877, after defending his dissertation, he became an associate professor, and in 1884, a professor in the department of psychiatry at this university. In 1889, Kovalevsky became dean of the medical faculty. In 1882 he was appointed to the position of rector of the University of Warsaw. After a serious illness in 1897, Kovalevsky was forced to leave this post. Subsequently, Professor P.I. Kovalevsky was engaged in publishing and scientific activities, and also participated in the work of a number of public organizations.

Pavel Ivanovich Kovalevsky

In wide circles of the Russian intelligentsia, the authority of P.I. Kovalevsky as a historian was quite high. His works such as “Peoples of the Caucasus”, “Conquest of the Caucasus by Russia”, “History of Little Russia”, “History of Russia from a National Point of View” were of great interest and went through several editions in pre-revolutionary Russia (in Soviet times they were considered reactionary and were not published ). Despite the fact that P.I. Kovalevsky devoted his entire life to the problems of psychiatry, he paid serious attention to issues of education, and not just problems of education, but problems of Russian national education.

Let us turn to the analysis of some methodological aspects of his position. The book by P. I. Kovalevsky “Nationalism and National Education in Russia” belongs to the category of those that have not lost their relevance for many decades. Just as we are discovering today the philosophical works of other Russian thinkers of the beginning and first half of the twentieth century - those who founded the Russian tradition of social philosophy and kept it from oblivion. Until now, citizenship and nationality operate separately. Moreover, citizenship becomes more nationalless with increasing levels of education. Education, as it has existed for the last half century in Russia, creates more reasons for a citizen to slander Russia than to be proud of it. Professor Kovalevsky saw similar phenomena at the beginning of the twentieth century, who pointed out that “the school killed God, killed nationality, killed statehood, killed society, killed the family, killed the person.”

As in our time, liberal education created cosmopolitans out of children, just as in our time, the role of teachers, who had decayed professionally and morally while still on the student bench, is extremely great in the destruction of the nation and the state. For Professor Kovalevsky there was no other formula for the Russian idea other than Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality. Taking a lesson of intellectual honesty and scientific depth from an outstanding thinker and the greatest Russian scientist, we must internalize this formula and be imbued with it to the very depths of our souls. To save Russia from oblivion, which has come so close that the imminent death of the Fatherland and the dissolution of the Russian people in waves of migration no longer surprises or frightens many. We should be afraid exclusively of this - the death of our Motherland, the extinction of the Russian family.

In the Russian Idea of ​​Russian thinkers of the early twentieth century, we have a detailed ideological doctrine. Professor P.I. Kovalevsky gave one of the most comprehensive formulations of nationalism: “In a broad sense, nationalism is a spiritual trend, a current directed in a given people, with the goal and objective of raising and improving the welfare of a given nation. This will be mass, party nationalism... But there is also personal, individual nationalism, inherent in the nature of every person. Personal individual nationalism is a manifestation of respect, love and devotion to the point of self-sacrifice in the present, reverence and admiration for the past and the desire for prosperity, glory and success in the future of the nation, the people to which a given person belongs... Nationalism can manifest itself in two ways: in the form of national feeling and in the form of national consciousness. National feeling is an innate property of the human spirit, inherent in every person from birth and consisting of an instinctive, inexplicable animal love for a given people, for a given area... National consciousness is the expression of a definitely expressed view of love for the homeland, its glory, its honor, greatness and strength.” .

Exploring the national psychology of the Russian people, Professor P. I. Kovalevsky very precisely defined the nation, nationalism, national feeling and national self-awareness - concepts so essential for the general worldview. “A nation is a large group of people united by unity of origin, - unity of historical destinies and struggle for existence, - unity of physical and mental qualities, - unity of culture, - unity of faith, - unity of language and territory... Nationalism is a manifestation of respect, love and devotion, to the point of self-sacrifice, in the present - respect and admiration for the past and the desire for prosperity, glory, power and success in the future - of the nation, the people to which a given person belongs... National feeling is an innate affiliation of the physical and mental organization. It's instinctive. It's mandatory. National feeling is innate to us just like all other feelings: love for parents, love for children, hunger, thirst, etc... National self-awareness is an act of thinking, by virtue of which a given person recognizes himself as part of the whole, comes under protection and carries yourself to defend your native whole, your nation.”

Professor P.I. Kovalevsky derived the dominance of the Russian nation in the Russian Empire from the right of sacrifices made, the right of shed blood for the Fatherland. “Our rights to own this state,” wrote P.I. Kovalevsky, “are rights of blood, arising from the blood shed by our ancestors, - property rights, arising from the expenses of our ancestors, interest on which we have to pay to this day - rights historical destinies of our homeland, obliging us to preserve unharmed what our ancestors conquered.”

At the same time, he also authored a unique work “Pedagogical Reflections. National education”, where the author’s system of Russian national education is built. The author understands national education as a combination of several characteristics. First, real education, giving children “an accurate and serious knowledge of the nature that is around us and under our feet.” This is necessary so that “we can use and use all the nature around us for our needs.” Because of this, “our children need to be given both the knowledge of how to use it and shown in practice these very methods of use.” Secondly, the strictest management of “the characteristics and basic qualities of our nation”: “to encourage what we find in it valuable and worthy of further cultivation” and “to destroy what is in the nation ... useless and harmful.” Thirdly, the introduction into a person of such mental, spiritual and physical qualities that are “inherent and characteristic of a particular nationality.” Note: one or another nationality. P.I. Kovalevsky, like other Russian thinkers, approached the issues of national education broadly, without limiting it to the framework of Russian pedagogical culture.

In the system of national education of P.I. Kovalevsky, a special place is given to the Orthodox religion, which is the beginning that unites Russians into one indivisible whole. The role of the teacher is great in patriotic education. Commenting on the well-known statement that a German teacher defeated a French teacher, P. I. Kovalevsky writes that the German teacher defeated France not because of his education, but because all German teachers “were national and patriotic.” A Russian teacher should also be national and patriotic.

P.I. Kovalevsky places patriotism above education: ignorance warmed by love for the Motherland is better than education associated with contempt and disrespect for the nation. Moreover, knowledge can always be replenished, but love, devotion and self-sacrifice to the Motherland are not replenished subsequently. P. I. Kovalevsky’s reasoning about the study of history, which he declares to be one of the important school disciplines, is extremely instructive. The story should be known to all students. However, not the history of facts, but the history of the spirit of the Russian nation, the course of its development, growth and improvement. To do this, it is necessary to fulfill “two duties.” First, to imbue your entire Russian heart and the depths of your soul with your country. Secondly, to appreciate the glory and exploits of our ancestors and worthily perpetuate them in word and deed.

P.I. Kovalevsky writes with bitterness about Russians’ insufficient knowledge of their history, their culture, art, etc. What gives him particular pain is the fact that Russian children are brought up “with the heroic deeds of the Greeks and Romans, as if we do not have our own heroes , not only no less than foreign heroes, but on the contrary, much more prominent and more worthy of our veneration...” What can I say? In our time of virtual heroes like James Bond, even Greco-Roman heroes will seem like their own.

P.I. Kovalevsky emphasizes public national education in the structure of national education. It “must consist in implementing in all places of the state and in all layers of society the spirit of love, devotion and good of the Russian nationality and fatherland. The entire state administration, all state and public institutions, the press, literature and all civil aspects of life must serve this.”

It doesn’t take much imagination to understand that the above words sound extremely modern and relevant in the conditions of today’s realities of our lives, where everything is the other way around: instead of implementing the “spirit of love, devotion and good of the Russian nationality and fatherland,” the spiritual emasculation of our people is being carried out and our society. Outwardly, at the level of high politics, a positive line seems to be visible. But so far it seems that it serves as a kind of fig leaf, covering up the processes of internal decomposition and disintegration of the Russian (Russian) mentality in an undeclared information-artifact war without front and rear, permeating all pores of our national life. P. I. Kovalevsky’s thoughts about the need for us “to have civil national courage, to openly defend our national dignity against arrogant and open attacks, insults and humiliations ...” have not lost their relevance. For (he recalls the words of N.M. Karamzin), whoever does not respect himself will, without a doubt, be respected by others.

P.I. Kovalevsky was well aware that Russian national education could in no way negatively affect the relationships of Russian people with people representing other nationalities of Russia. In modern language, P.I. Kovalevsky was a supporter of ethnic tolerance in relations between children of different nationalities. At the same time, he does not hide the special cementing role of the Russian people in Russia. In a certain sense, we can talk about the presence in the views of P. I. Kovalevsky of elements of the “big brother” concept. But this is by no means a doctrine of the emphasized superiority of the “white” man over the “native” population, presented, for example, in R. Kipling’s book “The White Man’s Burden.” No, this is the idea of ​​a single family of peoples of an immense empire, where, as in any family, there are elders and younger ones, where the elders must take care of the younger ones, protect them, where relationships must be built on the basis of mutual respect and mutual assistance.

No matter how we retell P.I. Kovalevsky, it will still be better if we give the floor to him himself: “While preaching, however, people's love and devotion to Russian children, one should never insult the children of other nations that are part of our Motherland. We need to treat them friendly and lovingly, like brothers, and not let our dominance of the winner be noticed. They know this well without us. But, knowing this, they should see from our side the kind of relationship that exists between brothers of the same family. The future itself must establish a relationship of respect for the stronger and protector, not a feeling of malice and hatred of the conquered and trampled upon.”

Biography

This book, which combined scientific and popular style, using specific examples from the lives of Ivan the Terrible, Peter III, the Prophet Muhammad, Joan of Arc, Paul I, the Persian king Cambyses, Ludwig II of Bavaria, Emanuel Swedenborg and others, reveals the dynamics of various mental phenomena, shows the role of environment and heredity in the formation of personality.

P.I. Kovalevsky was a foreman of the Russian National Club, a member of the Council of the All-Russian National Union and a member of the Russian Assembly.

Notes

Essays

• Conquest of the Caucasus by Russia. Historical essays. St. Petersburg, 1911
• History of Russia from a national point of view. St. Petersburg, 1912
• Fundamentals of Russian nationalism. St. Petersburg, 1912
• History of Little Russia. St. Petersburg, 1914
• Psychology of the Russian nation. St. Petersburg, 1915
• Psychiatric sketches from history. In two volumes. M., Terra. 1995. ISBN 5-300-00095-7, 5-300-00094-9

Literature

• Petryuk P. T. Professor Pavel Ivanovich Kovalevsky - an outstanding domestic scientist, psychiatrist, psychologist, publicist and former Saburyan (on the 160th anniversary of his birth) // Mental health. - 2009. - No. 3. - P. 77-87.
• Ivanov A. Professor-nationalist (on the 75th anniversary of the death of P.I. Kovalevsky).
• Afanasyev N. I. Contemporaries. Album of biographies. - St. Petersburg, 1909. - T. 1.- P. 133.
• Kotsyubinsky D. A. Russian nationalism at the beginning of the 20th century. The birth and death of the ideology of the All-Russian National Union. - M., 2001.
• Savelyev A. N. Nation: Russian formula of Professor Kovalevsky // Golden Lev. - 2005. - No. 69-70.

Categories:

• Personalities in alphabetical order
• Scientists by alphabet
• Born in 1850
• Died on October 17
• Died in 1931
• Psychiatrists of the Russian Empire
• Members of the All-Russian National Union
• Members of the Russian Assembly
• Russian emigrants of the first wave in Belgium

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Kovalevsky, Pavel Ivanovich” is in other dictionaries:

Psychiatrist. Born in 1850. Completed a course at Kharkov University. He received his doctorate in medicine for his dissertation on changes in skin sensitivity in melancholic patients. He was a professor of psychiatry at Kharkov University, then rector... ... Biographical Dictionary

Professor of Psychiatry; genus. in 1850, studied at the Ekaterinoslav Seminary and at Kharkov University, where in 1874 he graduated from the course with a doctor’s degree. In 1877 he received the degree of Doctor of Medicine, defending a dissertation on changes in sensitivity... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Kovalevsky Pavel Ivanovich (1849–1923), psychiatrist, professor at Kharkov University (since 1884). Works on forensic psychiatry, on the mechanisms of mental activity, etc. The first domestic manual on psychiatry (1880). In 1883 he founded in... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Professor of Psychiatry, b. in 1850, studied at the Ekaterinoslav Seminary and at Kharkov University, where in 1874 he graduated from the course with a doctor’s degree. In 1877 he received the degree of Doctor of Medicine, defending a dissertation on changes in sensitivity... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Ephron

KOVALEVSKY PAVEL- Ivanovich (born in 1850), psychiatrist, graduated from Kharkov University of Technology. K. was the first professor of psychiatry at Kharkov University, and then held a department at Warsaw and Kazan universities; subsequently taught a course in forensic psychopathology on... ... Great Medical Encyclopedia

Contents 1 Last name 2 Localities 3 See also 4 Notes ... Wikipedia

1. KOVALEVSKY Alexander Onufrievich (1840 1901), biologist, academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1890). Brother of V. O. Kovalevsky. One of the founders of comparative embryology and physiology, experimental and evolutionary histology. Established general... ...Russian history

The request for "Mendeleev" is redirected here; see also other meanings. Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev D. I. Mendele ... Wikipedia

Contents 1 Origin of the surname 2 Kuznetsov 2.1 Kuznetsov, Alexander ... Wikipedia

Kovalevsky Pavel Ivanovich (1850-1930), psychologist, religious figure, emigrant. Born in 1850 in Kharkov into the family of a priest. He graduated from the Ekaterinoslav Theological Seminary and the Faculty of Medicine of Kharkov University. Professor of Psychiatry (1879-1894). Rector of the University of Warsaw (1894). Emeritus Professor. He was a foreman of the Russian National Club and a member of the council of the Russian National Union. On the eve of the revolution, for 2 years he taught a course in forensic psychology at the Faculty of Law of Petrograd University. After the revolution, he was mobilized into the Red Army as the chief physician of a military detachment, then until 1924 he worked as the chief physician of the psychiatric and nervous department of the Nikolaev Hospital in Petrograd. In December 1924 he received permission to travel abroad. In exile in Belgium (c. 1925). Lived in Spa (Belgium). In 1925 he addressed the Metropolitan Eulogy (Georgievsky) with a proposal to teach a course in psychology at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, but P. I. Kovalevsky, apparently, did not have to teach at the St. Sergius Institute. Died in 1930 in Belgium.

This biographical information is compiled from sources:

Russian writers of emigration: Biographical information and bibliography of their books on theology, religious philosophy, church history and Orthodox culture: 1921-1972 / Compiled by N. M. Zernov. - Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1973.
Letter from P.I. Kovalevsky to Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky) dated April 5/19, 1925 - GARF. F. R-5919. Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky) Fund. Op. 1. D. 66.

Reprinted from the site: http://zarubezhje.narod.ru/kl/k_014.htm

Kovalevsky Pavel Ivanovich (1849-1923), psychiatrist, publicist, ideologist of Russian nationalism. Founder of the first Russian psychiatric journal. Professor. Member of the Russian Assembly. Member of the All-Russian National Union.

Prof. Kovalevsky gave one of the most comprehensive formulations of nationalism: “In a broad sense, nationalism,” he wrote, “is a spiritual trend, a current directed in a given people, with the goal and objective of raising and improving the welfare of a given nation. This will be mass, party nationalism... But there is also personal, individual nationalism, inherent in the nature of every person. Personal individual nationalism is a manifestation of respect, love and devotion to the point of self-sacrifice in the present, reverence and admiration for the past and the desire for prosperity, glory and success in the future of the nation, the people to which a given person belongs... Nationalism can manifest itself in two ways: in the form of national feeling and in the form of national consciousness. National feeling is an innate property of the human spirit, inherent in every person from birth and consisting of an instinctive, inexplicable animal love for a given people, for a given area... National consciousness is the expression of a definitely expressed view of love for the homeland, its glory, its honor, greatness and strength.” .

Exploring the national psychology of the Russian people, Kovalevsky very precisely defined the nation, nationalism, national feeling and national self-awareness - concepts so essential for the general worldview.

“A nation is a large group of people united by unity of origin, - unity of historical destinies and struggle for existence, - unity of physical and mental qualities, - unity of culture, - unity of faith, - unity of language and territory...

Nationalism is a manifestation of respect, love and devotion, to the point of self-sacrifice, in the present, reverence and admiration for the past and the desire for prosperity, glory, power and success in the future - of the nation, the people to which a given person belongs...

National feeling is an innate affiliation of the physical and mental organization. It's instinctive. It's mandatory. National feeling is innate to us, just like all other feelings: love for parents, love for children, hunger, thirst, etc...

National self-awareness is an act of thinking by virtue of which a given person recognizes himself as part of the whole, comes under protection and carries himself to the defense of his native whole, his nation.”

Kovalevsky derived the dominance of the Russian nation in the Russian Empire from the right of sacrifices made, the right of shed blood for the fatherland. “Our rights to own this state,” wrote Kovalevsky, “are the rights of blood, arising from the blood shed by our ancestors, - property rights, arising from the expenses of our ancestors, the interest on which we have to pay to this day, - the rights of the historical destinies of our homeland, obliging us to preserve unharmed what our ancestors conquered.”

Regarding pan-Slavic ideas, widespread and discussed in Russian society in the 1910s, Kovalevsky wrote the following: “The Union of the Slavs is conceivable if Russia becomes its head, - if the Russian language becomes a common Slavic language, - if the Russian cause becomes a common Slavic cause, - if not only Russia will be for the Slavs, but the Slavs will also be for Russia.”

Smolin M.

Materials used from the site Great Encyclopedia of the Russian People - http://www.rusinst.ru

In the fate of Professor Pavel Ivanovich Kovalevsky, science, social activities and political journalism are closely intertwined.

Pavel Ivanovich Kovalevsky was born in 1849 (according to other sources - in 1850) in the city of Petropavlovsk, Pavlograd district, Ekaterinoslav province, into the family of a priest. He graduated from theological school and then from the Ekaterinoslav Theological Seminary. His passion for the natural sciences prompted him to choose a different path. In 1874 he graduated from the medical faculty of Kharkov University. In 1877, after defending his dissertation, he became an associate professor, and in 1884, a professor in the department of psychiatry at this university. In 1889 Kovalevsky became dean of the medical faculty. In 1982 he was appointed rector of the University of Warsaw. After a serious illness in 1897, Kovalevsky was forced to leave this post.

Subsequently, Professor Kovalevsky was engaged in publishing and scientific activities, and also participated in the work of a number of public organizations. He published scientific journals and translated the works of foreign psychiatrists. Through the efforts of Kovalevsky, the first Russian congress of psychiatrists and neuropathologists took place. He participates in the work of the Brothers of Charity Institute, the Red Cross Committee, and also becomes a foreman of the Russian National Club and a member of the council of the Russian National Union. In addition, Kovalevsky’s dacha property near Novorossiysk became known as an exemplary winemaking estate.

Among Kovalevsky’s books, his professional works are known: “Guide to the proper care of the mentally ill,” “Forensic psychiatry,” “Forensic psychiatric analyses,” “Mental illnesses for doctors and lawyers,” “Psychology of sex,” “Hygiene and treatment of mental and nervous diseases”, “Fundamentals of the mechanism of mental activity”, “Textbook of psychiatry for students”, “Syphilis of the brain and its treatment”, “Puerperal psychoses”, “Migraine and its treatment”. Kovalevsky’s historical works are no less famous: “Peoples of the Caucasus”, “Conquest of the Caucasus by Russia”, “History of Little Russia”, “History of Russia from a National Point of View”, “Psychiatric Sketches from History”. The role of Kovalevsky as an ideologist of Russian nationalism is only today becoming known in the Russian social movement. This is facilitated by the publication of his works “Fundamentals of Russian Nationalism”, “Psychology of the Russian Nation”, “Nationalism and National Education in Russia”, which remained in oblivion for almost a century.

After the revolution, the elderly professor was mobilized into the Red Army as the chief physician of a military detachment. Then, until 1924 (according to other sources - until 1923) he worked as a doctor in the psychiatric and nervous department of the Nikolaev Hospital in Petrograd. Kovalevsky was the first to identify progressive paralysis in Lenin. This moment became a turning point in his fate. It is still unclear whether Kovalevsky became a victim made by the Bolsheviks to hide the diagnosis, or was still able to travel abroad in 1925 and ended his years in Belgium in 1930.

P.I. Kovalevsky’s book “Nationalism and National Education in Russia” belongs to the category of those that have not lost their relevance for many decades. Just as we are discovering today the philosophical works of other Russian thinkers of the beginning and first half of the twentieth century - those who founded the Russian tradition of social philosophy and kept it from oblivion.

Professor Kovalevsky compiled a work on the nation in 1912, which is not only in the context of the most pressing modern problems, but is also a “classic”, exemplary for modern political science, which is just approaching the concept of “nation” and timidly applies it to Russia. The authorities, represented by their top officials, have already learned to pronounce the word “nation”, but are still in the dark about what this word means. Court political science proves that there is no nation, that it is simply a different sound for the word “state.” She appeals to the authorities: “Forget the nation!” But Russian political science has already mastered the legacy of its predecessors, among whom P.I. Kovalevsky occupies one of the most worthy places.

It cannot be said that in P.I. Kovalevsky the concept of “nation” acquires its completeness and clarity in the form in which it is necessary today. But he does the main thing: he speaks about the nation not as a late historical phenomenon, but as a primordial phenomenon. This interpretation is deeply different from the liberal one, which considers a social phenomenon to exist only when it is named. No, the nation in Russian history existed from the moment of birth. The only question is how the early form differs from the mature one.

Kovalevsky considers a nation as a phenomenon of a common language, faith and destiny. And such a community developed among Russians by the end of the 9th century. And even though the yoke called into question the sovereignty of the Russian nation, and the Time of Troubles threatened the complete elimination of the Russian state from history, the Russian nation was revived at the beginning of the 17th century and took a leading position among the most prominent nations of the world.

It is necessary to distinguish, writes Kovalevsky, the existence of a nation and its formation. One should also see the historical conditionality of the features of a nation. The problem of the Russian nation at the beginning of the twentieth century, which the thinker vividly describes, was such a reorganization of life that required the personal dignity of the citizen and the penetration of patriotism into all pores of society, not only during the years of invasions, but also in everyday life.

Russians, following the family forms of solidarity and love for truth instilled in them by Orthodoxy, had to reach statewide, national solidarity and social truth - to an understanding of the life of society in its modern forms. This meant deepening the concept of nation and understanding of national belonging - going beyond the boundaries of the rural and parish community and establishing supra-class solidarity in city life, in universities, in the press, in the mass national army.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Russians had to master the space of spiritual struggle. Professor Kovalevsky and other Russian nationalist thinkers clearly understood this. Alas, historical circumstances and the machinations of the enemies of the Russian people did not give the Russian nation a chance to enter into mature forms and threw it along the wrong path of communist construction. In a difficult struggle against Marxist cosmopolitanism, the Russians were able to gather into a nation on the eve of the Great Patriotic War and win it. But the undermined forces were faced with new manipulation. The Russians were not allowed to be reborn as a nation, and until our time, nation-building occurs in spite of the government, which remains purely anti-national.

Until now, citizenship and nationality operate separately. Moreover, citizenship becomes more nationalless with increasing levels of education. Education, as it has existed for the last half century in Russia, creates more reasons for a citizen to slander Russia than to be proud of it. Professor Kovalevsky saw similar phenomena at the beginning of the twentieth century, who pointed out that “the school killed God, killed nationality, killed statehood, killed society, killed the family, killed the person.” As in our time, liberal education created cosmopolitans out of children, just as in our time, the role of teachers, who had decayed professionally and morally while still on the student bench, is extremely great in the destruction of the nation and the state.

Russian nationalism is a saving means of reunifying nationality and citizenship, a means of establishing a modern political nation, in which patriotism must give way to Russian nationalism, and the parochial “nationalism” of the non-Russian indigenous peoples of Russia must develop into Russian patriotism. For the existence of Russia, it is important to have a general civil understanding that Russia was created by Russian people, and Russian nationalism is the nationalism of a great nation, which, of course, must be nurtured and ascend to higher forms, eliminating the dark element of the people. Other nationalisms in Russia may be worthy of respect if combined with loyalty and allegiance to the Russian state. From here arises the formula and hierarchy of the empire, which is a union of friendly nationalisms with primacy, leadership and patronage from Russian nationalists. Not only the Russian, but also the Slavic community can exist only under Russian leadership. For for the world and world history, the Slavs are perceived only through Russians and Russian history.

Liberal racism demands to break this Russian unity, seeking to degrade the clear Russian worldview and reduce it to wild phobias. Russian nationalism contrasts the vile undertakings of liberals with Russian solidarity, which draws into its orbit all patriots of Russia - even if they are non-Russian by blood.

"Russia for Russians" - this formula Alexandra III in the works of Professor Kovalevsky it is revealed and justified. To the chagrin of slanderers who are looking for a reason to accuse the Russian national movement of all sins, “Russia for Russians” acts as the most promising formula of statehood not only for Russians themselves (we share P.I. Kovalevsky’s confidence that Russians are a trinity of Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians ), but also for the non-Russian peoples of Russia, connected with the Russians by a common destiny. Kovalevsky perfectly saw the diversity of “Russianness,” which today we sometimes stop noticing, reducing Russian exclusively to generic characteristics. In “Russianness” there is unity in the Orthodox faith, there is unity in the memory of the greatness of Russia, there is unity in the Russian language and Russian culture, in love for the Fatherland, there is a connection between Russians in the space of the Russian world - not only holders of citizenship of the Russian Federation, but also compatriots .

For Professor Kovalevsky there was no other formula for the Russian idea other than Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality. Taking a lesson of intellectual honesty and scientific depth from an outstanding thinker and the greatest Russian scientist, we must internalize this formula and be imbued with it to the very depths of our souls. To save Russia from oblivion, which has come so close that the imminent death of the Fatherland and the dissolution of the Russian people in waves of migration no longer surprises or frightens many. We should be afraid exclusively of this - the death of our Motherland, the extinction of the Russian family. In the Russian Idea of ​​Russian thinkers of the early twentieth century, we have a detailed ideological doctrine with which we will save Russia and continue our race until the end of time.

Preface to the reissue of the book by P.I. Kovalevsky

Reprinted from the site: http://www.savelev.ru

Cover of the book by P.I. Kovalevsky.

Essays:

P.I. Kovalevsky. Syphilis of the brain. 1890.

P.I. Kovalevsky. Migraine. 1893.

P.I. Kovalevsky. Forensic psychiatry. 1896.

P.I. Kovalevsky. Nationalism and national education in Russia: In 2 parts. - St. Petersburg, 1912. 394 p. (The book went through several editions, including New York, 1922).

P.I. Kovalevsky. Fundamentals of the mechanism of mental activity.

P.I. Kovalevsky. Fundamentals of human psychology.

P.I. Kovalevsky. Psychology of women.

P.I. Kovalevsky. Psychology of the Criminal (Also available in French edition).

P.I. Kovalevsky. Science, Christ and His teaching. - Brussels, 1928. 146 p.

P.I. Kovalevsky. Ivan the Terrible. //SPb.: printing house M.I. Akinfieva, 1901.

P.I. Kovalevsky. “Fundamentals of Russian nationalism”;

P.I. Kovalevsky. "Psychology of the Russian nation."

Literature:

Spektorsky E., Davac V. Materials for the bibliography of Russian scientific works abroad. - Belgrade: T. I. 1931 (2nd edition - 1972).

Read here:

Jewish pogroms, whose organization is attributed to the Black Hundreds.

Abbreviations(including a brief explanation of abbreviations).