The views of the historian M. N. Petrov on the problem of social progress

Fedin Aleksandr Nikolaevich ORCID: 0000-0002-0267-4127 PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor, Department of State and Legal Disciplines, Saransk Cooperative Institute (branch) of the Russian University of Cooperation 430027, Russia, Republic of Mordovia, Saransk, Transportnaya str., 17 alexfedi@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Nikishova Natal'ya Valer'evna PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Criminal Law Disciplines, Saransk Cooperative Institute (branch) of the Russian University of Cooperation 430027, Russia, Republic of Mordovia, Saransk, Transportnaya str., 17 n.v.nikishova@ruc.su

Introduction

Mikhail Nazarovich Petrov (1826-1887) was a Russian historian, professor at Kharkov University, who devoted his life to the study of universal history and fought for the quality of teaching history in higher educational institutions of the Russian Empire. Recently, the theoretical and methodological views of this extraordinary scientist have increasingly come into the field of view of historical and philosophical knowledge. In modern Russian literature, one can find works devoted to his study of early Christianity ^[7], the basics of historiographical science in Russia ^[1], as well as pedagogical activity. In our opinion, the idea of social progress remains an unexplored aspect in the historical works of M. N. Petrov, which was reflected in his pedagogical views, and was an important component of his theoretical and methodological views in the analysis of social processes. Since all social sciences of the second half of the XIX century were influenced by the search for universal laws of social development, more than one major historian could not ignore this idea in his works.

Speaking about the evolution of the understanding of the idea of social progress in the second half of the XIX century, we should focus on several features of the knowledge of Russian historians and philosophers.  Russian thinkers who devoted their works to universal history were united by a number of common theoretical and methodological attitudes: a) the object of research does not imply a close study of the development of Russian civilization; b) the influence of European historical schools in the study of the object; c) consideration of the object through the prism of social progress. The Russian philosophy of that period differs, on the one hand, by considering the problems of social dynamics based on Russian society, and on the other, it is inseparable from the synthesis of ideas of Westernism and Slavophilism, which from different positions drive Russia into a "new barbarism", solving the problems of increasing social degradation. Having identified the discrepancy in the theoretical features of various fields of scientific knowledge of that time, it is necessary to dwell on the most important aspects of Russian social thought of that time in relation to the idea of social progress: a) the problem of the correlation of human development and humanity; b) the identification of the social progress of a particular part of humanity with the regularity of the development of society as a whole; c) the cruelty of the past and present as the need for social progress in the future. Therefore, when studying the concept of social progress by M. N. Petrov, it is important not only to analyze the similarities and differences with the concepts of other prominent historians, but also to find answers to the problems listed above.

The idea of progress and the "Gospel in History".

The first step towards understanding the problem of progress by the historian of Kharkiv University is to turn to his early published works. It should be noted that unlike the rest of his eminent colleagues, M. N. Petrov did not leave an article or a full-fledged work devoted separately to the topic of social development.  In one of the historian's first works, "The Gospel as an educational force in the History of Modern Times," several important elements can be traced at once in relation to the idea of progress ^[9].  Justifying the lower level of development of Ancient Rome in the era of the late Republic, the historian clearly identifies the criteria of regressive dynamics in society – the growth of inequality, pagan rituals and materialism. ^{[9, pp.11-12]}. Based on these criteria, we can conclude that despite the rather detailed criticism in his "Lectures on World History" of the slave-owning economic system, the oppression of the provinces by Rome, or the unfair social status of the working class in France of the XVIII century, M. N. Petrov cannot be called a supporter of the materialistic approach to history that was gaining popularity at that time K. Marx.  If for the German philosopher and economist the spiral model of progress is based on the economic basis, on which the development of superstructure structures (state, politics, art, science) is based, then for the Russian historian the basic support is religion, as a source of goodness, justice and law ^{[9, p.25]}. 

When referring to the question of the origin of Christianity as an object of research, we must fix an interesting parallel in the views of Professor of history at Kharkiv University and historian V. I. Guerrier. Akhmadiev F. N. in his work on the development of historiography in the Russian Empire points to similar reasons for choosing the object of research, approaches to understanding the historical process and the influence of German literature on the methods of the two historians ^[1]. This can also be fixed in the question of social progress, because for M. N. Petrov, social development is inseparable from the spirit that creates history and unites the phenomena created by him ^[6], that for V. I. Guerrier, the entire historical process is contained in the unfolding of the ideas of the human spirit ^[2]. The following similarity will be found in a detailed examination of the problem of the transition of society from the period of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire and the emergence of Christianity. In the study of this stage of human development, V. I. Guerrier states the dominance of G. Hegel's method over O. Comte's views, the need to investigate the historical fact of the emergence of Christianity as a condition for cultural enrichment in the process of revealing the absolute spirit ^{[3, pp.200-201]}.  M. N. Petrov also correlates the gradual progress in the life of the Ancient World with the emergence of Christianity and a new level of spirituality development: "Preaching the importance of spiritual interests alone – truth, justice and goodness, calling for humility and moral purity, the Christian teaching, and in this sense, was a sharp protest against the terrible debauchery, materialism and sensuality that corrupted the ancient world at that time" ^{[9, p.12]}. Developing this idea, Mikhail Nazarovich gives the main the criteria for the transition from the lowest stage of development of society to a higher one are: a) the dominance of the spirit over any form; b) the dominance of spiritual development over material; c) the dominance of the progress of individual freedom over the progress of society as a whole ^{[9, pp.12-13]}.

As we can see, the main criterion of social development in the theories of M. N. Petrov and V.I. Guerrier goes back to the theoretical and methodological views of G. Hegel's objective idealism and his spiral model of social dynamics. The German philosopher considered the problem of social progress as the study of a specific epoch through the prism of an objective manifestation of a universal idea (the Spirit of History). Thus, the whole of humanity cannot be at the same stage of progress at the same time, since universal development consists in a specifically represented special people embodying a general movement towards an Absolute state. This is reflected in the concepts of social development of M. N. Petrov and V. I. Guerrier, where nature paves the way for the development of the Spirit from ancient history, as a form of expression of pagan religions, to a more perfect stage embodied by Christian culture. 

In the process of cognition of the movement of society towards the Absolute, we will find the main divergence in the views of the Russian historian and the German philosopher. If Hegel's most important criterion of progress is the concept of "freedom", then this freedom finds its development in a subject of a supra-individual nature, or rather in a specific state education. "The state is, therefore, the dialectical unity of the opposites of the community and the individual, the first self–ordering and concentration of reason, which is therefore a prerequisite for all further unfolding of the values of reason - religion, art and science," writes E. Trelch, analyzing Hegel's theory of social progress. ^{[13, p.222]}. That is, in the process of society's ascent from the lowest level to the highest, there is an increase in the dominance of the social over the individual, which does not coincide with the criteria of progress in M. N. Petrov. Thus, we find in the historian the answer to the first problem of Russian social thought – social progress should be the progress of a person, his spiritual and cultural growth, the predominance of the interests of the individual over the state.  

With a closer analysis of man as a subject of social development, we can trace the divergence in the approaches of V. I. Guerrier and M. N. Petrov. The professor of Moscow University gave priority to the psychologization of historical science, trying to reduce the identification of historical laws to the actions of the simplest subject – a person ^[3]. For M. N. Petrov, epistemologically, the idea of social progress was reduced not to scientific problems, which is characteristic of the social thought of his era, but to the harmonious development of the absolute spirit in the form of the coexistence of science and religion through the processes of human education and upbringing. Thus, the historians of the second half of the XIX century who stood at the origins of the study of universal history in Russia, who emerged from a single theoretical and methodological basis with regard to the idea of social progress, in the final understanding of the development of the historical process reflect the dualism of Russian social thought of their time: a) V. I. Guerrier gradually moves to the position of subjectivism – the main ideological force not only the theoretical views of scientists, but also public organizations of the second half of the XIX century.; b) M. N. Petrov, based on the idea of progress and criteria for its development, tries to synthesize methods of scientific knowledge and religious worldview.

Russian Russian historian V. V. Zenkovsky's concept in this context correlates more with the thesis of the researcher of Russian philosophy V. V. Zenkovsky, who pointed out that the true Russian approach to understanding social progress is the emphasis on the ethical interpretation of the activity of the individual in history, where scientific justification does not have priority ^{[4, p.341]}. Let's not agree with the thesis Y. S. Pivovarova that from the works of V. S. Solovyov, domestic thought comes to the realization of social progress as the construction of an ideal society based on Christian ethical bases ^{[12, p.82]}. As we have shown above, back in 1863 in his work "The Gospel in History" Mikhail Nazarovich predetermined the basic principles of the study of social progress, developed by the religious branch of Russian philosophy in the works of N. A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, L. P. Karsavin, V. S. Solovyov, etc. The evolution of these views goes from the opposition of the formation of a free individual and society, to their mutually beneficial coexistence through the understanding of the collective ethical factor as dominant in the process of social dynamics. Russian Russian religious philosophy's main object of research is no longer the whole of humanity and not the most important nodal moments of its history, but the Russian civilization, the principle of communal life and their relationship with the ideas of Christianity and Messianism.

To find an answer to the question of justifying the cruelty of the past and present in exchange for the social progress of the future society, let us turn to M. N. Petrov's study of the Great French Revolution.

Social Progress and the Great French Revolution in the works of M. N. Petrov.

When choosing the point of comparison of the theoretical and methodological views of M. N. Petrov and V. I. Guerrier, we were guided on the one hand by their fascination with Hegel's philosophy of history, which linked many events of the historical process with the emergence of Christianity, on the other hand with their historical works devoted to a specific stage of human development. The most important socio-political phenomenon and object for historical research of that time remained the Great French Revolution, the ideological justification of which, in fact, was the triumph of the formation of the European understanding of social progress. M. N. Petrov in his last volume of "Lectures on World History" not only covers the events of 1789 from the standpoint of his concept, but also briefly evaluates the very idea of social progress in the works of English and French educators.  Since the Great French Revolution was studied in the most detail at that time by representatives of the "Russian school" (I. V. Luchitsky, N. I. Kareev, M. M. Kovalevsky), each of whom had his own idea of the process of social dynamics, this object of research is seen as an excellent marker in search of common and special in the methodological foundations of the study of domestic historians. An additional factor in favor of such a comparison is the fact that N. I. Kareev is a graduate of Moscow University and a student of V. I. Guerrier, and M. M. Kovalevsky is a graduate of Kharkiv University, where M. N. Petrov worked.

Approaching the study of the Great French Revolution from the standpoint of strictly scientific, M. N. Petrov identifies a set of reasons, among which the socio-political treatises of English and French educational literature of the XVII – XVIII centuries are among the most important. The main common theme of these treatises is the idea of social transformations and the construction of an ideal state based on the discovery of the laws of historical development. M. N. Petrov approaches the evolution of views on the laws of social development in the works of enlighteners from the position of the criteria outlined by him in his early works, which makes us talk about the integrity of his concept. For the historian, there is no doubt that the concepts of social development that are contemporary to him are the product of the activities of English enlighteners, which are then supplemented by French thinkers, and those, in turn, find continuation in the works of German philosophers. So, the idea of the Irish philosopher J. Toland (1670-1722) on the synthesis of Spinoza's pantheism and the dominance of human thinking over the forces of nature, convinces M. N. Petrov that this particular postulate is not only the highest point of English deism, but also a fertile ground for cultivating ideas of social progress ^{[11, p.204]}. In general, the idea of social development in English educational literature has revealed a number of negative phenomena, among which the most influential place is given to ignoring the power of history over the will of man, as well as the dominance of rational morality ^{[11, pp.206-207]}.

Considering the ideas of the French enlighteners as a factor of revolution, M. N. Petrov sees in them the grounds for the future regression of society, which can be summarized by several criteria. The first is the anti-historical orientation of the works, which manifests itself in rationalism ^{[11, p.234]}. By this, the historian understands the predominance of the will of a person or people over the historical will (the development of the absolute spirit), the assumption of the ability of a historical subject to change the course of history. Here we observe for the first time in M. N. Petrov the juxtaposition of historical (progressive) law and rational (regressive) law.  The second criterion is deduced by the historian under the term "materialism", the regressive essence of which is reduced to the suppression of the individual's free will, and, therefore, in the future, the freedom of society ^{[11, p.234]}. And, finally, the third criterion of regression most fully reflects the professor's views on the revolution itself "audacious, ruthless, destructive and terrible" - this is the anti-religious nature of educational literature, which combines the denial of the social system as a whole, the impracticality and abstractness of revolutionary transformations ^{[11, p.235]}.

It should be noted that the review of educational literature and its impact on French society at the end of the XVIII century is supplemented by M. N. Petrov's analysis of the only author with whom the historian is ready to share some views on social progress – these are the ideas of J. J. Rousseau. Despite views similar to other enlighteners regarding the harm of the old church rules, the social system, rational education and the ideals of the English legal order, J. J. Rousseau, according to M. N. Petrov, preserves religious ideals for the future of society, stands for the simplicity of human nature and does not represent a future society without complete human freedom ^{[11, p. 230-232]}.

When analyzing the Declaration of Human and Civil Rights, we can clearly trace the historian's attitude to the revolution as a whole, and the influence of the idea of social progress on the events of 1789-1793. Freedom and equality of people, the right of their resistance to tyranny and democratic elections, as the main requirements of the third estate in the Declaration, are interpreted by M. N. Petrov as untenable because of the denial of the historical ground under such statements and the impossibility of their real embodiment in the near historical perspective ^{[11, pp.266-267]}. In fact, in the concept of M. N. Petrov, it is the adoption of the Declaration that leads French society to ochlocracy, social unrest, anarchy and the impossibility of creating a new social order.  Here we can draw the following conclusion: the anti-progressive works of English and French educators formed the basis for the incorrect interpretation of the idea of social progress among the masses of the French population, who, represented by representatives of the third estate, embodied them in the creation of the Declaration of Human and Civil Rights, thereby condemning society to social degradation. This social degradation leads to human violence against man, the search for the guilty and the paralysis of power. Thus, we can state the fact that Mikhail Nazarovich's concept of social development denies the progressiveness of violence in the present tense as a justification for future successes.

The philosophy of history of the "Russian school" of historians, which devoted a lot of time to the study of the French Revolution, also stood in the way of recognizing the individual as an important element of social progress, but the theoretical and methodological basis of positivism was originally laid in its basis for research. The problem of social dynamics in the works of I. V. Luchitsky, N. I. Kareev, M. M. Kovalevsky is part of the system of the general theory of the historical process, built through the analysis of historical facts on the basis of material knowledge of reality and the activity of the historical subject. The fixation of growth and the freedom of individual actions in the process of historical development allows us to say that the "Russian school" preserves the tradition of an ethical approach in understanding social progress. Whether we are talking about the historiological concept of N. I. Kareev ^{[6, p.303, 305]}, the synthesis of historical-comparative and experiential methods of I. V. Luchitsky ^{[8, p.13]}, or the theory of the growth of objective solidarity between people by M. M. Kovalevsky ^{[5, p.66]} - they all recognize the regressive nature of the Great The French Revolution, but proceed from an objectively material knowledge of reality and the statement of social regression in the political, economic, social actions of historical subjects. As we can see, despite the dominant role of the ethical criterion and similar assessments of the French Revolution, M. N. Petrov's concept of social progress is naturally replaced in historical discourse by rational, science-oriented ideas.  Therefore, M. N. Petrov's views on the regularity of the historical process, in comparison with the "Russian school", are a vivid example of the transformation of the historical understanding of the process of social progress from empirical-metaphysical views to empirical-ethical ones.

Conclusion

Summing up, we can state that M. N. Petrov's concept of social progress, having provided answers to the general questions of the national thought of that time, is an interesting phenomenon that remains unnoticed. If the concept of social progress developed in the early 60s of the XIX century by M. N. Petrov based on the study of Roman society at the stage of its transition from the republic to the empire was at the forefront of historical science, then since the 1870s its main provisions have been developed not in historical science, but in the philosophical and religious paradigm Russian public thought. In our opinion, the oblivion of M. N. Petrov's views on the problem of social development, though tragic, but logically follows from the following factors: firstly, the criteria of social development presented in his concept deny the progressiveness of the works of European enlighteners, in which the idea of social progress is born; secondly, the concept of M. N. Petrova was formulated not to search for the laws of historical development, but for the education of a person in the future; thirdly, the historical science of the late XIX century, which absorbed an abundance of sociological, economic and mathematical methods, left the theory of progress of the professor of Kharkiv University outside of its discourse; fourthly, despite the appeal to Christian values, the glorification of the freedom of man over state power, the need to strive for the unity of the human race and a number of other ideas inherent in the religious paradigm of Russian philosophy, M. N. Petrov's theory of social progress was completely ignored by prominent religious philosophers of that era.