Conservatives against Uvarov’s Triad

Abstract

The notion of “Russian conservatism” is commonly associated with the support of so called Uvarov’s triad. However, as noted even by Soviet researchers, many individual conservatives were not in the mainstream of the government policy. At the same time, the conservatives did not constitute a single whole. United by their general commitment to historical continuity, they often understood it in fundamentally different ways, focusing on various aspects: national, class, institutional, state or religious. As a consequence, they disintegrated into numerous circles, groups, “parties” and “factions” of most diverse and bizarre types. The struggle among them often resulted in inconsistencies with the essential points of Uvarov’s triad. The attitude of various conservative groups towards the principle of “nationality” was most complicated. The last and the most “innovative” element of Uvarov’s triad was a “sacred cow” of Slavophilism and Katkov’s circle. Yet it was also criticized, and most severely — by V. D. Skaryatin and N. N. Yumatov, editors of the Vest’ newspaper and masterminds of nobiliary conservatism. Another element of Uvarov’s triad — “orthodoxy” — was not criticized openly. However, the attitude of conservatives towards it was not as unambiguous as it might seem at first glance. The central element of Uvarov’s triad — “autocracy” — also underwent a peculiar, not always evident transformation in the conservatives’ views. Post-reform conservatism was in fact broader than Uvarov’s triad — both because of its heterogeneity and because of its belonging to an era that was far from conservative. All this ultimately led the followers of postreform Russian conservatives to support the Progressive bloc.