Are you here: Ideal home

SLAVIFILITY - a movement in Russian critical thought of the 40-50s. 19th century

The main feature: affirmation of the fundamental originality of the culture of the Russian people. This is not only literary criticism, but also theology, politics, and law.

KIREEVSKY

Russian literature can become world literature. We have not only the right to tell the whole world, but also our responsibility. It is our duty to make literature different from European literature (precisely because we are so different from Europe). Russian literature has the opportunity, it has something to say and it is obliged to write differently than in Europe.

Affirmation of identity, nationality.

The pathos of Slavophilism: for constant contact with other cultures, but without losing one’s own identity (“View of Russian Literature”)

Writes about the state of Russian literature: “Beauty is synonymous with truth” (from the Christian worldview)

The question of the evolution of the poet as a person: “Something about the character of Pushkin’s poetry.”

I. Kireevsky “Review of the current state of literature”

Developed the theory of Slavophilism.

The eternal thesis is resolved as follows: “Nationalism is a reflection in artistic creativity of the deep foundations of national ideals.”

“The root and basis are the Kremlin (security, the idea of statehood), Kiev (the idea of the Russian state, the baptism of Rus', national unity), Sorovskaya Hermitage (the idea of man serving God), folk life (culture, heritage) with its songs.”

The idea of the Russian art school is a recognizable tradition in modern culture:

in literature: Gogol

in music: Glinka

in painting: Ivanov

Studies in Theology. Formulated the difference between secular and religious (church) art: life and story about a person? icon and portrait? (What is eternal in a person and what is momentary in a person?)

A. Khomyakov “On the possibilities of the Russian art school”

A leading fighter of Slavophilism. He engaged in provocative “fights.”

Nationality is not just a quality of literature: “Art in words is necessarily united with nationality.” “The most suitable genre of literature is the epic, but there are big problems with it now.”

Homer's classic epic (contemplation - a calm but analyzing gaze) to gain true understanding.

The goal of modern novels is anecdote—unusuality. But if so, then this cannot characterize an epic, therefore, a novel is not an epic

Art. "A few words about Gogol's poem." Gogol, like Homer, wants to fix the nationality, therefore, Gogol = Homer.

A controversy arose with Belinsky.

Gogol’s satire – “inside out”, “read backwards”, “read between the lines”.

K. Aksakov “Three critical articles”

Y. Samarin “On the opinions of Sovremennik, historical and literary”

14. The problematic field of Russian criticism in the 1850-1860s. Basic concepts and representatives

WESTERNS - materialistic, real, positivist direction.

Belinsky Westernizing ideologist.

1. Revolutionary-democratic criticism (real): Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, Saltykov-Shchedrin.

2. Liberal aesthetic tradition: Druzhinin, Botkin, Annenkov

The era of the “sixties”, which does not quite correspond, as will happen in the 20th century, to calendar chronological milestones, was marked by a rapid growth of social and literary activity, which was reflected primarily in the existence of Russian journalism. During these years, numerous new publications appeared, including “Russian Messenger”, “Russian Conversation”, “Russian Word”, “Time”, “Epoch”. The popular “Contemporary” and “Library for Reading” are changing their faces.

New social and aesthetic programs are formulated on the pages of periodicals; novice critics quickly gain fame (Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, Strakhov and many others), as well as writers who returned to active work (Dostoevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin); uncompromising and principled discussions arise about new extraordinary phenomena of Russian literature - the works of Turgenev, L. Tolstoy, Ostrovsky, Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Fet.

Literary changes are largely due to significant socio-political events (the death of Nicholas 1 and the transfer of the throne to Alexander 2, the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War, liberal reforms and the abolition of serfdom, the Polish uprising). The long-restrained philosophical, political, civic aspiration of public consciousness in the absence of legal political institutions reveals itself on the pages of “thick” literary and artistic magazines; It is literary criticism that becomes an open universal platform on which the main socially relevant discussions unfold. Literary criticism finally and clearly merges with journalism. Therefore, the study of literary criticism of the 1860s is impossible without taking into account its socio-political orientations.

In the 1860s, differentiation took place within the democratic social and literary movement that had developed over the previous two decades: against the background of the radical views of the young publicists of Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo, associated not only with the struggle against serfdom and autocracy, but also Against the very idea of social inequality, adherents of former liberal views seem almost conservative.

The original social programs - Slavophilism and pochvennichestvo - were imbued with general guidelines for progressive social liberation development; The magazine “Russian Messenger” initially built its activities on the ideas of liberalism, the actual leader of which was another former comrade-in-arms of Belinsky, Katkov.

It is obvious that public ideological and political indifference in literary criticism of this period is a rare, almost exceptional phenomenon (articles by Druzhinin, Leontyev).

The widespread public view of literature and literary criticism as a reflection and expression of current problems leads to an unprecedented increase in the popularity of criticism, and this gives rise to fierce theoretical debates about the essence of literature and art in general, about the tasks and methods of critical activity.

The sixties were the time of initial comprehension of Belinsky’s aesthetic heritage. However, journal polemicists from opposite extreme positions condemn either Belinsky’s aesthetic idealism (Pisarev) or his passion for social topicality (Druzhinin).

The radicalism of the publicists of “Sovremennik” and “Russian Word” was manifested in their literary views: the concept of “real” criticism, developed by Dobrolyubov, taking into account the experience of Chernyshevsky and supported by their followers, considered “reality” presented (“reflected”) in the work to be the main object of critical discretion.

The position, which was called “didactic”, “practical”, “utilitarian”, “theoretical”, was rejected by all other literary forces, which in one way or another affirmed the priority of artistry in assessing literary phenomena. However, “pure” aesthetic, immanent criticism, which, as A. Grigoriev argued, deals with a mechanical enumeration of artistic techniques, did not exist in the 1860s. Therefore, “aesthetic” criticism is a movement that strives to comprehend the author’s intention, the moral and psychological pathos of a work, and its formal and content unity.

Other literary groups of this period: Slavophilism, Pochvennichestvo, and the “organic” criticism created by Grigoriev - to a greater extent professed the principles of criticism “about”, accompanying the interpretation of a work of art with principled judgments on topical social problems. “Aesthetic” criticism did not, like other movements, have its own ideological center, finding itself on the pages of “Library for Reading”, “Sovremennik” and “Russian Messenger” (until the end of the 1850s), as well as in “Notes of the Fatherland”, which, unlike the previous and subsequent eras, did not play a significant role in the literary process of this time.

"The Nineteenth Century" (1832)

The impression from the article is that an analysis is given of our century, and not the nineteenth. How precisely the character of time is noted, which “changed barely perceptibly with the change of generations; our time has already changed its character several times for one generation... Compare previous times with the present; open historical notes, private letters, novels and biographies of past centuries: everywhere and at every time you will find people of the same time... All were brought up by like-minded circumstances, formed by the same spirit of the time... But look at the European society of our time: not discordant opinions of one you will find centuries in it, no! You will encounter echoes of several centuries, not so much contrary to each other, but heterogeneous among themselves” 1. The author notes that at the end of the eighteenth century the struggle between old opinions and new demands of enlightenment was reflected in the destructive direction of minds, everything was aimed at overthrowing the old. The new was a simple negation of the old. Freedom was understood as the absence of previous oppressions, humanity - like most people, the absence of prejudices was called the kingdom of reason. Religion was rejected, experience was recognized in science, imitation of inanimate nature was recognized in art, and crude materialism was recognized in philosophy. The French Revolution brought about a change in minds. Speculation took precedence over experience, disbelief gave way to mysticism, in art preference was given to sentimentality and daydreaming, materialism was replaced by spirituality. Destruction and violence as a struggle against the past century were replaced by the need for peace and unity. Tolerance and respect for religion, the reconciliation of idealism and materialism - this was the main direction of the minds of the 19th century. 2

I.V. Kireyevsky writes that enlightened people understood religion “either as a set of rituals, or as an internal, individual conviction in known truths. But is this a religion? No, religion is not one ritual and not one belief. For the full development of not only true, but even false religion, the unanimity of the people is necessary, sanctified by vivid memories, developed in unambiguous traditions, intertwined with the state structure, personified in unambiguous and nationwide rituals, reduced to one positive principle and palpable in all civil and family relations. . Without these conditions, there is belief, there are rituals, but there is no religion itself” 3.

In this article, Kireyevsky formulated questions that he would answer throughout his life. Each subsequent article repeats it in theme and even in form, becoming at the same time a step on his ladder of spiritual ascent, a step towards understanding, and subsequently to insight. The theme of the nature of the enlightenment of Europe and its relationship to the enlightenment of Russia becomes his personal theme and the theme of the entire nineteenth century. A narrower, but no less painful question follows from it: how to relate to the reforms of Peter I?

We will not find answers in the article “The Nineteenth Century,” but the questions have already been formulated: will the “Chinese Wall” between Europe and Russia, in which Peter broke through the doors and which Catherine began to destroy, soon collapse; will our education soon rise to the level to which the enlightened states of Europe have reached; what should we do to achieve this goal; should we take enlightenment from our own lives or borrow it from Europe; what principles should be developed within one’s own life; what can we borrow from those who were enlightened before us? 4

The answers will be in the following articles, but here is only the opinion that the author expresses with apologies and asks not to judge him harshly. He says that we are a thousand years old, but among the enlightened states we are young, enlightenment is not the fruit of our life. Kireevsky names three main principles that determine the nature of enlightenment in Europe and influence the course of its development: the Christian religion, the nature of education and the spirit of the barbarian peoples who destroyed the Roman Empire and the remnants of the Ancient World 5. Kireevsky will use this triad in his further works to compare enlightenment in Europe and Russia, but the meaning and depth of analysis will constantly change.

The author of "The Nineteenth Century" notes that we have Christianity, we have barbarians, but there is no heritage of the classical Ancient world. From a purely mechanical standpoint, Christianity in Europe is assigned the role of judge and reconciliator between barbarians and antiquity. The barbarians are being enlightened, the legacy of antiquity is being transformed. Hence the central role of the Western Church not only in spiritual education, but also in the political structure. Knights and crusades are described in romantic tones, in which “the first element was the Church,” which served as a source of unanimity and order, giving one spirit and one moral code to Europe.

Kireevsky does not yet know that Russia, in the depths of its spirit, preserves the heritage of the ancient classical world, but not in its pagan form, as the West accepted this heritage, but in a transformed and purified form by the Orthodox Church. However, he has already noticed the main thing. It is precisely in the different attitude towards antiquity and its philosophy, in his opinion, that one should look for the difference in the enlightenment of Europe and Russia.

Recognizing our Christianity as “purer and holier,” Kireevsky sees (for now he sees) the reason for the indecision and small influence of the Church on the political structure of Russia in the absence of the classical world. This, in his opinion, led Ancient Rus' to fragmentation into destinies that were not spiritually connected. 6

Enlightenment in the true sense of the word, explains I.V. Kireevsky, is determined not by the individual development of our particularity, but by participation in the general life of the enlightened world. Our national influence overpowered and distorted the enlightenment that came from outside. Peter's reform is not so much a development as a turning point in nationality, not an internal success, but an external innovation. But was there another way? If classical education was lacking, education was borrowed from outside in the struggle against nationality. To look for the “national” in Russia means to look for the uneducated. If a German is looking for something purely German, this does not prevent him from being educated, but it does hinder us. We owe enlightenment to Peter. The starting point of our enlightenment has also been found: the time of rapprochement with Europe is the period of Minin and Pozharsky. 7

In essence, the article presents the view of a European who knows Europe very well and loves it, is familiar with the history of Russia, but does not know it at all and has not had time to love it.

“In response to A.S. Khomyakov" (1839)

The article was first published after the death of I.V. Kireevsky in 1861 in the first collection of his works. The story behind this article is as follows. Since 1834, Kireevsky spent almost all winters in Moscow. In 1839, weekly evenings were held at his house for a small circle of friends. According to the condition, each of the guests had to take turns reading something from the newly written book. At these evenings, Gogol read his comedies and the first chapters of “Dead Souls,” Professor Kryukov read the article “On Ancient Greek History.” Khomyakov - article “On the Old and the New”. The article was not intended for publication. Perhaps Khomyakov read it to provoke objections from Kireyevsky. The answer was written and belonged to the movement, which was then called Orthodox-Slavic, and later Slavophilism. 8

In its form, the article is a response, but in spirit it is already a monologue-reflection. From that time on, Kireevsky abandoned the polemical tone, he was already called and stood before God, aware of the responsibility for the spoken word. Already in the first paragraph, special excitement and trepidation are felt when Ivan Vasilyevich begins to talk about Russia: “Our concept of the relationship of the past state of Russia to the present does not belong to such issues about which we can have one opinion or another with impunity, as about subjects of literature, about music or foreign politics, but it constitutes, so to speak, an essential part of ourselves, for it enters into the slightest circumstance, into every minute of our life" 9 . The question of the attitude towards Russia and its past, according to Kireyevsky, cannot be simplified. They usually reason in this way: if the former Russia was better than the present one, the old should be returned and everything Western that distorts Russian characteristics should be destroyed; if the old Russia was worse, it is necessary to introduce everything Western and destroy the Russian peculiarity. “If the old was better than the present,” wrote I.V. Kireevsky, - it does not follow from this that it is better now. What was suitable at one time, under some circumstances, may not be suitable at another, under other circumstances. If the old one was worse, it also does not follow that its elements could not themselves develop into something better, unless this development was stopped by the forcible introduction of an alien element. The young oak, of course, is shorter than the same year old willow tree, which is visible from afar, gives shade early, looks like a tree early and is suitable for firewood. But you, of course, will not serve the oak tree by grafting a willow onto it... Instead of asking: was the old Russia better? - it seems more useful to ask: to improve our lives, is it now necessary to return to the old Russian, or is it necessary to develop the Western element, the opposite of it?.. No matter how much we are enemies of Western enlightenment, Western customs and the like; But is it possible without madness to think that someday, by some force, the memory of everything that it received from Europe over the course of two hundred years will be destroyed in Russia? Can we not know what we know, forget everything we know? It is even less possible to think that 1000-year-old Russian can be completely destroyed by the influence of the new European. Therefore, no matter how much we wish for the return of Russian or the introduction of Western life, we cannot exclusively expect either one or the other, and inevitably must assume something third, which should arise from the mutual struggle of two principles. .. The point is not: which of the two? But this is: what direction should both of them receive” 10. The importance of the issue is not in acquiring this or that, but in the direction of development.

We will dwell in more detail on Kireevsky’s consideration of the foundations of folk life in Russia, because his views on this issue did not change significantly in the future. This will allow, when getting acquainted with Kireevsky’s other works, to pay more attention to the spiritual side of the matter, which is practically not discussed in this article.

Kireevsky notes that, at first glance, there is one obvious commonality between the peoples of Russia and the West - Christianity. The difference lies in special types of Christianity, in a special direction of enlightenment. If we know where the commonality comes from, we must also see the reasons for the differences. He proposes, ascending (precisely how Kireevsky considers ascension to approach the historical and spiritual foundations of Christianity) historically to the beginning of this or that type of education, to look for the reason for their differences in the first elements from which they were composed, or to consider the subsequent development of these elements, comparing the results . If the difference that we saw in the elements also appears in the results of their development, then it is obvious that the assumption is correct, and, based on it, conclusions can be drawn.

Kireyevsky proposes to consider three elements that were the basis of European education - Roman Christianity, the world of uneducated barbarians who destroyed the Roman Empire, and the classical world of ancient paganism.

Considering the classical world of ancient paganism, which was not inherited by Russia, he sees in it the triumph of the formal reason of man, based on himself. This reason manifests itself in two forms characteristic of it - formal abstraction and abstract sensuality. The deviation of the Roman Church from the Eastern Church occurred, according to Kireyevsky, due to the triumph of rationalism over tradition, external rationality over internal spiritual reason. “In this last triumph of formal reason over faith and tradition,” he wrote, “a discerning mind could already see in advance the entire current fate of Europe in embryo” 11. Here one can see a new philosophy and industrialism as the spring of social life, and philanthropy based on self-interest, and a system of education accelerated by the power of excited envy, and many of the results of hopes and expensive experiments.

One should not think that Kireevsky, who has changed his views, is beginning to denounce the West. But the depth of life began to be revealed to him, he saw, under the cover of the brilliance of external life, another life, which is true. Let's listen to Kireyevsky himself. “I have no intention at all of writing satire on the West. No one appreciates more than I those conveniences of public and private life that come from the same rationalism. Yes, to be frank, I still love the West, I am connected with it by many inextricable sympathies. I belong to him with my upbringing, my habits of life, my tastes, my controversial turn of mind, even my habits of heart. But in a person’s heart there are such movements, there are such demands in the mind, such a meaning in life that are stronger than all habits and tastes, stronger than all the pleasures of life and the benefits of external rationality, without which neither a person nor a people can live their real life. Therefore, fully appreciating all the individual benefits of rationality, I think that in its final development, with its painful dissatisfaction, it clearly reveals itself as a one-sided, deceptive, seductive and treacherous principle. However, it would be inappropriate to dwell on this. I only remember that all the high minds of Europe complain about the current state of moral apathy, about the lack of convictions, about general egoism, they demand a new spiritual force outside of reason, they demand a new spring of life outside of calculation, in a word, they are looking for faith and cannot find it in themselves , because Christianity in the West has been distorted by its own thoughts” 12.

Speaking about education in Russia, I.V. Kireyevsky noted that “our educational beginning lay in our Church” (he says so - “in our Church”). In it, “together with Christianity, the still fertile remnants of the ancient pagan world acted on the development of enlightenment.” Upon closer examination, it turned out that Russia also had the heritage of the ancient classical world, but not in the fullness of its paganism, but in the “fruitful remnants” that Russia received from Byzantium along with the Orthodox faith.

The Roman Church accepted into itself “the germ of that beginning that constituted the general shade of the entire Greek-pagan development - the beginning of rationalism.” This is the reason for the separation of the Roman Church from the Eastern. She changed some dogmas that existed in the tradition of all Christianity on the basis of inferences, and spread some as a result of the same process and contrary to the tradition and spirit of the Universal Church. Logical conviction formed the basis of Catholicism. Scholastic philosophy, which could not reconcile the contradiction between reason and faith in any other way than by the power of syllogism, gradually became the property of the clergy, previously educated in a different spirit. But if faith is logically proven and logically opposed to reason, then it is no longer faith, but a logical denial of reason. That is why, during the period of its scholastic development, Catholicism, due to its rationality, oppressed reason and was its desperate enemy. But the desire to destroy reason produced a reaction, the consequences of which, according to Kireevsky, constitute the nature of the current enlightenment. 13

Eastern Christianity, he wrote, knew neither this struggle of faith against reason, nor this triumph of reason. Therefore, the fruits of enlightenment were completely different. There were many differences in the social structure of Russia from the West. The main difference is the formation of society into “small worlds”. Private personal identity - the basis of Western development - was little known among us, as was public autocracy. Man belonged to the world. And peace be with him. Landed property - the source of personal rights in the West - was a part of society in our country. A person participated in the right of ownership if he was part of the company.

“But this society,” wrote Kireevsky, “was not autocratic and could not organize itself, invent laws for itself, because it was not separated from other similar societies governed by uniform custom. The countless number of these small worlds that make up Russia were all covered with a network of churches, monasteries, and the dwellings of solitary hermits, from where the same concepts about public and private relations constantly spread everywhere. These concepts little by little had to turn into convictions, convictions - into customs, which replaced the law, arranging throughout the entire expanse of lands subject to our Church, one thought, one look, one aspiration, one order of life. This widespread monotony of the custom was probably one of the reasons for its incredible strength, which has preserved its living remains even to our time, through all the counteractions of destructive influences that, over the course of 200 years, have sought to introduce new beginnings in its place” 14.

Any change in the social structure that was inconsistent with the structure of the whole was impossible. Family relationships were determined even before the birth of a person, the family was subordinate to the world, the world to the gathering, the gathering to the veche, and so on, until all circles closed in one Orthodox Church. Private understanding or artificial agreement could not establish a new order, invent new rights and advantages. Even the word “right” was unknown in Russia in its Western sense, but meant only justice and truth. Therefore, no power, according to Kireevsky, could either grant or concede any right to any person or class, for truth and justice can neither be sold nor taken, but exist on their own, regardless of conditional relations. In the West, on the contrary, all social relations are based on conditions; without conditions there are no correct relations. But there is arbitrariness. Therefore, the social contract is not an invention of the encyclopedists, but an ideal that was previously sought unconsciously, but now consciously. The rational element exceeded the Christian one. 15

From the point of view of communal relations, Kireyevsky also considers the princely power that existed in Rus' before the subordination of the appanage principalities to Moscow. Analysis and trial, the right to which in some cases belonged to the prince, could not be carried out in disagreement with comprehensive customs. For the same reason, the interpretation of these customs could not be arbitrary. The general course of affairs was carried out by peace and orders, which judged in the same way, according to centuries-old custom and therefore known to everyone. In extreme cases, a prince who violated the correctness of his relations with the people and the Church was expelled by the people themselves. It is obvious that the princely power itself consisted more in the leadership of squads than in internal government, more in armed patronage than in the possession of regions. 16

Before the depth of truth, Kireyevsky’s last romantic ideas about knights and crusades dissipate. In Russia there have always been many people who wanted to live outside society, and often through robbery and robbery, through force. But they could not form a special class in Russia, because with their lives they separated themselves from the Church. After the introduction of Christianity there were robbers, gangs, but gangs rejected by the Church. The Church could take advantage of them, forming from them separate orders with their own charters and directing them against the infidels, like the Western crusaders. She, according to Kireyevsky, did not do this because she did not sell purity for temporary benefits. Nothing would be simpler than to initiate crusades among us, classifying the robbers among the ministers of the Church and promising them forgiveness of sins for killing infidels; many would become honest robbers. Catholicism did just that. “Our Church,” Kireyevsky concludes, “did not do this, and therefore we did not have knighthood, and with it, that aristocratic class, which was the main element of all Western education” 17.

Where there was most disorder in the West, chivalry flourished more strongly. In Italy there was the least amount of it. Where there was less chivalry, there society was more inclined towards a national system, where more towards autocracy. Thus, Kireyevsky believed, the Western Church formed knights from robbers, secular power from spiritual power, and the Holy Inquisition from secular police. She acted in the same way in relation to pagan sciences and arts. She did not produce new Christian art within herself, but she directed the old one, born and nurtured by another spirit, another life, to decorate her temple. From this, art began to play romantically, but ended with the worship of paganism, the worship of the formulas of abstract philosophy. The sciences flourished greatly in Europe, but the pagan philosophy underlying them led them to godlessness. 18

“Russia did not shine with either arts or scientific inventions,” wrote I.V. Kireevsky, - not having time to develop in this regard in an original way and not accepting someone else’s development, based on a false view and therefore hostile to her Christian spirit. But on the other hand, it contained the first condition for the development of the correct, requiring only time and favorable circumstances; in it that organizing principle of knowledge, that philosophy of Christianity, which alone can provide the correct foundation for the sciences, gathered and lived. All the Greek holy fathers, not excluding the most profound writers, were translated, and read, and copied, and studied in the silence of our monasteries, these holy embryos of unfulfilled universities... And these monasteries were in living, unceasing communication with the people. What enlightenment in our vile class are we not entitled to conclude from this one fact! But this enlightenment is not brilliant, but deep, not luxurious, not material, aiming at the convenience of external life, but internal, spiritual” 19.

“How could all this be destroyed? - asks Kireevsky. “How was Peter possible, the destroyer of the Russian and the introducer of the German?” And he himself answers this: “One fact in our history explains to us the reason for such an unfortunate coup, this fact is the Hundred-Glavy Council. As quickly as heresy appeared in the Church, discord in the spirit was bound to be reflected in life. Parties appeared that more or less deviated from the truth. The party of innovation defeated the party of antiquity, precisely because the antiquity was torn apart by differences of opinion. From there, with the destruction of the spiritual, internal connection, the need for a material, formal connection arose, from there localism, oprichnina, slavery and the like. From there, the distortion of books due to error and ignorance and their correction according to private understanding and arbitrary criticism. From there, before Peter, the government was at odds with the majority of the people, rejected under the name of schismatics. That is why Peter, as the head of the party in the state, forms a society within a society and everything that follows” 20.

Realizing that the very peculiarity of Russian life could no longer be returned, Kireevsky reminded that it consisted in the living origin of the life of the people from pure Christianity. And only those who do not believe that Russia will someday return to that life-giving spirit that its Church breathes can destroy the remaining forms.

But Kireevsky himself does not yet know how to accomplish this return to the Church. He (and after him we) already understood the relationship between the life of Russia and the life of the Church, understood the differences between the West and the East in external manifestations, the reasons for these differences, understood the rationalism of Catholicism and felt (but did not yet realize) the breath of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Church . He already understands what an enlightened Europe needs and what wealth, which we do not value, we possess, which is why he gives his advice in a half-joking form: “Now we have only one thing left to wish: that some Frenchman would understand the originality of the Christian teaching, as it is in our Church, and wrote an article about it in a magazine; so that a German, having believed him, would study our Church more deeply and begin to prove in lectures that in it, quite unexpectedly, exactly what the enlightenment of Europe now requires is revealed. Then, without a doubt, we would have believed the French and the German and ourselves would have known what we have” 21.

"Review of the Present State of Literature" (1845)

Reviewing the state of Western literature, I.V. Kireevsky notes that multi-mindedness, heteroglossia of systems and opinions, arising from the lack of one common belief, not only fragments the self-awareness of society, but also affects the individual, bifurcating every movement of his soul. “That is why, by the way,” said Kireevsky, “in our time there are so many talents and there is not a single true poet. For the poet is created by the power of inner thought. From the depths of his soul, he must bring out, in addition to beautiful forms, the very soul of beauty, his living, integral view of the world and man” 22.

If a person does not have heart goals, despair becomes the dominant feeling. Coming out of despair, thought, not supported by the highest goals of the spirit, enters the service of sensual interests or feels the need for faith. “A living, integral view of the world”, “a thought supported by the highest goals of the spirit”, “a transformed mind” - this is Kireevsky’s new theme and new view of the problems being studied, which makes it possible to accurately clarify the concept of “education”. He rises above immediate problems and asserts, that "everything beautiful, noble, Christian is necessarily our own, even if it is European, even if it is African. The voice of truth does not weaken, but is strengthened by its consonance with everything that is true, anywhere. Kireevsky does not pronounce and does not will pronounce the word “conciliarity,” but he will take this concept itself, expressed as “consonance with truth,” as the basis for further discussions about the features of spiritual life.23

Many disagreements in matters of education stemmed from the lack of clarity of the concept itself. I.V. Kireyevsky expressed ideas that were obvious at first glance: “Two educations,” he wrote, “two revelations of mental powers in man and peoples, represent to us impartial speculation, the history of all centuries, and even daily experience. Education alone is the internal structure of the spirit by the power of the truth communicated in it; the other is the formal development of the mind and external knowledge. The first depends on the principle to which a person submits and can be communicated directly; the second is the fruit of slow and difficult work. The first gives meaning and significance to the second, but the second gives it content and completeness. For the first there is no changing development, there is only direct recognition, preservation and spread in the subordinate spheres of the human spirit; the second... cannot be created instantly... but must be composed little by little from the combined efforts of all private understandings. However, it is obvious that the first is the only one that has significant significance for life, investing in it one or another meaning” 159. Submitting to higher education, the second education, without containing any compulsory force, manifests itself in the external expression of thought and arrangement of life. Far from extraneous influences, this education is something between good and evil, between the force that elevates a person and the force that distorts him.

The lack of character inherent in the second education, according to Kireevsky, allows it to remain among a people or a person even when they lose or change the internal basis of their being, their initial faith, their fundamental beliefs. The remaining education, experiencing the dominance of the higher principle that controls it, enters the service of another and thus passes through all the turning points of history unharmed, constantly growing in its content. During turning points in history, in eras of decline of a person or a people, the basis of life becomes double in the mind, falls apart and loses its strength, which lies in the integrity of being. Then rationally external formal education dominates and is the only support of unestablished thought. 25

If these two educations are mixed, then an opinion arises about some kind of constant, natural and necessary improvement of man. All misconceptions, Kireevsky believed, stem from the assumption that the living understanding of the spirit, the inner structure of a person, which is the source of his guiding thoughts, strong deeds, reckless aspirations, sincere poetry, strong life and higher vision of the mind, can arise from the mere development of the logical mind. But it is already becoming clear that the logical mind, cut off from other sources of knowledge and, as a result, not experiencing the fullness of its power, itself realizes the incompleteness of its knowledge.

From these considerations, Kireyevsky draws a natural conclusion: if “the fundamental principle of our Orthodox-Slavic education is true (which, however, I consider it unnecessary and inappropriate to prove here) - if it is true, I say, that this supreme, living principle of our enlightenment is true, then It is obvious that just as it was once the source of our ancient education, so now it should serve as a necessary complement to European education, separating it from its special directions, clearing it of the character of exclusive rationality and imbuing it with new meaning” 26 . Therefore, according to Kireevsky, love for European education, as well as love for our education, coincide at the last point of their development into one love, into one desire for a living, complete, all-human and truly Christian enlightenment.

Archimandrite Georgy (Shestun), Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, professor, academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, head of the interuniversity department of Orthodox pedagogy and psychology of the Samara Orthodox Theological Seminary, rector of the Trans-Volga Monastery in honor of the Precious and Life-Giving Cross of the Lord, rector of the Trinity-Sergius Metochion in Samara

Literature

1. Kireevsky I.V. Complete works in 2 volumes. T. 1. - M., 1911. - P. 86.

2. Ibid. - pp. 88-89.

3. Ibid. - P. 94.

4. Ibid. - pp. 96-97.

5. Ibid. - P. 98.

6. Ibid. - P. 100.

7. Ibid. - P. 105.

8. Ibid. - P. 63.

9. Ibid. - P. 109.

10. Ibid. - pp. 109-110.

11. Ibid. - P. 112.

12. Ibid. - pp. 112-113.

13. Ibid. - pp. 113-114.

14. Ibid. - P. 115.

15. Ibid. - P. 116.

16. Ibid. - P. 116.

17. Ibid. - P. 117.

18. Ibid. - P. 118.

19. Ibid. - P. 119.

20. Ibid. - pp. 119-120.

21. Ibid. - P. 120.

22. Ibid. - P. 126.

23. Ibid. - P. 157.

24. Ibid. - P. 159.

25. Ibid. - P. 160.

26. Ibid. - pp. 161-162.

Review of the current state of literature (excerpts)

(Published according to the publication: Kireevsky I.V. Criticism and Aesthetics. pp. 176-177, 181 - 183, 185-187, 189-192.

I. V. Kireevsky analyzes various opinions on the attitude towards Western and Eastern enlightenment and comes to the conclusion that both opinions are “equally false”, one-sided, both unconscious worship of the West and unconscious worship of Russian antiquity. In its development, Russian education can and should preserve its national character, without fencing itself off from European education. Thus, Kireevsky overcomes the one-sidedness and narrowness of views of some Slavophiles (S. Shevyrev, M. Pogodin, etc.) and the official doctrine of nationality.)

Just as the language of a people represents the imprint of its natural logic and, if it does not fully express its way of thinking, then at least represents the foundation from which its mental life incessantly and naturally emanates, so do the torn, undeveloped concepts of a people who do not yet think , form the root from which the highest education of the nation grows. That is why all branches of education, being in living contact, form one inextricably articulated whole...

There is no doubt that there is a clear disagreement between our literary education and the fundamental elements of our mental life, which developed in our ancient history and are now preserved in our so-called uneducated people. This disagreement arises not from differences in degrees of education, but from their complete heterogeneity. Those principles of mental, social, moral and spiritual life that created the former Russia and now constitute the only sphere of its national life, did not develop into our literary enlightenment, but remained untouched, divorced from the successes of our mental activity, while passing by them, without regard to them, our literary enlightenment flows from foreign sources, completely different not only from the forms, but often even from the very beginnings of our beliefs...

Some people think that the complete assimilation of foreign education can, over time, recreate the entire Russian person, just as it recreated some writing and non-writing writers, and then the entire totality of our education will come into agreement with the character of our literature. According to their concept, the development of certain fundamental principles should change our fundamental way of thinking, change our morals, our customs, our beliefs, erase our peculiarities and thus make us European enlightened.

Is it worth refuting this opinion?

One contradicts the other, mutually destroying...

Another opinion, the opposite of this unconscious worship of the West and equally one-sided, although much less widespread, consists of an unconscious worship of the past forms of our antiquity and the idea that over time, the newly acquired European enlightenment will again have to be erased from our mental life by the development of our special education.

Moreover, no matter what the European enlightenment may be, if we once became participants in it, then it is beyond our power to destroy its influence, even if we wished to do so. You can subordinate it to another, higher one, direct it to one or another goal; but it will always remain an essential, already inalienable element of any future development of ours...

For two educations, two revelations of mental powers in man and peoples represent to us impartial speculation, the history of all centuries, and even daily experience. Education alone is the internal structure of the spirit by the power of the truth communicated in it; the other is the formal development of the mind and external knowledge. The first depends on the principle to which a person submits and can be communicated directly; the second is the fruit of slow and difficult work. The first gives meaning and meaning to the second, but the second gives it content and completeness...

However, it is obvious that the first only has significant significance for life, investing in it one or another meaning, for from its source flow the fundamental convictions of man and peoples; it determines the order of their internal and the direction of their external existence, the nature of their private, family and social relationships, is the initial spring of their thinking, the dominant sound of their mental movements, the color of language, the cause of conscious preferences and unconscious biases, the basis of morals and customs, the meaning of their history.

The very spinelessness of this external, logical-technical education allows it to remain in a people or a person even when they lose or change the internal basis of their being, their initial faith, their fundamental beliefs, their essential character, their life direction. The remaining education, experiencing the dominance of the higher principle that controls it, enters the service of another and thus passes unharmed all the various turning points of history, constantly growing in its content until the last minute of human existence.

Meanwhile, in the very times of turning points, in these epochs of decline of a person or a people, when the fundamental principle of life bifurcates in his mind, falls apart and thus loses all its strength, which lies primarily in the integrity of being, then this second education, Reasonably-external, formal, is the only support of unapproved thought and dominates through rational calculation and balance of interests over the minds of internal convictions.

Usually these two educations are confused. That is why in the half of the 18th century. may have arisen the view first developed by Lessing ( Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim (1729-1781) - German playwright, art theorist and literary critic of the Enlightenment, founder of German classical literature. He defended the aesthetic principles of educational realism.) and Condorcet ( Condorcet, Jean Antoine Nicolas (1743-1794) - French philosopher-educator, mathematician, sociologist, and politician. In philosophy he is a supporter of deism and sensationalism.) and then became universal - an opinion about some kind of constant, natural and necessary improvement of man. It arose in contrast to another opinion, which asserted the immobility of the human race, with some periodic fluctuations up and down. Perhaps there was no thought more confusing than these two. For if in fact the human race has improved, then why does man not become more perfect? If nothing in man developed or grew, then how could we explain the indisputable improvement of some sciences?

One thought denies in man the universality of reason, the progress of logical conclusions, the power of memory, the possibility of verbal interaction, etc.; the other kills his freedom of moral dignity.

But the opinion about the immobility of the human race had to give way in general recognition to the opinion about the necessary development of man, for the latter was the consequence of another error belonging exclusively to the rational direction of recent centuries. This misconception lies in the assumption that it is the living understanding of the spirit, the inner structure of man, which is the source of his guiding thoughts, strong deeds, reckless aspirations, sincere poetry, strong life and higher vision of the mind, as if it can be composed artificially, so to speak, mechanically , from one development of logical formulas. This opinion was dominant for a long time, until finally in our time it began to be destroyed by the successes of higher thinking. For the logical mind, cut off from other sources of knowledge and not yet fully experiencing the extent of its power, although it first promises a person to create an internal way of thinking for him, to impart an informal, living view of the world and himself, but, having developed to the final boundaries of its scope, he himself is aware of the incompleteness of his negative knowledge and, as a result of his own conclusion, demands for himself a different, higher principle, unattainable by his abstract mechanism.

This is now the state of European thinking, a state that determines the attitude of European enlightenment to the fundamental principles of our education. For if the former, exclusively rational character of the West could have a destructive effect on our life and mind, now, on the contrary, the new demands of the European mind and our fundamental beliefs have the same meaning. And if it is true that the main principle of our Orthodox Slovenian education is true (which, however, I consider unnecessary and inappropriate to prove here), if it is true, I say, that this supreme, living principle of our enlightenment is true, then it is obvious that as it was once the source of our ancient education, so now it should serve as a necessary complement to European education, separating it from its special directions, clearing it of the character of exclusive rationality and penetrating it with new meaning; Meanwhile, the educated European, as the mature fruit of all-human development, separation from the old tree, should serve as food for new life, be a new stimulating means for the development of our mental activity.

Therefore, the love for European education, as well as the love for ours, both coincide at the last point of their development into one love, into one desire for a living, complete, all-human and truly Christian enlightenment...

Complete collection of works in two volumes. Kireevsky Ivan Vasilievich

Review of the current state of literature. (1845).

Review of the current state of literature.

There was a time when, saying: literature, they usually understood fine literature; In our time, fine literature constitutes only a small part of literature. Therefore, we must warn readers that, wanting to present the current state of literature in Europe, we are forced? We will have to pay more attention to works of philosophy, history, philology, political-economics, theology, etc., rather than works of art.

Perhaps, since the very era of the so-called revival of sciences in Europe, fine literature has never played such a pitiful role as it does now, especially in the last years of our time - although, perhaps, so much has never been written in all of history. birth and never read so greedily everything that is written. Even the 18th century was predominantly literary; Even in the first quarter of the 19th century, purely literary interests were one of the springs of the intellectual movement of peoples; great poets aroused great sympathy; differences in literary opinions produced passionate parties; the appearance of a new book resonated in the minds as a public matter. But now the relationship of fine literature to society has changed; Of the great, all-fascinating poets, not a single one remains; with sets? poems and, let’s say, with multitudes? remarkable talents - no poetry: even its needs are invisible; literary opinions are repeated without participation; the former, magical sympathy between the author and readers is interrupted; From the first brilliant role, elegant literature has descended into the role of confidante of other heroines of our time; we read a lot, we read more than before, we read everything we can get our hands on; but all in passing, without participation, like an official reading incoming and outgoing papers, when he reads them. When reading, we do not enjoy, and even less can we forget; but we only take it into consideration, we seek to derive application and benefit; - and that lively, disinterested interest in purely literary phenomena, that abstract love for beautiful forms, that pleasure in the harmony of speech, that delightful self-forgetfulness in the harmony of verse, which we experienced in our youth - the coming generation will know about it isn't it? only according to legend.

They say that one should rejoice at this; that literature has been replaced by other interests because we have become longer; that if before we were chasing a poem, a phrase, a dream, now we are looking for significance, science, life. I don't know if this is fair; but I confess, mn? It’s a pity for the old, unusable, useless literature. There was a lot of warmth in her for the soul; and what saddens the soul may not be completely unnecessary for life.

In our time, fine literature has been replaced by magazine literature. And one should not think that the nature of journalism belongs only to periodicals: does it apply to everything? forms of literature, with very few exceptions.

In fact, everywhere we look, everywhere? thought is subordinated to current circumstances, feeling is attached to the interests of the party, form is adjusted to the demands of the moment. The novel turned into statistics of morals; - poetry in verses for the occasion; - history, being an echo of the past, tries to be in place? and a mirror of the present, or proof of some social belief, a quotation in favor of some modern view; - philosophy, with the most abstract contemplations of eternal truths, is constantly occupied with their relation to the current moment?; - even theological works on the West?, for the most part, are generated by some extraneous circumstance of external life. More books have been written on the occasion of one bishop of Cologne, for what reasons? the prevailing neuriy, about which the Western clergy complains so much.

However, this general desire of minds for the events of reality, for the interests of the day, has its source in more than one place. personal benefits or selfish goals, as some people think. Although private benefits are connected with public affairs, the general interest in the latter does not arise from this calculation alone. For the most part, it's just sympathy interest. The mind is awakened and directed in this direction. The thought of a person has merged with the thought of humanity. This is a desire for love, not profit. He wants to know what is going on in the world, in fate? people like him, often without the slightest regard for themselves. He wants to know in order only to participate with thought in general life, to sympathize with it from within his limited circle.

Despite this, however, it seems, not without reason, that many complain about this excessive respect for the minute, this all-consuming interest in the events of the day, in the external, business aspects of the day. life. Such a direction, they think, does not embrace life, but concerns only its outer side, its insignificant surface. The shell, of course, is necessary, but only for preserving the grain, without which it is useless; Perhaps this state of mind is understandable as a transitional state; but nonsense, like a state of higher development. The porch to the house is good as a porch; but if we settle down to live on it, as if it were the whole house, then it may make us both cramped and cold.

However, let us note that the strictly political, governmental questions that have worried the minds of the West for so long are now beginning to fade into the background of mental movements, and although upon superficial observation it may seem as if they are still in their former strength, because still occupy the majority of heads, but this majority is already backward; it no longer constitutes an expression in the world; progressive thinkers decisively moved into another sphere, into the field of social issues, where? The first place is no longer taken by the external form, but by the inner life of society itself, in its real, essential relations.

I think it is unnecessary to stipulate that in the direction of social issues, I don’t think so. ugly systems that are known to the world? more in terms of the noise they made than in the meaning of their half-thought-out teachings: these phenomena are interesting only as a sign, but in themselves? insignificant; No, I see interest in social issues, replacing the former, exclusively political concern, not in this or that phenomenon, but in the whole trend of European literature.

Mental movements to the West? are now carried out with less noise and brilliance, but obviously they have more depth and generality. Instead of the limited sphere of events of the day and external interests, thought rushes to the very source of everything external, to a person as he is, and to his life as it should be. A long discovery in science? already occupies the minds more than the lush river in the Chambers. The external form of legal proceedings seems less important than the internal development of justice; the living spirit of the people is more important than its external structures. Western writers are beginning to understand that beneath the loud rotation of social wheels lies the inaudible movement of a moral spring on which everything depends, and therefore in mental concerns? in their own way they are trying to move from phenomena to causes?, from formal external issues they want to rise to that volume of the idea of society where? and the momentary events of the day, and the eternal conditions of life, and politics, and philosophy, and science, and craft, and industry, and religion itself, and instead? with them the literature of the people merge into one boundless task: the improvement of man and his life relationships.

But it must be admitted that if private literary phenomena give them greater significance and, so to speak, more juice, why literature in general? in its own way represents a strange chaos of contradictory opinions, unconnected systems, airy scattering theories, momentary, invented innovations, and at the basis of everything: the complete absence of any belief that could be called not only general, but even dominant. Each new effort of thought is expressed by a new system; Each new system, as soon as it is born, destroys everything? the previous one, and destroying them, itself dies at the moment of birth, so that, working incessantly, the human mind cannot rest on any achieved result?; constantly striving to build some great, transcendental building, nowhere? there is no support to confirm even one first stone for the shaky foundation.

That’s why in all the most remarkable works of literature, in all the important and unimportant phenomena of thought in the West, starting with the modern philosophy of Schelling and ending with the long-forgotten system of Saint-Simonists, we usually find two? different sides: one almost always arouses sympathy in the public?, and often includes? a lot of true, long-lasting and forward-moving thought: this is the side negative, polemical, refutation of systems and opinions that preceded the stated belief; the other side, if sometimes arouses sympathy, is almost always limited and quickly passing: this is the side positive, that is, precisely what constitutes the peculiarity of a new thought, its essence, its right to life beyond the first curiosity.

The reason for this duality in Western thought is obvious. Having completed its previous ten-century development, the new Europe has come into conflict with the old Europe and feels that to begin a new life it needs a new foundation. The basis of people's life is belief. Not finding a ready-made one that meets its requirements, Western thought is trying to create itself? conviction by effort, imagine it, if possible, by the tension of thinking - but in this desperate work?, in any case? curious and instructive, until now each experience was only the opposite of the other.

Multiplicity of thoughts, diversity of boiling systems and many others, with a lack of? one common belief not only fragments the self-consciousness of society, but must also have an effect on a private person, dividing every living movement of his soul. That’s why, by the way, in our time there are so many talents and not a single true poet. For a poet is created by the power of inner thought. From the depths of his soul he must bring out the edge? beautiful forms, even the very soul of beauty: your living, whole view of the world and man. No artificial construction of concepts, no reasonable theories will help here. His sonorous and trembling thought must come from the very secret of his inner, so to speak, supraconscious conviction, and where? this sanctuary of being is fragmented by disorganization, or empty by their absence; there can be no talk of poetry, nor of any powerful influence of man on man.

Is this the state of mind in Europe? pretty new. It belongs to the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The eighteenth century, although it was predominantly irreligious, but it no less had its ardent convictions, its dominant theories, on which thought calmed down, with which the feeling of the highest needs of the human spirit was deceived. When the rush of rapture was followed by disappointment in his favorite theories, then the new man could not stand life without heartfelt goals: his dominant feeling was despair. Byron testifies to this transitional state, but the feeling of despair, in its essence, is only momentary. Coming out of it, Western self-consciousness split into two opposing aspirations. On the one hand, thought, not supported by the highest goals of the spirit, fell into the service of sensual interests and selfish views; hence the industrial trend of minds, which penetrated not only into external social life, but also into the abstract field of science, into the content and form of literature, and even into the very depths of home life, into the sanctity of family ties, into the magical secret of the first youthful dreams. On the other hand, the absence of basic principles awakened in many people the awareness of their necessity. The very lack of satisfaction created the need for money; but the minds that searched for the world were not always able to reconcile its Western forms with the current state of European science. Those who resolutely rejected the last days and declared irreconcilable enmity between the army and reason; others, trying to find their agreement, either rape science in order to incorporate it into Western forms of religion, or want to transform the very forms of religion according to their science?, or, finally, not finding it in the West? forms that correspond to their mental needs, invent themselves? a new religion without a church, without tradition, without revelation and without faith.

The boundaries of this article do not allow us to present a clear picture? what is remarkable and special in modern phenomena of literature in Germany, England, France and Italy, where? a new religious-philosophical thought is also now igniting, worthy of attention. In subsequent issues of the Muscovite, we will try to present this image with all possible impartiality. - Now, in short essays, we will try to indicate in foreign literature only what he? represent the most strikingly remarkable thing at the present moment.

Въ Germany the dominant direction of minds still remains predominantly philosophical; adjacent to it, on the one hand, is the historical-theological direction, which is a consequence of one’s own, deeper development of philosophical thought, and on the other, the political direction, which, it seems, for the most part should be attributed to someone else’s influence, judging by the bias remarkable writers of this kind to France and its literature. Some of these German patriots go so far as to place Voltaire, as a philosopher, above German thinkers.

Schelling's new system, so long expected, so solemnly accepted, did not seem to agree with the expectations of the N?mtsev. His Berlin auditorium, where? in the first year of its appearance it was difficult to find a place, but now, as they say, it has become spacious. His method of reconciling faith with philosophy has not yet convinced either believers or philosophizers. The first reproach him for the excessive rights of reason and for the special meaning that he puts into his concepts about the most basic dogmas of Christianity. His closest friends see in him only a thinker on the way to v?r?. “I hope,” says Neander, (dedicating a new edition of his church history to him) “I hope that the merciful God will soon destroy you completely.” ours.” Philosophers, on the contrary, are offended by the fact that he accepts, as the property of reason, dogmas of the faith, not developed from reason according to the laws of logical necessity. “If his system were the holy truth itself,” they say, “then in this case? it could not be the acquisition of philosophy until it was its own product.”

This, at least in the world, outward failure of a world-significant cause, with which was connected so many great expectations based on the deepest needs of the human spirit, confused many thinkers; but vm?st? was the cause of celebration for others. Et? and others have forgotten, it seems that the innovative thought of the great geniuses must to be at odds with one’s closest contemporaries. Passionate Hegelians, quite? content with the system of their teacher and not seeing the possibility of leading human thought beyond the boundaries shown by him, they consider every attempt of the mind to develop philosophy beyond its present state as a sacrilegious attack on the truth itself. But, by the way, is their triumph despite imaginary failures? the great Schelling, as can be judged from philosophical brochures, was not entirely thorough. If it is true that Schelling’s new system, in the particular way in which it was presented by him, has found little sympathy in present-day Germany, then no less his refutations of previous philosophies, and mainly Hegel’s, have been profound and with everyone during the day, more increasing effect. Of course, it is also true that the opinions of the Hegelians are constantly spreading more widely in Germany, developing in applications to the arts and literature? and all sciences (including natural sciences); It’s true that they even became almost popular; but many of the first-class thinkers have already begun to realize the insufficiency of this form of wisdom and clearly feel the needs of a new teaching based on higher principles, although they still do not clearly see from which side they can expect a response to this unstoppable aspiring spirit need. So, according to the laws of the eternal movement of human thought, when a new system begins to descend into the lower strata of the educated world, at that very time advanced thinkers are already aware of its unsatisfactoriness and look ahead, into that deep distance, into the blue immensity, where? A new horizon opens up for their vigilant premonition.

However, it should be noted that the word Hegelianism is not associated with any specific way of thinking, or with any permanent direction. Do the Hegelians agree among themselves only on method? thinking and even more in a way? expressions; but the results of their methods and the meaning of what is expressed are often completely opposite. Even during Hegel’s lifetime, between him and Hans, the most brilliant of his students, there was a complete contradiction in the accepted conclusions of philosophy. The same disagreement is repeated among other Hegelians. So, for example, the way of thinking of Hegel and some of his followers reached extreme aristocracy; Meanwhile, like other Hegelians, they preach the most desperate democracy; There were even some who derived from the same principles the doctrine of the most fanatical absolutism. In religious terms, do others adhere to Protestantism in the strictest, ancient sense? this word, without deviating not only from the concept, but even from the letter of the teaching; others, on the contrary, reach the most absurd atheism. In relation to art, Hegel himself began by opposing the new direction, justifying the romantic and demanding the purity of artistic genera; Many Hegelians still remain with this theory, while others preach a new art in the most extreme contrast to the romantic and with the most desperate uncertainty of forms and confusion of characters. So, oscillating between opposite directions, now aristocratic, now popular, now religious, now godless, now romantic, now new-life, now purely Prussian, now suddenly Turkish, now finally French - Hegel’s system in Germany named after him? La different characters, and not only at these opposite extremes, but also at each stage of their mutual distance, formed and left a special school of followers who are more or less inclined either to the right or to the left side. Therefore, nothing can be more unfair than to attribute to one Hegelian something less than another, as sometimes happens in Germany, but more often in other literatures, where? Hegel's system is not yet well known. Because of this misunderstanding, most of Hegel’s followers suffer completely undeserved accusations. For it is natural that the harshest, the ugliest thoughts of some of them most quickly spread among the surprised public, as an example of excessive courage or amusing strangeness, and, not knowing all the flexibility of Hegel’s method, many unwittingly attribute everything “To the Hegelians that which belongs, perhaps, to one.

However, speaking about Hegel’s followers, it is necessary to distinguish those of them who are engaged in applying his methods to other sciences, from those who continue to develop his teaching in the field of philosophy. Of the first, there are some writers who are remarkable for the power of logical thinking; of the latter, not a single one of particular genius is still known, not a single one who would rise even to the living concept of philosophy, would penetrate its external forms and would say at least one fresh thought that was not literally drawn from teacher's writings. Is it true, Erdman At first he described the development as original, but then, however, 14 years in a row he does not get tired of constantly turning over one? etc? well-known formulas. The same external formality fills the works Rosencrantz, Mishleta, Marheineke, Goto Rötcher And Gabler, although the last? Moreover, he somewhat alters the direction of his teacher and even his very phraseology - or because of what he actually did? so understands him, or maybe so wants understand, sacrificing the accuracy of his expressions for the external good of the entire school. Werder for some time he enjoyed the reputation of a particularly gifted thinker, while he did not publish anything and was known only for his teaching to Berlin students; but having published a logic filled with commonplaces and old formulas, dressed in a worn but elaborate dress, with plump phrases, he proved that the talent of teaching is not a guarantee for the dignity of thinking. The true, only valid and pure representative of Hegelianism remains to this day Hegel and he alone - although perhaps no one more than himself contradicted in his comments the basic principle of his philosophy.

Among Hegel's opponents it would be easy to count out many remarkable thinkers; but deeper and more devastating than others, it seems to us, the last? Schelling, Adolf Trendelenburg, a man who has deeply studied the ancient philosophers and attacks Hegel's method at its very source? its vitality, in relation to pure thinking to its basic principle. But here, as in all modern thinking, the destructive power of Trendelenburg is clearly unequal to the creative.

The attacks of the Herbartians have, perhaps, less logical invincibility, but for that they have a more significant meaning, because in the place of the destroyed system they do not put the emptiness of thoughtlessness, from which the human mind is even more powerful to them. disgust, physical nature; but they offer another, already ready-made, very worthy of attention, although still little appreciated Herbart’s system.

However, what is less satisfactory is the philosophical state of Germany, the more strongly the religious need is revealed in it. In this respect, Germany is now a very curious phenomenon. The need for faith, so deeply felt by the highest minds, among the general hesitation of mine, and, perhaps, as a result of this hesitation, was revealed there by a new religious mood of many poets, the formation of new religious and artistic schools and, most of all, a new direction theology. These phenomena are so important that they seem to be only the first beginning of a future, stronger development. I know that they usually say the opposite; I know that they see in the religious direction of some writers only an exception to the general, dominant state of mind. And really? it is an exception, judging by the material, numerical majority of the so-called educated class; for it must be admitted that this class, more than ever, now belongs to the very left extreme of rationalism. But we must not forget that the development of popular thought does not come from the numerical majority. The majority expresses only the present moment and testifies more about past, active forces than about the upcoming movement. To understand the direction, you need to look in the wrong direction, where? more people, but where? more inner vitality and where? complete correspondence of thoughts with the crying needs of the world. If we take into account how noticeably the vital development of German rationalism has stopped; How mechanically does he move through unimportant formulas, going through this and that? same worn-out positions; how every original flutter of thought apparently breaks out of these monotonous shackles and strives for another, warmer sphere of activity; - then we will be convinced that Germany has outlived its real philosophy, and that soon it will face a new, profound revolution in its beliefs.

To understand the latest direction of her Lutheran theology, it is necessary to recall the circumstances that served as the reason for its development.

In the end? the past and the beginning? of the present century, the majority of German theologians were, as is known, imbued with that popular rationalism, which arose from the confusion of French opinions with German school formulas. This trend spread very quickly. Zemler, did you start? his field, was proclaimed a free-thinking new teacher; but at the end? his activities and without changing his direction, he himself suddenly found himself with a reputation as a stubborn old man and an extinguisher of reason. So quickly and so completely did the state of theological teaching around him change.

In contrast to this weakening of the faith, in a barely noticeable corner? A small circle of people has closed in German life tensely in?, the so-called Pietists, who were somewhat close to the Herrnhuters and Methodists.

But 1812 awakened the need for higher convictions throughout Europe; Then, especially in Germany, religious feeling awoke again with renewed vigor? The fate of Napoleon, the revolution that took place throughout the entire educated world, the danger and salvation of the fatherland, the re-inception of all the foundations of life, brilliant, young hopes for the future - all this seething of great questions and enormous events could not but touch the deepest side of people? Czech self-awareness and awakened the highest powers of his spirit. Under such influence a new generation of Lutheran theologians was formed, which naturally came into direct conflict with the previous one. From their mutual opposition in literature, in life and in government activity, two things arose. schools: one, at that time new, fearing the autocracy of reason, adhered to strictly symbolic books of its confession; did the other one allow herself? their reasonable interpretation. The first, opposing the rights of philosophizing that were unnecessary, in her opinion, aligned her extreme members with the poetists; the latter, while defending reason, sometimes bordered on pure rationalism. From the struggle of these two extremes an infinite number of middle directions developed.

Meanwhile, the disagreement of these two parties on the most important issues, the internal disagreement of different shades of the same party, the disagreement of different representatives of the same shade, and finally, the attacks of pure rationalists, no longer belonging to the number of? ruining, for everything? these batches and shades vm?st? taken - all this aroused in the general consciousness the need for a more thorough study of the Holy Scriptures than it had been done until that time, and most of all: the need for a firm definition of the boundaries between reason and war. The new development of historical and especially philological and philosophical education in Germany agreed with this requirement and, in part, strengthened it. Instead of the fact that previously university students barely understood Greek, now gymnasium students began to enter universities with a ready-made stock of thorough knowledge in the languages: Latin, Greek and Hebrew. The philological and historical departments were occupied by people of remarkable talents. Theological philosophy counted many famous representatives, but it was especially revived and developed by its brilliant and thoughtful teaching Schleiermacher, and another, opposite to it, although not brilliant, but no less profound, although barely understandable, but, by some inexpressible, sympathetic cluster of thoughts, surprisingly fascinating teaching of the professor Dauba. These two systems were joined by a third, based on the philosophy of Hegel. The fourth party consisted of the remnants of the former Breitschneiderian popular rationalism. Behind them came the pure rationalists, with naked philosophizing without faith.

The more clearly the various directions were defined, the more multilaterally the individual issues were processed, the more difficult was their general agreement.

Meanwhile, the side of predominantly believers, strictly adhering to their symbolic books, had a great external advantage over others: only the followers of the Augsburg Confession, which enjoyed state recognition, as a result of the Peace of Westphalia, could have it the right to the protection of state power. As a result, many of them demanded the removal of counter-thinkers from the places they occupied.

On the other hand, this very benefit was, perhaps, the reason for their little success. Against the attack of thought, resorting to the protection of external force - for many it seemed a sign of internal failure. Moreover, their position had another weak side: the Augsburg Confession itself was based on rights? personal interpretation. Allow this right until the 16th century and not allow it after? - for many it seemed like a contradiction to others. However, for one reason or another, but rationalism, suspended for a while and not defeated by the efforts of the legitimate believers, began to spread again, now acting with redoubled force, strengthened by all the acquisitions of science until, finally, following the inexorable flow of syllogisms, divorced from the faith, he achieved the most extreme, most disgusting results.

So the results, which revealed the power of rationalism, served as a substitute? and his reproof. If they could bring any momentary harm to the crowd, imitatively repeating other people's opinions; For this reason, people who openly sought a solid foundation clearly separated from them and decisively chose the opposite direction. As a result of this, the previous views of many Protestant theologians changed significantly.

There is a party belonging to the most recent times, which looks at Protestantism no longer as contrary to Catholicism, but on the contrary, Papism and the Council of Trent are separated from Catholicism and sees in the Augsburg Confession the most legitimate, although not yet the most recent an expression of the continually developing Church. These Protestant theologians, even in the middle ages, no longer recognize a deviation from Christianity, as Lutheran theologians have said until now, but its gradual and necessary continuation, considering not only internal, but even external uninterrupted churchliness one of the necessary elements Christianity. - Do you have the same desire to justify everything? rebellion against the Roman Church, now they are more inclined to condemn them. They readily accuse the Waldensians and Wicliffites, with whom they previously found so much sympathy; Gregory VII and Innocent III are acquitted, and Goose is even condemned for resistance to the legitimate authority of the Church, - The goose, which Luther himself, as legend says, called the predecessor of his swan song.

In accordance with this trend, they want some changes in their worship and especially, following the example of the Episcopal Church, they want to give greater predominance to the actual liturgical part over the sermon. For this purpose, everything was translated? liturgy of the first centuries, and the most complete collection of all old and new church songs has been compiled. In d?l? Do they require pastorship not only for teaching in the temple, but also for preaching in houses, instead of? with constant monitoring of the lives of parishioners. To top it all off, they want to return to the custom of the previous church punishments, ranging from simple admonishment to solemn ejection, and even rebel against seditious marriages. Both of these in the Old Lutheran Church are no longer desires, but dogmas introduced into actual life.

However, it goes without saying that such a trend does not belong to everyone, but only to some Protestant theologians. We noticed it more because it is new than because it is strong. And it is not necessary to think that in general legitimate Lutheran theologians, who equally recognize their symbolic books and agree with each other in rejecting rationalism, therefore agree in dogmatism itself? On the contrary, their differences are even more significant than one might imagine at first glance. So, for example, Julius Müller, who is revered by them as one of the most legal-minded, that is, no less deviates from others in his teaching about gr?x?; despite the fact that this question almost belongs to the most central questions of theology. Hengstenberg, the most cruel opponent of rationalism, does not find sympathy among everyone for this extreme of his bitterness, and among those who sympathize with him, very many disagree with him in some particulars of his teaching, such as, for example, in the concept of Prophecies?, - although there is a special concept about prophecies? must certainly lead to a special concept about the very relationship of human nature to the Divine, that is, about the very foundations? dogmatists. Toluk, the most warm-minded in his evolution and the most warm-hearted in his thinking, is usually considered by his party to be an overly liberal thinker - meanwhile, somehow this or that attitude of thinking to the world, with consistent development, should change the entire character of the teaching. Neander blame his all-forgiving tolerance and kind-hearted sympathy with other teachings, a feature that not only determines his distinctive view of the history of the church, but instead? and on the internal movement of the human spirit in general, and therefore separates

the very essence of his teaching from others. Draw And Lykke They also disagree with their party in many ways. Everyone puts into their confession the distinctiveness of their personality. Despite this, however, Bekk, one of the most remarkable representatives of the new emerging trend, demands from Protestant theologians the compilation of a general, complete, scientific dogmatics, pure from personal opinions and independent of temporary systems. But, having considered everything that has been said, we may, it seems, have some right to doubt the feasibility of this requirement. -

About the new state French literature we will say only very little, and that, perhaps, is superfluous, because French literature is known to Russian readers, hardly more than domestic literature. Let us only note the contrast between the direction of the French mind and the direction of the German thought. Here every question of life turns into a question of science; there, every thought of science and literature turns into a question of life. Xiu's famous novel resonated not so much in literature, but in societies?; its results were: transformation into devices? prisons, the formation of human-loving societies, etc. His other novel, now published, obviously owes its success to non-literary qualities. Balzac, who was so successful before 1830 because he described the then dominant society, is now almost forgotten precisely for the same reasons? The dispute of the clergy with the university, which in the German would give rise to the abstract dispersal of philosophy and in? Relia, like the dispute of the Cologne, the bishop of the Cologne, in the French, excited only the greater attention to the real state of folk fos. to the modern direction of public education. The general religious movement of Europe was expressed in Germany by new dogmatic systems, historical and philological research and scientific philosophical interpretations; in France, on the contrary, it hardly produced one or two? wonderful books, but their strength was revealed in religious societies, in political parties and in the missionary action of the clergy on the people. The natural sciences, which have achieved such enormous development in France, are, however, not only based exclusively on empiricism, but also in their entirety? their development is shunned by speculative interest, caring primarily about application to business, about the benefits and benefits of existence, while in Germany every step in the study of nature is defined from the point of view of a philosophical view, included in the system and ots?nen not so much for its benefits? for life, as much as in relation to speculative principles.

Thus in Germany theology and philosophy constitute two important subjects of general attention in our time, and their agreement is now the dominant need of German thought. In France, on the contrary, philosophical development is not a need, but a luxury of thinking. The essential question of the present moment is the agreement religions And society. Religious writers, instead of dogmatic development, are looking for real application, while political thinkers, even not imbued with religious convictions, invent artificial beliefs, trying to achieve in them the unconditionality of faith and its overmind spontaneity.

The modern and almost equivalent excitement of these two interests: religious and social, two opposite ends, perhaps, of one torn thought, forces us to assume that the participation of modern France in the general development of human enlightenment, its place field of science in general must be determined by that special sphere from which both come and where? These two different directions merge into one. But what result will come from this aspiration of thought? Will a new science be born from this: science public life, - how in the end? of the past century, from the joint effect of the philosophical and social mood of England, a new one was born there science of national wealth? Or will the action of modern French thinking be limited only to changing some principles in other sciences? Is France destined to make or only begin this change? To guess this now would be idle daydreaming. A new direction is just beginning, and even then barely noticeably, to manifest itself in literature - still unconscious in its specificity, not yet collected even into one question. But in any case? This movement of science in France cannot but seem to us significant than all other aspirations of its thinking, and it is especially curious to see how it begins to express itself in opposition to the previous principles of political economy, a science with the subject of which it is related. everything is in contact. Questions about competition and monopoly, about the relationship between the excess of luxury products and the people's satisfaction, the cheapness of products to the poverty of workers, state wealth to the wealth of capitalists, the value of work to the value of goods, the development of luxury to the suffering of poverty, forced labor? attitude towards mental savagery, healthy morality of the people towards their industrial education - everything? These questions are presented by many in a completely new form, directly contrary to the previous views of political economy, and now arouse the concern of thinkers. We are not saying that new views should already enter science. For this they are still too immature, too one-sided, too imbued with the blinding spirit of the party, darkened by the complacency of the newborn. We see that to this day the newest courses in political economy are still compiled according to the same principles. But vm?st? With this we note that attention has been aroused to new questions, and although we do not think that they could find their final solution in France, we cannot help but admit that her literature is destined to be the first to introduce this new element into general laboratory of human education.

This trend in French thinking seems to stem from the natural development of the entire body of French education. The extreme poverty of the lower classes served only as an external, accidental reason for this, and was not the cause, as some people think. Evidence of this can be found in the internal incoherence of those views for which popular poverty was the only outcome, and even more so in the circumstances that the poverty of the lower classes is incomparably significant in England, which in France, although there the prevailing movement of thought took a completely different direction.

Въ England Although religious questions are aroused by the social situation, they no less turn into dogmatic disputes, such as, for example, into Puseism? and his opponents; Are public questions limited to local demands, or do they raise a cry (a cry, as the English say), display the banner of some kind of belief, the meaning of which lies beyond the power? thoughts, but in strength? interests that correspond to him and gather around him.

In appearance, the way of thinking of the French is often very similar to the way of thinking of the English. This similarity seems to stem from the similarity of the philosophical systems they adopted. But the internal character of the thinking of these two peoples is also different, just as they are both different from the character of the thinking of the German. N?mets hardworkingly and conscientiously develops his belief from the abstract conclusions of his mind; The Frenchman takes it without thinking, out of heartfelt sympathy for one or another opinion; Does the Englishman arimetically calculate his position in society? and, based on the results of his calculations, forms his own way of thinking. Names: Whig, Tory, Radical, and all? The countless shades of the English parties express not the personal characteristics of a person, as in France, and not the system of his philosophical beliefs, as in Germany, but the place that he occupies in the state. The Englishman is stubborn in his opinion, because it is in connection with his social position; The Frenchman often sacrifices his position for his heart's desire; and N?mets, although he does not sacrifice one to the other, nevertheless cares little about their agreement. French education moves through the development of prevailing opinion, or fashion; English - through the development of government; N?metskaya - through armchair thinking. That is why the Frenchman is strong in his enthusiasm, the Englishman in his character, and the German in his abstract and systematic fundamentality.

But the more, as in our time, the literature and personalities of the people come closer together, the more their features are erased. Among the writers of England, who enjoy the fame of literary success more than others, there are two writers, two representatives of modern literature, completely opposite in their directions, thoughts, parties, goals and views, despite this, however, both, in in various forms, they reveal one truth: that the hour has come when the islander isolation of England is already beginning to yield to the universality of continental enlightenment and merge with it into one sympathetic whole. Chrome? this similarity Carlyle And Disraeli They have nothing in common with each other. The first bears deep traces of German predilections. His syllable, filled, as English critics say, with something hitherto unheard of? Germanism meets with deep sympathy among many. His thoughts are clothed in German dreamy uncertainty; its direction expresses the interest of thought, instead of the English interest of the party. He does not persecute the old order of things, does not resist the movement of the new; he appreciates both, he loves both, respects the organic fullness of life in both, and, himself belonging to the party of progress, by the very development of its fundamental principle he destroys the exclusive desire for innovation.

This is how it is here, as in all modern phenomena of thought in Europe, newest opposite direction new, who destroyed old.

Disraeli not infected with any foreign addiction. He is a representative young England, - a circle of young people expressing a special, extreme section of the Tory party. However, despite the fact that young England acts in the name of the most extreme conservation principles, but, if you believe Disraeli’s novel, the very basis of their beliefs completely destroys the interests of their party. They want to retain the old, but not in the form in which it exists in its present forms, but in its former spirit, which requires a form that is in many ways opposite to the present. For the benefit of the aristocracy, they want a living rapprochement and sympathy all?x classes; for the benefit of the Anglican Church, they want it to have equal rights with the Church of Ireland and other dissidents; to maintain the agricultural surplus, they demand the abolition of the grain law that protects it. In a word, the view of this Tory party obviously destroys the entire peculiarity of English Toryism, and instead? with this and all the differences between England and other European countries.

But Disraeli is a Jew, and therefore has his own special views, which do not fully allow us? rely on the veracity of the beliefs of the younger generation depicted by him. Only the extraordinary success of his novel, which, however, is devoid of literary merits proper, and most of all the success of the author, if we are to believe the magazines in the highest English societies, gives some credibility to his presentation.

Having thus counted the remarkable literary movements of Europe, shall we repeat what we said at the beginning? articles that, by denoting the modern, we do not intend to present a complete picture of the current state of literature. We would only like to point out their latest trends, which are barely beginning to express themselves in new phenomena.

Meanwhile, if we collect everything we have noticed into one result and compare it with that character of the European Enlightenment, which, although it developed earlier, continues to be dominant to this day, then from this point of view? It will reveal to us some results that are very important for the understanding of our time.

From the book Capital by Marx Karl

Previous period 1845-1860 1845. The rise of the cotton industry. Very low prices for cotton. L. Horner writes about this time: “Over the past 8 years I have not observed a single period of such intense revival in business as last summer and autumn, in

From the book Volume 21 author Engels Friedrich

ENGLAND IN 1845 AND 1885 Forty years ago England faced a crisis which, in all likelihood, could only be solved by violence. The gigantic and rapid development of industry far outstripped the expansion of foreign markets and the growth of demand. Every ten years

E. A. Baratynsky. (1845). Baratynsky was born in 1800, i.e. in the same year as Pushkin; both were the same age in?ku. - From nature he received extraordinary abilities: a deeply sensitive heart, a soul filled with an unsleeping love for beauty, a bright mind,

From the book Modern Literary Theory. Anthology author Kabanova I.V.

Stephens' life. (1845). Stephens, one of the first-class engines of science in Germany, is especially famous as a literary philosopher. A friend of Schelling, at first his original follower, then the original creator of his own direction, he did not form,

From the author's book

Schelling's Ruch. (1845). Schelling is not giving lectures this winter. But at the Berlin Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of the celebration of the birthday of Frederick the Great (30 January), he read a speech: about the significance of the Roman Janus. This essay, as the magazines say, will soon be published, and

From the author's book

Agriculture. (1845). Opening to a magazine? Scientific and literary special department for agriculture, the editors are guided by the idea that in our time and especially in our fatherland? the science of agriculture is no longer limited exclusively to industrial purposes, but

From the author's book

Bibliographic articles. (1845). Will the New Year of 1845 be a new year for our literature? will he give her some great, brilliant creation that can lift her fallen spirit, revive her frozen powers, kill, destroy her petty activities and

From the author's book

SPEECH FEBRUARY 8, 1845 Gentlemen! As you have just heard - however, I will allow myself to consider this already generally known - we live in a world of free competition. Let us consider in some detail this free competition and the social order it created. In our

From the author's book

SPEECH FEBRUARY 15, 1845 Gentlemen! At our last meeting I was reproached for the fact that all my examples and references related almost exclusively to other countries, especially to England. They said that we don’t care about France and England, that we live in Germany and our task is

From the author's book

1845 20 MARX - TO ARNOLD RUGE IN PARIS [Paris, January] 1845 To Mr. Dr. Ruge. I have learned from reliable sources that there are orders in the police prefecture ordering you, me and some others to leave Paris within 24 hours, and France - in the shortest possible time.

From the author's book

Hans Robert Jauss Literary history as a challenge to literary theory The reader's literary experience can be described without slipping into psychology if we use the concept of reader expectations: for each work, reader expectations are formed at the moment of its appearance

Article II (Excerpt)

<…>There is no doubt that there is a clear disagreement between our literary education and the fundamental elements of our mental life, which developed in our ancient history and are now preserved in our so-called uneducated people. This disagreement arises not from differences in degrees of education, but from their complete heterogeneity. Those principles of mental, social, moral and spiritual life that created the former Russia and now constitute the only sphere of its national life, did not develop into our literary enlightenment, but remained untouched, divorced from the successes of our mental activity, while passing by them, without regard To them, our literary enlightenment flows from foreign sources, completely different not only from the forms, but often even from the very beginnings of our beliefs.

That is why every movement in our literature is determined not by the internal movement of our education, as in the West, but by the phenomena of foreign literature that are accidental to it.

Perhaps those who claim that we Russians are more capable of understanding Hegel and Goethe than the French and English, that we can sympathize with Byron and Dickens more fully than the French and even the Germans, think rightly; that we can appreciate Beranger and Georges Sand better than the Germans and the British. And in fact, why don’t we understand, why don’t we evaluate the most opposite phenomena? If we break away from popular beliefs, then no special concepts, no definite way of thinking, no cherished passions, no interests, no ordinary rules will hinder us. We can freely share all opinions, assimilate all systems, sympathize with all interests, accept all convictions. But, submitting to the influence of foreign literature, we cannot, in turn, influence them with our pale reflections of their own phenomena; we cannot even influence our own literary education, which is directly subject to the strongest influence of foreign literature; We cannot act on the education of the people, because between it and us there is no mental connection, no sympathy, no common language.

I readily agree that, looking at our literature from this point of view, I have expressed here only one side of it, and this one-sided view, appearing in such a harsh form, not softened by its other qualities, does not give a complete, real idea of the whole character of our literature. But, harsh or softened, this side nevertheless exists, and exists as a disagreement that requires resolution.

How can our literature emerge from its artificial state, acquire significance, which it still does not have, come into agreement with the entire totality of our education and appear at the same time as an expression of its life and the spring of its development?

Here two opinions are sometimes heard, both equally one-sided, equally unfounded; both are equally impossible.

Is it worth refuting this opinion?

Its falsity seems obvious without proof. It is just as impossible to destroy the peculiarity of a people’s mental life as it is impossible to destroy its history. It is as easy to replace the fundamental beliefs of a people with literary concepts as it is to change the bones of a developed organism with abstract thought. However, even if we could admit for a moment that this assumption could actually be fulfilled, then in that case its only result would be not enlightenment, but the destruction of the people themselves. For what is a people if not a body of convictions, more or less developed in its morals, in its customs, in its language, in its concepts of the heart and mind, in its religious, social and personal relations - in a word, in its entirety? life? Moreover, the idea of introducing the beginnings of European education instead of the beginnings of our education, and therefore destroys itself, because in the final development of European enlightenment there is no dominant beginning. One contradicts the other, mutually destroying. If there are still a few living truths left in Western life, more or less still surviving amid the general destruction of all special beliefs, then these truths are not European, because, in contradiction with all the results of European education, they are the preserved remnants of Christian principles, which, therefore, do not belong To the West, but more to us, who have accepted Christianity in its purest form, although, perhaps, the existence of these principles is not assumed in our education by unconditional admirers of the West, who do not know the meaning of our enlightenment and confuse in it the essential with the accidental, their own, the necessary with extraneous distortions foreign influences: Tatar, Polish, German, etc.

As for the European principles themselves, as they expressed themselves in the latest results, then, taken separately from the previous life of Europe and placed as the basis for the education of a new people, what will they produce, if not a pitiful caricature of enlightenment, like a poem arising from the rules of literature, was would it be a caricature of poetry? the experience has already been done. It seemed what a brilliant destiny lay ahead for the United States of America, built on such a reasonable foundation, after such a great beginning! So what happened? Only external forms of society developed and, deprived of the internal source of life, crushed man under external mechanics. The literature of the United States, according to the reports of the most impartial judges, furnishes a clear expression of this condition. A huge factory of mediocre verses, without the slightest shadow of poetry; official epithets that express nothing and, despite this, are constantly repeated; complete insensitivity to everything artistic; obvious contempt for any thinking that does not lead to material benefits; petty personalities with no common ground; plump phrases with the narrowest meaning, desecration of holy words love of humanity, fatherland, public good, nationality to the point that their use became not even hypocrisy, but a simple, generally understood stamp of selfish calculations; outward respect for the external side of laws in the most blatant violation of them; the spirit of complicity for personal gain with the unblushing infidelity of the persons united, with a clear disrespect for all moral principles - so that at the basis of all these mental movements, obviously, lies the most petty life, cut off from everything that raises the heart above personal self-interest, drowned in the activity of selfishness and recognizing material comfort with all its service forces as its highest goal. No! If, for some unrepentant sins, the Russian is already destined to exchange his great future for the one-sided life of the West, then I would rather daydream with the abstract German in his intricate theories; It’s better to be lazy to death under the warm sky in the artistic atmosphere of Italy; It’s better to spin with the Frenchman in his impetuous, momentary aspirations; It’s better to petrify an Englishman in his stubborn, unaccountable habits than to suffocate in this prose of factory relations, in this mechanism of selfish anxiety.

We have not moved away from our subject. The extreme of the result, although not conscious, but logically possible, reveals the falsity of the direction.

Both opinions are equally false; but the latter has a more logical connection. It is based on the awareness of the dignity of our previous education, on the disagreement between this education and the special character of European enlightenment and, finally, on the inconsistency of the latest results of European enlightenment. It is possible to disagree with each of these points; but, once they have been admitted, one cannot blame the opinion based on them for the logical contradiction, as, for example, one can blame the opposite opinion, which preaches Western enlightenment and cannot point out in this enlightenment any central positive principle, but is content with some particular truths or negative formulas.

Meanwhile, logical infallibility does not save opinions from essential one-sidedness; on the contrary, it makes it even more obvious. Whatever our education may be, its past forms, which appeared in some customs, preferences, relationships and even in our language, precisely because they could not be a pure and complete expression of the internal principle of national life, because they were its external forms, therefore, the result of two various figures: one - the expressed principle, and the other - a local and temporary circumstance. Therefore, any form of life, once passed, is no longer returnable, like the feature of time that participated in its creation. Restoring these forms is the same as resurrecting a dead person, reviving the earthly shell of the soul, which has already flown away from it once. A miracle is needed here; Logic is not enough; Unfortunately, even love is not enough!

Moreover, no matter what the European enlightenment may be, if we once became participants in it, then it is beyond our power to destroy its influence, even if we wished for it. You can subordinate it to another, higher one, direct it to one or another goal; but it will always remain an essential, already inalienable element of any future development of ours. It is easier to learn everything new in the world than to forget what you have learned. However, even if we could even forget at will, if we could return to that separate feature of our education from which we came, then what benefit would we receive from this new separation? It is obvious that sooner or later we would again come into contact with European principles, would again be subject to their influence, would again have to suffer from their disagreement with our education before we had time to subordinate them to our principles, and thus would constantly return to the same question that occupies us now.

But besides all the other incongruities of this trend, it also has that dark side that, while unconditionally rejecting everything European, it thereby cuts us off from any participation in the general cause of human mental existence, for we must not forget that European enlightenment inherited all the results of Greek education. the Roman world, which in turn absorbed all the fruits of the mental life of the entire human race. Thus separated from the general life of humanity, the beginning of our education, instead of being the beginning of living, true, complete enlightenment, will necessarily become a one-sided beginning and, therefore, will lose all its universal significance.

The direction towards nationality is truly with us as the highest level of education, and not as stuffy provincialism. Therefore, guided by this thought, one can look at European enlightenment as incomplete, one-sided, not imbued with true meaning and therefore false; but to deny it as if it does not exist means to constrain one’s own. If what is European is indeed false, if it really contradicts the beginning of true education, then this beginning, as true, should not leave this contradiction in the mind of a person, but, on the contrary, accept it into itself, evaluate it, put it within its boundaries and, thus subordinating it to its own superiority , tell him your true meaning. The supposed falsity of this enlightenment does not in the least contradict the possibility of its subordination to the truth. For everything that is false at its core is true, only put in someone else’s place: there is no essentially false, just as there is no essentiality in a lie.

Thus, both opposing views on the relationship of our indigenous education to European enlightenment, both of these extreme opinions are equally unfounded. But we must admit that in this extreme of development, in which we have presented them here, they do not exist in reality. True, we constantly meet people who, in their way of thinking, deviate more or less to one side or the other, but they do not develop their one-sidedness to the last results. On the contrary, the only reason they can remain in their one-sidedness is that they do not bring it to the first conclusions, where the question becomes clear, for it moves from the realm of unaccountable predilections into the sphere of rational consciousness, where the contradiction is destroyed by its own expression. That is why we think that all disputes about the superiority of the West or Russia, about the dignity of European or our history, and similar arguments belong to the most useless, most empty questions that the idleness of a thinking person can come up with.

And what, in fact, is it good for us to reject or denigrate what was or is good in the life of the West? Is it not, on the contrary, an expression of our own beginning, if our beginning is true? As a result of his domination over us, everything beautiful, noble, and Christian is necessarily ours, even if it is European, even if it is African. The voice of truth does not weaken, but is strengthened by its consonance with everything that is true anywhere.

On the other hand, if the admirers of European enlightenment, from unconscious predilections for one or another form, for one or another negative truth, wanted to rise to the very beginning of the mental life of man and peoples, which alone gives meaning and truth to all external forms and private truths, then, without a doubt, they would have to admit that the enlightenment of the West does not represent this highest, central, dominant principle, and, therefore, they would be convinced that to introduce particular forms of this enlightenment means to destroy without creating, and that if in these forms, in these private truths there is something essential, then this essential can only be assimilated to us when it grows from our root, is a consequence of our own development, and not when it falls to us from the outside in the form of a contradiction to the entire structure of our conscious and ordinary existence.

This consideration is usually overlooked even by those writers who, with a conscientious desire for truth, try to give themselves a reasonable account of the meaning and purpose of their mental activity. But what about those who act unaccountably? Those who are carried away by the Western only because it is not ours, because they do not know either the character, or the meaning, or the dignity of the principle that lies at the foundation of our historical life, and, not knowing it, do not care to find out, frivolously mixing into one condemnation and accidental shortcomings and the very essence of our education? What can we say about those who are effeminately seduced by the external splendor of European education, without delving into the basis of this education, or its internal meaning, or the nature of contradiction, inconsistency, self-destruction, which obviously lies not only in the general result of Western life, but even and in each of its individual phenomena - obviously, I say, in the case when we are not content with the external concept of the phenomenon, but delve into its full meaning from the basic beginning to the final conclusions.

However, while saying this, we feel that our words will now find little sympathy. Zealous admirers and disseminators of Western forms and concepts are usually content with such small demands from enlightenment that they can hardly come to the awareness of this internal disagreement in European education. They think, on the contrary, that if the entire mass of humanity in the West has not yet reached the final boundaries of its possible development, then at least its highest representatives have reached them; that all essential problems have already been solved, all secrets have been laid out, all misunderstandings are clear, doubts are over; that human thought has reached the extreme limits of its growth, that now it only remains for it to spread into general recognition and that there are no longer any significant, glaring questions left in the depths of the human spirit to which it could not find a complete, satisfactory answer in the comprehensive thinking of the West; for this reason, we can only learn, imitate and assimilate other people's wealth. It is obviously impossible to argue with this opinion. Let them be comforted by the completeness of their knowledge, proud of the truth of their direction, boast of the fruits of their external activity, and admire the harmony of their inner life. We will not break their happy charm; they earned their blissful contentment by the wise moderation of their mental and heartfelt demands. We agree that we are not able to convince them, because their opinion is strong with the sympathy of the majority, and we think that only over time it can be swayed by the force of its own development. But until then, let us not hope that these admirers of European perfection will comprehend the deep meaning that lies hidden in our education.

For two educations, two revelations of mental powers in man and people are presented to us by impartial speculation, the history of all centuries, and even daily experience. Education alone is the internal structure of the spirit by the power of the truth communicated in it; the other is the formal development of the mind and external knowledge. The first depends on the principle to which a person submits and can be communicated directly; the second is the fruit of slow and difficult work. The first gives thought the meaning of the second, but the second gives it content and completeness. For the first there is no changing development, there is only direct recognition, preservation and spread in the subordinate spheres of the human spirit; the second, being the fruit of centuries-old, gradual efforts, experiments, failures, successes, observations, inventions and all the successively rich mental property of the human race, cannot be created instantly, nor guessed by the most brilliant inspiration, but must be composed little by little from the combined efforts of all individual understandings. However, it is obvious that the first only has significant significance for life, investing in it one or another meaning, for from its source flow the fundamental convictions of man and peoples; it determines the order of their internal and the direction of their external existence, the nature of their private, family and social relationships, is the initial spring of their thinking, the dominant sound of their mental movements, the color of language, the cause of conscious preferences and unconscious biases, the basis of morals and customs, the meaning of their history.

Submitting to the direction of this higher education and supplementing it with its content, the second education arranges the development of the outer side of thought and external improvements in life, without itself containing any compulsory force towards one direction or another. For in its essence and apart from extraneous influences, it is something in between good and evil, between the power of elevation and the power of distortion of man, like any external information, like a collection of experiences, like an impartial observation of nature, like the development of artistic technique, like the knower himself. reason when it acts in isolation from other human abilities and develops spontaneously, not being carried away by low passions, not illuminated by higher thoughts, but silently transmitting one abstract knowledge that can be equally used for good and for harm, to serve the truth or to reinforce a lie. The very spinelessness of this external, logical-technical education allows it to remain in a people or a person even when they lose or change the internal basis of their being, their initial faith, their fundamental beliefs, their essential character, their life direction. The remaining education, experiencing the dominance of the higher principle that governed it, enters the service of another and thus passes unharmed all the various turning points of history, constantly growing in its content until the last minute of human existence.

Meanwhile, in the very times of turning points, in these eras of decline of a person or a people, when the fundamental principle of life splits in two in his mind, falls apart and thus loses all the strength that lies primarily in the integrity of being - then this second education, rationally external, formal, is the only support of unapproved thought and dominates through rational calculation and balance of interests over the minds of internal convictions.

<…>if the former, exclusively rational character of the West could have a destructive effect on our life and mind, now, on the contrary, the new demands of the European mind and our fundamental beliefs have the same meaning. And if it is true that the main principle of our Orthodox Slovenian education is true (which, however, I consider neither necessary nor appropriate to prove here), - if it is true, I say, that this supreme, living principle of our enlightenment is true, then it is obvious , that just as it was once the source of our ancient education, it should now serve as a necessary complement to European education, separating it from special trends, clearing it of the character of exclusive rationality and penetrating it with new meaning; while European education, as the mature fruit of all-human development, torn from the old tree, should serve as food for new life, be a new stimulating means for the development of our mental activity.

Therefore, the love for European education, as well as the love for ours, both coincide at the last point of their development into one love, the desire for a living, complete, all-human and truly Christian enlightenment.

On the contrary, in their underdeveloped state they are both false, for one does not know how to accept someone else’s without betraying his own; the other, in her close embrace, strangles what she wants to preserve. One limitation comes from belated thinking and ignorance of the depth of teaching that underlies our education; the other, aware of the shortcomings of the first, is too passionately in a hurry to become in direct contradiction to it. But despite all their one-sidedness, one cannot help but admit that both may be based on equally noble motives, the same strength of love for enlightenment and even for the fatherland, despite the outward opposition.

It was necessary for us to express this concept of ours about the correct relationship of our national education to European education and about two extreme views before we begin to consider the particular phenomena of our literature.

Having been a reflection of foreign literature, our literary phenomena, like Western ones, are predominantly concentrated in journalism.

But what is the nature of our periodicals?

It is difficult for a magazine to express its opinion about other magazines. Praise can seem partial; blame has the appearance of self-praise. But how can we talk about our literature without understanding what constitutes its essential character? How to determine the real meaning of literature, not to mention magazines? Let us try not to worry about the appearance that our judgments may have.

The oldest literary magazine is now Library for Reading. Its dominant character is the complete absence of any definite way of thinking. She praises today what she condemned yesterday; today he puts forward one opinion and now he preaches another; for the same subject has several opposing views; does not express any special rules, no theories, no system, no direction, no color, no conviction, no definite basis for his judgments and, despite the fact, however, constantly pronounces his judgment on everything that appears in literature or the sciences. She does this in such a way that for each special phenomenon she composes special laws, from which her condemnatory or approving verdict randomly comes and falls on the happy one. For this reason, the effect that every expression of her opinion produces is the same as if she had not uttered any opinion at all. The reader understands the judge’s thought separately, and the object to which the judgment relates also lies separately in his mind, for he feels that there is no other relationship between thought and object other than that they met by chance and for a short time and, having met again, don't recognize each other.

It goes without saying that this special kind of impartiality deprives the Reading Library of any opportunity to have an influence on literature as magazine, but doesn't stop her from acting like collection articles, often very interesting. In editor 1, in addition to her extraordinary, multifaceted and often amazing scholarship, she also has a special, rare and precious gift: to present the most difficult questions of science in the clearest and most understandable form and to enliven this presentation with her always original, often witty remarks. This quality alone could make any periodical publication famous, not only here, but even in foreign lands.

But the most lively part of the “Library for [reading]” lies in bibliographies. Her reviews are full of wit, fun and originality. You can't help but laugh while reading them. We have happened to see authors whose works were dismantled and who themselves could not resist good-natured laughter while reading the verdicts on their works. For in the judgments of the “Library” such a complete absence of any serious opinion is noticeable that its most outwardly evil attacks take on a fantastically innocent character, so to speak, good-naturedly angry. It is clear that she laughs not because the subject is actually funny, but only because she wants to laugh. She alters the words of the author according to her intention, connects those separated by meaning, separates those connected, inserts or releases entire speeches to change the meaning of others, sometimes composes phrases that are completely unprecedented in the book from which she is copying, and she herself laughs at her own composition. The reader sees this and laughs with her, because her jokes are always witty and cheerful, because they are innocent, because they are not embarrassed by any serious opinion and because, finally, the magazine, joking in front of him, does not declare claims to any other success, in addition to the honor of making the audience laugh and amuse.

Meanwhile, although we sometimes look through these reviews with great pleasure, although we know that this playfulness is probably the main reason for the success of the magazine, however, when we consider at what price this success is bought, how sometimes loyalty to the word is sold for the pleasure of amusement , the reader’s trust, respect for the truth, etc. - then the thought involuntarily comes to us: what if with such brilliant qualities, with such wit, with such learning, with such versatility of mind, with such originality of words, there were still others virtues, for example, sublime thought, a firm and unchanging conviction, or even impartiality, or even his outward appearance? What effect could the “Library for Reading” have then, not to say, on our literature, but on the entire totality of our education? How easily could she, through her rare qualities, take possession of the minds of readers, develop her conviction strongly, spread it widely, attract the sympathy of the majority, become a judge of opinions, perhaps penetrate from literature into life itself, connect its various phenomena into one thought and, ruling Thus, over the minds, to form a tightly closed and highly developed opinion, which can be a useful engine of our education? Of course, then she would be less funny.

A character completely opposite to the “Library for Reading” is represented by “Mayak” and “Domestic Notes”. While the “Library” as a whole is more a collection of heterogeneous articles than a magazine, and in its criticism its sole purpose is to amuse the reader, without expressing any specific way of thinking, on the contrary, “Notes of the Fatherland” and “Mayak” are each imbued with their own sharp a certain opinion and each express their own, equally decisive, although directly opposite direction to one another.

“Domestic Notes” strive to guess and appropriate for themselves that view of things, which, in their opinion, constitutes the newest expression of European enlightenment, and therefore, often changing their way of thinking, they constantly remain faithful to one concern: to express the most fashionable thought, the newest feeling from Western literature.

“Mayak,” on the contrary, notices only that side of Western enlightenment that seems to it harmful or immoral, and, in order to more accurately avoid sympathy with it, rejects all European enlightenment completely, without entering into dubious proceedings. That is why one person praises that another scolds; one admires what arouses indignation in another; even the same expressions, which in the dictionary of one magazine mean the highest degree of dignity, for example, Europeanism, the last moment of development, human wisdom and so on. - in the language of another they have the meaning of extreme censure. That is why, without reading one magazine, you can know his opinion from another, understanding only all his words in the opposite sense.

Thus, in the general movement of our literature, the one-sidedness of one of these periodicals is usefully balanced by the opposite one-sidedness of the other. Mutually destroying each other, each of them, without knowing it, complements the shortcomings of the other, so that the meaning and significance, even the image and content of one are based on the possibility of the existence of the other. The very polemics between them serve as the reason for their inextricable connection and constitute, so to speak, a necessary condition for their mental movement. However, the nature of this controversy is completely different in both journals. "Mayak" attacks "Otechestvennye zapiski" directly, openly and with heroic tirelessness, noticing their misconceptions, mistakes, reservations and even typos. Otechestvennye zapiski care little about Mayak as a magazine and rarely even talk about it, but they constantly keep in mind its direction, against the extreme of which they try to set up an opposite, no less passionate extreme. This struggle maintains the possibility of life for both and constitutes their main significance in literature.

We consider this confrontation between “Mayak” and “Domestic Notes” to be a useful phenomenon in our literature because, expressing two extreme trends, they, by their exaggeration of these extremes, necessarily present them somewhat in caricature and, thus, involuntarily lead the reader’s thoughts to the path of prudent moderation in error. In addition, each magazine of its kind reports many interesting, practical and useful articles for the dissemination of our education. For we think that our education should contain the fruits of both directions: we do not think that these directions should remain in their exclusive one-sidedness.

However, when we talk about two directions, we mean more the ideals of the two journals than the journals themselves in question. For, unfortunately, neither “Mayak” nor “Notes of the Fatherland” are far from achieving the goal that they envisage.

To reject everything Western and recognize only that side of our education that is directly opposite to the European one is, of course, a one-sided direction; however, it could have some subordinate meaning if the magazine expressed it in all the purity of its one-sidedness; but, taking it as its goal, “Lighthouse” mixes with it some heterogeneous, random and clearly arbitrary principles, which sometimes destroy its main meaning. So, for example, putting the holy truths of our Orthodox faith as the basis for all his judgments, he at the same time takes other truths as his basis - the provisions of his self-created psychology - and judges things according to three criteria, four categories and ten elements. Thus, mixing his personal opinions with general truths, he demands that his system be accepted as the cornerstone of national thinking. As a result of this same confusion of concepts, he thinks to render a great service to literature by destroying, along with the “Notes of the Fatherland,” that which constitutes the glory of our literature. Thus, he proves, among other things, that Pushkin’s poetry is not only terrible and immoral, but that it also contains neither beauty, nor art, nor good poetry, nor even correct rhymes. Thus, taking care of improving the Russian language and trying to give it “softness, sweetness, sonorous charm”, which would make “it the universally beloved language of all Europe,” he himself, at the same time, instead of speaking in Russian, uses the language of his own invention .

That is why, despite the many great truths expressed here and there by “Mayak” and which, if presented in their pure form, should have gained him the living sympathy of many, it is nevertheless difficult to sympathize with him because the truths in him are mixed with concepts at least strange.

“Domestic Notes,” for its part, also destroys its own power in another way. Instead of conveying to us the results of European education, they are constantly carried away by some particular phenomena of this education and, without fully embracing it, think to be new, being in fact always belated. For the passionate pursuit of fashionable opinion, the passionate desire to accept the appearance of a lion in the circle of thinking in itself already proves a distance from the center of fashion. This desire gives our thoughts, our language, our entire appearance that character of self-doubting sharpness, that cut of flamboyant exaggeration, which serve as a sign of our alienation precisely from the circle to which we want to belong.

Of course, “O[domestic] notes” take their opinions from the newest books of the West, but they accept these books separately from the entirety of Western education, and therefore the meaning that they have there appears to them in a completely different meaning ; that thought that was new there as an answer to the totality of questions surrounding it, having been torn away from these questions, is no longer new with us, but just an exaggerated antiquity.

Thus, in the field of philosophy, without presenting the slightest trace of those tasks that constitute the subject of modern thinking in the West, “O[domestic] notes” preach systems that are already outdated, but add to them some new results that do not fit with them. Thus, in the sphere of history, they accepted some of the opinions of the West, which appeared there as a result of the desire for nationality; but, having understood them separately from their source, they derive from them the denial of our nationality, because it does not agree with the nationalities of the West, just as the Germans once rejected their nationality because it is unlike the French. Thus, in the field of literature, “Domestic Notes” noted that in the West, not without benefit for the successful movement of education, some undeserved authorities were destroyed, and as a result of this remark they seek to humiliate all our fame, trying to reduce Derzhavin’s literary reputation, Karamzin, Zhukovsky, Baratynsky, Yazykov, Khomyakov, and I. Turgenev and A. Maykov are extolled in their place, thus placing them in the same category with Lermontov, who probably would not have chosen this place for himself in our literature. Following the same beginning, “O[domestic] notes” try to update our language with their special words and forms.

That is why we dare to think that both “O[domestic] notes” and “Mayak” express a direction that is somewhat one-sided and not always true.

"Northern Bee" is more a political newspaper than a literary magazine. But in its non-political part, it expresses the same desire for morality, improvement and decency that “O[domestic] notes” reveal for European education. She judges things according to her moral concepts, conveys in quite a variety of ways everything that seems wonderful to her, communicates everything that she likes, reports everything that is not to her heart’s content, very zealously, but perhaps not always fairly.

We have some reason to think that this is not always fair.

At Literaturnaya Gazeta we did not know how to open any special direction. This reading is mostly light, dessert reading, a little sweet, a little spicy, literary sweets, sometimes a little greasy, but all the more pleasant for some undemanding organisms.

Along with these periodicals, we should also mention Sovremennik, because it is also a literary magazine, although we admit that we would not like to confuse its name with other names. It belongs to a completely different circle of readers, has a goal completely different from other publications and is especially not confused with them in the tone and method of its literary action. Constantly maintaining the dignity of its calm independence, Sovremennik does not engage in heated polemics, does not allow itself to lure readers with exaggerated promises, does not amuse their idleness with its playfulness, does not seek to show off the tinsel of alien, misunderstood systems, does not anxiously chase news of opinions and does not base its own beliefs on the authority of fashion, but freely and firmly goes his own way, without bending before outward success. That is why, since the time of Pushkin, it has remained a constant repository of the most famous names in our literature; Therefore, for lesser-known writers, publishing articles in Sovremennik already has some right to respect from the public.

Meanwhile, the direction of Sovremennik is not predominantly, but exclusively literary. Articles by scientists aimed at the development of science, and not words, are not included in its composition. That is why his way of looking at things is in some contradiction with his name. For in our time, purely literary dignity is no longer an essential aspect of literary phenomena. That is why when, analyzing some work of literature, Sovremennik bases its judgments on the rules of rhetoric or literature, we involuntarily regret that the power of its moral purity is exhausted in the concerns of its literary purity.

The Finnish Messenger is just beginning, and therefore we cannot yet judge its direction; Let’s just say that the idea of bringing Russian literature closer to Scandinavian literatures, in our opinion, is not only one of the useful, but also one of the most interesting and significant innovations. Of course, an individual work of some Swedish or Danish writer cannot be fully appreciated in our country if we do not compare it not only with the general state of the literature of his people, but, more importantly, with the state of everything private and general, internal and external life these little-known lands among us. If, as we hope, the Finnish Messenger will introduce us to the most interesting aspects of the internal life of Sweden, Norway and Denmark; if he presents to us in a clear manner the significant questions that occupy them at the present moment; if he reveals to us the full importance of those little-known mental and vital movements in Europe that are now filling these states; if he presents to us in a clear picture the amazing, almost incredible prosperity of the lower class, especially in some areas of these states; if he satisfactorily explains to us the reasons for this happy phenomenon; if he explains the reasons for another, no less important circumstance - the amazing development of certain aspects of folk morality, especially in Sweden and Norway; if he presents a clear picture of the relations between different classes, relations completely unlike other states; if, finally, all these important questions are connected with literary phenomena into one living picture, then, without a doubt, this magazine will be one of the most remarkable phenomena in our literature.

Our other journals are primarily of a special nature, and therefore we cannot talk about them here.

Meanwhile, the spread of periodicals to all corners of the state and to all circles of literate society, the role they obviously play in our literature, the interest they arouse in all classes of readers - all this indisputably proves to us that the very character of our literary education is mostly magazine.

However, the meaning of this expression requires some explanation.

A literary magazine is not a literary work. He only informs about modern literary phenomena, analyzes them, indicates their place among others, and pronounces his judgment about them. A journal is to literature what a preface is to a book. Consequently, the predominance of journalism in literature proves that in modern education the need enjoy And know gives in to needs judge - bring your pleasures and knowledge under one overview, be aware of it, have opinion. The dominance of journalism in the field of literature is the same as the dominance of philosophical writings in the field of science.

But if the development of journalism in our country is based on the desire of our very education for a reasonable report, for an expressed, formulated opinion on the subjects of science and literature, then, on the other hand, the vague, confusing, one-sided and at the same time contradictory nature of our magazines proves that literary We have not yet formed our opinions; that in the movements of our education there is more need opinions than opinions themselves; more sense of need for them at all, than a certain inclination towards one direction or another.

However, could it have been otherwise? Considering the general nature of our literature, it seems that in our literary education there are no elements for forming a general definite opinion, there are no forces for the formation of an integral, consciously developed direction, and there cannot be any as long as the dominant color of our thoughts is a random shade of foreign beliefs. Without a doubt, it is possible, and indeed people are constantly encountered, who present some private thought, which they have fragmentarily understood, as their own definite opinion, - people who call their book concepts by name beliefs; but these thoughts, these concepts are more like a school exercise in logic or philosophy; this is an imaginary opinion, just the outer clothing of thoughts, a fashionable dress in which some smart people dress up their minds when they take it to salons, or youthful dreams that fly apart at the first pressure of real life. That's not what we mean by the word belief.

There was a time, and not very long ago, when it was possible for a thinking person to formulate a firm and definite way of thinking, embracing together life, mind, taste, habits of life, and literary preferences; it was possible to form a definite opinion solely out of sympathy with the phenomena of foreign literature: there were complete, whole, complete systems. Now they are gone; at least there are no generally accepted, unconditionally dominant ones. In order to build your complete view from contradictory thoughts, you need to choose, compose yourself, search, doubt, ascend to the very source from which conviction flows, that is, either remain forever with wavering thoughts, or bring with you in advance something already prepared, not drawn from literature. belief. Compose persuasion from different systems is impossible, just as it is generally impossible draw up nothing alive. Living things are born only from life.

Now there can no longer be any Voltaireans, nor Jeanjaqueists, nor Jean-Paulists, nor Schellingians, nor Byronists, nor Goethists, nor doctrinaires, nor exceptional Hegelians (excluding, perhaps, those who sometimes, without having read Hegel, give out their own names under his name). personal guesses); Now everyone must form his own way of thinking and, therefore, if he does not take it from the entire totality of life, he will always remain with only book phrases.

For this reason, our literature could have complete meaning until the end of Pushkin’s life and now has no specific meaning.

We think, however, that this state of affairs cannot continue. Due to the natural, necessary laws of the human mind, the emptiness of thoughtlessness must someday be filled with meaning.

And in fact, from some time on, in one corner of our literature, an important change has already begun, although still barely noticeable in some special shades of literature - a change that is not so much expressed in the works of literature, but is revealed in the state of our education itself in general and promises to reshape the character our imitative subordination into a peculiar development of the inner principles of our own life. Readers will guess, of course, that I am talking about that Slavic-Christian movement, which, on the one hand, is subject to some, perhaps exaggerated biases, and on the other, is persecuted by strange, desperate attacks, ridicule, slander, but in any case worthy of attention as an event that, in all likelihood, is destined to occupy not the last place in the fate of our enlightenment.<…>

Editor's Choice

Geghard Monastery Geghard Church in Armenia

Geghard Monastery, or Geghardavank, which translates as “spear monastery.” The unique monastery complex of the Armenian Apostolic Church...

List of states and dependent territories of North America

South America on the world map South America ... Wikipedia Political map of Oceania ... Wikipedia This list shows states with ...

“Crimean Titan” in Armyansk may be nationalized

Recently, conversations around Crimea have relatively calmed down, which is not surprising in connection with the events in the South-East (for the most part...

Geographic coordinates of Cairo, Egypt

On what continent is the city of Cairo located? What are the features of its geographical location? What are the coordinates of Cairo? Answers to everything...

Plan "Ost" About the Nazi program of extermination of entire nations

Many have probably heard about the “General Plan Ost”, according to which Nazi Germany was going to “develop” the territories it had conquered...

IN AND. Sysoev “Alexander Alexandrovich Bakunin. Bakunin Alexander Pavlovich - Biography Bakunin Alexander Pavlovich short biography

Brother of Ekaterina Bakunina, under the impression of meetings with whom many poems of the young Pushkin were written. Revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin...

Why was Admiral Kolchak shot?

Printed equivalent: Shishkin V.I. Execution of Admiral Kolchak // Humanities in Siberia. Series: Domestic history. Novosibirsk, 1998....

State symbols of the native city

Goals: to cultivate a sense of patriotism, pride and love for the Motherland. Equipment: computer, projector, stereo system; CD with music...

How to surprise adults

March 8 is a unique bright holiday, when everyone around congratulates beautiful women, girls, girls. At the same time, congratulations and even...

New

Popular

I. Kireevsky Review of the current state of literature

14. The problematic field of Russian criticism in the 1850-1860s. Basic concepts and representatives

Review of the current state of literature (excerpts)

Review of the current state of literature. (1845).