There are eras in History when all the forces acting in it are resolved into two main ones, which, having absorbed everything extraneous, come face to face, measure each other with their eyes and come out for a decisive debate, like Achilles and Hector3 at the conclusion of the Iliad. - Here are the famous martial arts world history: Asia and Greece, Greece and Rome, Rome and the Germanic world.
In the ancient world, these martial arts were decided by material force: then force ruled the universe. In the Christian world, worldwide conquests have become impossible: we are called to the combat of thought.
Drama modern history expressed by two names, one of which sounds sweet to our hearts! The West and Russia, Russia and the West - this is the result arising from everything previous; this is the last word of History; here are two data for the future!
Napoleon (we didn’t start with him for nothing) contributed a lot to outline both words of this result. The instinct of the entire West was concentrated in the person of his gigantic genius - and moved towards Russia when he could. Let us repeat the words of the Poet:
Praise! He is to the Russian people
The high lot indicated4.
Yes, a great and decisive moment! The West and Russia stand in front of each other, face to face! - Will he captivate us in his worldwide endeavor? Will he understand it? Shall we go in addition to his education? Shall we make some extra addition to his History? - Or will we remain in our originality? Shall we form a special world, according to our own principles, and not the same European ones? Let's take a sixth of the world out of Europe... the seed for the future development of mankind?
Here is a question - a great question, which is not only heard here, but also echoes in the West. Solving it for the benefit of Russia and humanity is the work of our present and future generations. Everyone who has been called to any significant service in our Fatherland must begin by resolving this issue if he wants to connect his actions with the present moment of life. That's the reason why we start with it.
The question is not new: the millennium of Russian life, which our generation can celebrate in twenty-two years, offers a complete answer to it. But the meaning of the history of any people is a mystery hidden under the external clarity of events: everyone unravels it in their own way. The question is not new, but in our time its importance has come to life and has become palpable to everyone.
Let's take a general look at the state modern Europe and the attitude in which our Fatherland stands towards it. We eliminate here all political types and limit ourselves to only one picture of education, which embraces Religion, Science, Art and Humanity, the latter as the most complete expression of the entire human life of peoples. We will, of course, touch only on the main countries that act in the field of the European world.
Let us begin with those two whose influence reaches us least of all and which form the two extreme opposites of Europe. We mean Italy and England. The first took her share of all the treasures ideal world fantasies; almost completely alien to all the lures of modern luxury industry, she, in the miserable rags of poverty, sparkles with her fiery eyes, enchants with her sounds, sparkles with ageless beauty and is proud of her past. The second selfishly appropriated to itself all the essential benefits of the everyday world; drowning herself in the wealth of life, she wants to entangle the whole world with the bonds of her trade and industry. *
The first place is for the one who, with noble selflessness, takes us from the world of selfish materiality to the world of pure pleasures.
It happened before that the peoples of the north rushed through the Alps with weapons in their hands to fight for the southern beauty of the European countries, which attracted their eyes. Now, every year, colonies of peaceful wanderers flow from the peaks of Similon, Mont Cenis, Col del Bormio, Splügen and Brenner, or both seas: the Adriatic and the Mediterranean, into her beautiful gardens, where she peacefully treats them with her sky, nature and art.
Almost alien to the new world, which is pushed away from it forever by the snow-capped Alps, Italy lives with the memories of antiquity and art. Through her we received the ancient world: she is still faithful to her work. All its soil is the grave of the past. Beneath the living world, another world is smoldering, an outdated world, but eternal. Its vineyards bloom on the ruins of the cities of the dead; its ivy entwines itself with the monuments of ancient grandeur; her laurels are not for the living, but for the dead.
So, at the foot of the smoking Vesuvius, the dead man, Pompey, slowly shakes off his ashen shroud. Smothered by a fiery bogey at the full moment of her life and buried in the ground with all her treasures, she now reveals them in wonderful integrity so that we can finally unravel ancient life in all its details. New discoveries in the Architecture, Sculpture, and Painting of the ancients completely change the previous views and await a new Winckelmann5, who would say a decisive word about them.
The ancient forum of Rome lazily throws off its centuries-old mound, while Italian and German antiquaries idly argue about the names of its nameless and silent buildings.
The cities of Etruria open their tombs, and the treasures of times, perhaps Homeric, faithfully preserved by the disinterested earth, come to light in the halls of the Vatican.
Soon antiquity will be as accessible and clear to us as the life around us: man will not lose anything from his boundless past, and everything noticeable in the life of all centuries will become the property of his every minute. The opportunity is now open to us to talk with ancient writers, as if with our contemporaries. Elegant antiquity with the beauty of its forms will ennoble and decorate the forms of our ordinary life. Everything that serves a person and for his everyday needs must be worthy of him and bear the imprint of his spiritual being. Italy continues to work on this matter, which is of course not so important in the life of mankind, preserving all the luxury of noble antiquity.
Art, like faithful ivy, encircles the ruins of Italy. The former massacre of nations has now turned into a workshop for the whole world, where they no longer argue with a sword, but with a brush, a chisel and a compass. All its galleries are populated by crowds of artists who besiege the great works of genius, or walking wanderers who slavishly bow to its past. It is curious to see how around one Transfiguration of Raphael6 sit at the same time Russian, French, German, English painters and are struggling in different types repeat the elusive images of the inimitable with no one’s brush.
There was a time when Italy transmitted to all Western countries the graceful forms of her Poetry: now she has done the same in relation to other arts. On the banks of the Isar, Rhine, Thames, Seine, and Neva, the fine forms of Italian art have been adopted by all educated nations. They vary depending on the special character of each, but in the main the Italian ideal is understood.
The same can be said about vocal music. Not being able to support its own famous singers, Italy cedes them to Paris, London, and Vienna. Rich nations, at the cost of gold, rob her of musical pleasures. But where there are no singers from Italy, there is at least a method of singing it. The Germans, the English, the French want to sing like the Italians, despite the obstacles of language and the northern organ.
Italy has done its job. Her art became the property of all educated humanity. She aesthetically educated Europe - and every moment of her noble pleasures, which so much decorate our lives, is a gift from selfless Italy.
Science in Italy has its representatives in some individual parts, but does not unite anything as a whole. The fragmentation of the political structure is reflected in both science and literature. The scientists of Italy are islands floating separately on a sea of ignorance.
The state of Literature presents the same feudal aspect as science. [,..]9
And yet here, where the gaze of neither the Austrian, nor the Papal, nor the Neapolitan censorship reaches, you will not find any corruption of taste or depravity of morals! No, the reasons for this phenomenon lie deeper; they are in the spirit and character of the Italian people.
The first of them is a religious feeling, deeply hidden in him. The Italian is faithful to him in all aspects of life. All wandering Italy, even among godless Paris, is nourished by Religion. The second reason is an aesthetic feeling, a sense of beauty. The immoral in poetry is disgusting to the Italian because it is ugly. Literary Italy is in decline; but the taste for the elegant, nourished by the eternal models included in popular education, is supported by legend.
England is the extreme opposite of Italy. There is complete insignificance and political powerlessness; here is the center and the power modern politics; - there are the wonders of nature and the carelessness of human hands; here is the poverty of the first and the activity of the second; - there poverty sincerely wanders around big roads and streets; here it is hidden by external luxury and wealth; - there is an ideal world of fantasy and art; there is a significant area of commerce and industry here; - there is the lazy Tiber, on which you will occasionally see a fisherman’s boat; here is the active Thames, which is crowded with steamships; - there the sky is eternally bright and open; here fog and smoke forever hid the pure azure from human eyes; - there are religious processions every day; here is the dryness of ritualless religion; - every Sunday there is a noisy feast of walking people; It's Sunday here - dead silence on the streets; - there is lightness, carelessness, fun; here is the important and stern thought of the north...
Isn’t this striking contrast between the two countries the reason why the British love Italy so much and populate it with colonies every year? A person feels akin to what he sees reverse side life surrounding him. With it he completes his being.
You are in awe of this country when you see with your own eyes the lasting prosperity that it has created for itself and so wisely and vigilantly supports. The islanders sometimes seem funny and strange when you get to know them on solid ground; but you bow to them with involuntary respect when you visit them and look at the miracles of their universal power, at the activity of their mighty will, at this great present of theirs, which with all its roots rests in the depths of a strictly guarded and respected past. Looking at the appearance of England, you think that this force is immortal, if only any earthly force can be immortal in a world where everything passes away!
This force contains two others, the mutual coupling of which confirms the unshakable strength of England. One of these forces strives outside, longs to embrace the whole world, to assimilate everything for itself; it is the insatiable colonial power that founded the United States, conquered the East Indies, laid hands on all the most glorious harbors of the world. But there is another force in England, an internal, sustaining force, which arranges everything, preserves everything, strengthens everything, and which feeds on what has flowed through.
Declining Literatures, due to the lack of the present, usually resort to their great memories, to the study of their past. England is studying Shakespeare in detail, like Italy is studying Dante, like Germany is studying Goethe.
We will conclude a brief sketch of the literary development of modern England with the words of one of the wittiest French critics, who has every means of closely observing the literature of the neighboring state. These words will also serve as a transition for us to the real question, from which we have so far been distracted by episodes. This is how Filaret Shal65 concludes his review of modern English literature, published in the first November book of the Revue des deux mondes14:
In vain, with some feeling of trust and hope, we try to reject the fatal truth. The decline of literature, resulting from the decline of minds, is an event that cannot be denied. Everyone sees that we, the European peoples, as if by unanimous consent, are descending to some kind of semi-Chinese insignificance, to some kind of general and inevitable weakness, which the author of these observations has been predicting for fifteen years and for which he does not find a healing remedy. This descent, this dark path, which someday will lead us to a flat level in mental development, to the fragmentation of forces, to the destruction of the creative genius - is accomplished in different ways, depending on the degree of weakening of the various tribes of Europe. The southern peoples are the first to descend: first of all they received life and light, first of all the night of insignificance befalls them. The northern ones will follow them: the strength of the vital juices of the world has found refuge in them. The Italians, a noble tribe, are already there, in the depths, calm, quiet, blessed by their climate, and, alas! We are intoxicated with the happiness of powerlessness - this last disaster of nations. The Spaniards, the second children of the new Europe, torment their insides with their hands and gnaw at themselves, like Ugolino, before entering this deep silence of Italy, this fullness of death. On the same slope down, but alive with strength, other peoples are worried: they still hope, still sing, enjoy, make noise and think, with railways and schools to resurrect the flame public life, trembling with the last light. England itself, deprived of its Saxon energy, its Puritan fervor, having lost its literary strength, having buried its Byrons and W. Scotts, what will it be in a hundred years? - God knows!
But even if the signs proclaimed by the philosophers were true; if in this vast galvanic flow of destruction and re-creation, which is called History, all of Europe for one thousand two hundred years, with its laws, morals, principles, thoughts, with its double past: Teutonic and Roman, with its pride, moral life, physical power, with her literature, should have slowly become exhausted and fallen into eternal sleep: why be surprised? If she were destined to experience the same lot that once befell the Greek world, then the Roman world, both smaller in space and time than our Christian Europe; if the fragments of the old vessel, in turn, were to serve to create a new, fresh vessel, can we complain about that? Didn't this civilization, which we call European, last long? And aren’t there fresh, young countries on earth that will accept and are already accepting our inheritance, just as our fathers once accepted the heritage of Rome, when Rome fulfilled its destiny? Are America and Russia not here? Both are hungry for glory to go on stage, like two young actors thirsting for applause; both equally burn with patriotism and strive for possession. One of them, the only heir to the Anglo-Saxon genius; the other, with her Slovenian mind, immensely flexible, patiently learns from the peoples of the New Romans and wants to continue their latest traditions. And beyond Russia and America, aren’t there other lands that, for millions of years, will continue, if necessary, this eternal work of human education?
There is no need to despair for humanity and for the future, even if we, the peoples of the West, had to fall asleep - to fall asleep in the sleep of ancient tribes, immersed in the lethargy of vigil, in living death, in fruitless activity, in the abundance of half-baked things that the dying Byzantium suffered for so long. I'm afraid we won't live to see the same thing. The literature is filled with delirium of fever. A material person, a laborer, a mason, an engineer, an architect, a chemist, can deny my opinion; but the evidence is clear. Discover at least 12,000 new acids; direct the balloons using an electric machine; invent a means of killing 60,000 people in one second: despite all this, the moral world of Europe will still be what it already is: dying, if not completely dead. From the heights of his secluded observatory, flying through the dark spaces and foggy waves of the future and past, the philosopher, obliged to strike the clock of modern History and report on the changes taking place in the life of peoples, is all forced to repeat his ominous cry: Europe is dying!
These cries of despair are now often heard from Western writers, contemporary to us. By calling us to the heritage of European life, they could flatter our pride; but of course it would be ignoble of us to rejoice at such terrible screams. No, we will accept them only as a lesson for the future, as a warning in our modern relations with the exhausted West.
England and Italy never had a direct literary influence on Russia. [...]15 But what is the reason that England and Italy have not yet had a direct influence on us in the intellectual and literary sense? - they are screened from Russia by two countries to which we are now moving. *
France and Germany are the two parties under whose influence we were directly and now are. In them, one might say, all of Europe is concentrated for us. There is no separating sea or obscuring Alps. Every book, every thought of France and Germany is more likely to resonate with us than in any other Western country. Previously, the French influence prevailed: in new generations the German influence prevails. All of educated Russia can be fairly divided into two halves: French and German, according to the influence of one or another education.
This is why it is especially important for us to delve into current situation these two countries and the relationship in which we stand towards them. Here we will boldly and sincerely express our opinion, knowing in advance that it will arouse many contradictions, offend many prides, stir up the prejudices of education and teaching, and violate traditions hitherto accepted. But in the issue we are deciding, the first condition is the sincerity of the conviction.
France and Germany were the scenes of two greatest events, to which the entire history of the new West leads, or more correctly: two turning points, corresponding to each other. These diseases were - the reformation in Germany, the revolution in France: the disease is the same, only in two different forms. Both were an inevitable consequence of Western development, which accepted the duality of principles and established this discord as a normal law of life. We think that these diseases have already ceased; that both countries, having experienced a turning point in their illness, returned to healthy and organic development. No, we are wrong. Diseases generated harmful juices, which now continue to act and which, in turn, have already produced organic damage in both countries, a sign of future self-destruction. Yes, in our sincere, friendly, close relations with the West, we do not notice that we are dealing as if with a person who carries an evil, contagious illness within himself, surrounded by an atmosphere of dangerous breathing. We kiss him, we hug, we share the meal of thought, we drink the cup of feeling... and we don’t notice the hidden poison in our carefree communication, we don’t smell in the fun of the feast the future corpse that he already smells of!
He captivated us with the luxury of his education; he takes us on his winged ships, rides around railways; without our labor, he pleases all the whims of our sensuality, lavishes before us the wit of thought, the pleasures of art... We are glad that we came to a feast ready for such a rich host... We are intoxicated; we are happy to taste for nothing what cost so much... But we do not notice that in these dishes there is a juice that our fresh nature cannot bear... We do not foresee that the satiated owner, having seduced us with all the delights of a magnificent feast, will corrupt our mind and heart; that we will leave him drunk beyond our years, with a heavy impression from an orgy incomprehensible to us...
But let us rest in faith in Providence, whose finger is evident in our history. Let’s delve deeper into the nature of both ailments and determine for ourselves a lesson in wise protection.
There is a country in which both changes occurred even earlier than in the entire West and thereby forestalled its development. This country is an island for Europe, both geographically and historically. The secrets of her inner life have not yet been solved - and no one has decided why both revolutions that took place in her so early did not produce any, at least visible, organic damage.
In France, the great disease has given rise to the depravity of personal freedom, which threatens the entire state with complete disorganization. France is proud of having won political freedom; but let's see how she applied it to different branches of her social development? What did she accomplish with this acquired instrument in the fields of religion, art, science and literature? We won't talk about politics and industry. Let us only add that the development of its industry is hindered year by year by the willfulness of the lower classes of the people, and that the monarchical and noble character of the luxury and splendor of its products does not in the least correspond to the direction of its popular spirit.
What is the present state of religion in France? - Religion has two manifestations: personal in individuals, as a matter of everyone’s conscience, and state, as the Church. Therefore, it is possible to consider the development of religion in any nation only from these two points of view. The development of state religion is obvious; it is in front of everyone; but it is difficult to penetrate into her personal, family development, hidden in the secret of people’s life. The latter can be seen either locally, or in literature, or in education.
Since 1830, as is known, France has lost the unity of the state religion. The country, originally Roman Catholic, allowed free Protestantism both in the depths of its people and in the depths of the reigning family. Since 1830, all religious processions of the church, these solemn moments in which she appears as a servant of God before the eyes of the people, have been destroyed in the life of the French people. The most famous rite of the Western Church, the magnificent procession: corpus Domini16, performed so brilliantly in all the countries of the Roman Catholic West, is never again performed on the streets of Paris. When a dying person calls upon himself the gifts of Christ before his death, the church sends them without any celebration, the priest brings them secretly, as if during the times of persecution of Christianity. Religion can perform its rituals only inside temples; she alone seems to be deprived of the right to publicity, while everyone in France uses it with impunity; the churches of France are like the catacombs of the original Christians, who did not dare to take outside the manifestations of their worship of God.
There is a magnificent building in Paris that looks like a temple: it bears the pagan name of the Pantheon. Many French celebrities are buried there; it contains the tombs of Voltaire and Rousseau; It also contains victims of the civil strife of 1830. The French kings had an idea to consecrate this building with Christian significance: an altar to the Christian God was erected in it. But since 1830, France has rejected the sign of the Cross and dedicated this building to national pride. It stands now, gloomily lonely, without meaning, as a monument to the vanity and vanity of the people, as an incomprehensible anachronism, testifying to the transition from Christianity to some new paganism.
There is another magnificent building in Paris: in appearance it looks like a pagan Parthenon. Inside it looks like an art gallery awaiting works of art. Gold jewelry entertains your attention in it. This is the Church of Magdalene, a Christian temple in pagan forms, a church without confessors, without bells, symbols of Christian architecture.
Two of the greatest works of religious architecture in Paris may give an idea of the confusion that prevails in the religious concepts of France.
Here are the phenomena of religion in France in its state development. What can we say about the private? It is difficult to judge here based on external impressions of life alone. We will be sincere: we will say both sad and comforting.
The outward neglect of the Churches, both in the north and in the south of France, produces a kind of sad and painful feeling. I remember, in London, near one round portal of an ancient Gothic church, a sculptured crown of Saints and Angels; they were all beheaded during the terrible rampages of the last century. On Sundays I visited the churches of France: for every seven women one could count one man. The famous cemetery in Paris gives the Russian a strange feeling: Pere la Chaise: it will seem to you that you are walking along the street of Pompeii’s coffins, enlarged in size. Some pagan symbols flash before your eyes, and instead of the comforting verbs of St. The civil formula in Scripture: concession a perpetuite17 will most often amaze your eyes. In the midst of the cemetery, where all the outdated greatness of France rests, where wealth has lavished marble, metal and taste on the splendor of monuments, the meager, devoid of any decoration, naked Church will only tell you that you are in a Christian cemetery. - I remember an incident in one Parisian church: during a sermon, the riotous mob decided to demand that mass be celebrated at three o'clock instead of at 12, basing their rights on the fact that citizens pay for the maintenance of churches and therefore can demand service whenever they please. - The time of Lent, respected in all countries of the Roman confession, - in Paris there is a time for the most joyful orgies of a noisy carnival among the people. All of Europe, even Protestant Europe, does not allow public merriment on those days when the sufferings of the Divine Redeemer are commemorated: during this holy time for Christians, Paris continues all its performances. On that great day, on which pious Russian Christians do not even take food, Paris celebrates spring with the most brilliant, most magnificent festivities, where it lavishes all the luxury, all the splendor of carriages and toilets.
All these phenomena in the current life of the French people do not show religious development in them. But how to solve the same question regarding the internal life of families in France? Literature brings us the saddest news, revealing pictures of this life in its tireless stories. At the same time, I remember the word I heard from the lips of one public mentor, who assured me that all religious morality can be contained in the rules of Arithmetic. Such a basis for education must, of course, be reflected in the lives of the students entrusted to such a teacher, and through it in literature reflecting the mores of society.
The state of Religion in France, which still has such a broad influence on the whole of Europe through its education, literature, theater, is not an exclusively French question: it is a question - all-human, world-wide, and who in this case, loving the good of their neighbors, will not share these sincere desires?
Art always develops around Religion and receives the best suggestions from it. In 1839, three thousand paintings shone at the Louvre exhibition with the freshness of their colors. There were also paintings of religious content among them; but it is remarkable that there was not a single one of them that resonated with religious animation [...]19
The main reason for the soullessness of art is the lack of religious feeling in artists and, consequently, in the people of France. Without it, there may be graceful landscapes, similar portraits, heated battles at sea and on land; but there will not be those great creatures in which the highest, purest inspiration of the artist appears.
What is the state of public education in France? - should have expected great improvements in this regard, especially since 1830, when many of the Sorbonne Professors, who themselves were engaged in popular teaching, became statesmen. The pedagogical wanderings in Germany and Holland carried out by Cousin20, whose friends were Ministers of Education and who himself ruled this Ministry for some time, although not for long, should have brought some fruit. But, unfortunately, we don’t find anything comforting.
In the primary schools for the people, there are still the same three main shortcomings that existed before. The first is that parents are not obliged to pay any monetary penalty, as in Germany and Holland, if they do not send their children to public schools. The second drawback is the dominance everywhere of the mechanical Lancastrian method21, which does not develop in the student the mind that is so necessary with immoderate civil freedom. The third drawback is the absence of final schools, which in other countries complete the education of adults, and the complete freedom of parents to take their children out of school when they have not yet completed their studies and, even due to age, could not receive any positive rules of religion and morality. The reason for the first and third shortcomings is that the Government cannot overcome the abuse of parental power and fights it in vain. The reason for the second drawback is only one: the maintenance of the Lancastrian method costs the Government less than the maintenance of the rational one. A strong obstacle to the improvement of the original popular education lies in the prejudices of the people, who stand for freedom and believe it even in their right to ignorance. And the prejudices of social life are still so strong in this liberal France that a rich tax farmer does not want to let his son go to the same school that the son of a poor farmer goes to.
In France, only initial education is offered to the people by the Government for free. Other education, secondary and higher, is associated with costs that are beyond the means of poor people. In secondary education, preparing for University, there are two directions in France, as elsewhere: classical and real. The first is supported by the government, the second by the people; the first prevails in all schools maintained by the government; the second in all private establishments without exception. Here we also see that the government is in an unpleasant struggle with the will of its subjects. In addition, all lower institutions dependent on the University strive to free themselves from university dependence, especially since it, in addition to reporting on teaching, also consists of a monetary tax. Such a struggle between the lower institutions and the higher central one violates all unity and order that constitute the soul of teaching.
Finally, if we look at the University of Paris, where the men who will eventually rule France are finally being formed, then here too we will not find anything comforting for its future. Professors use their freedom for evil by giving lectures on whatever they please, and are not subject to any higher responsibility, any report to their superiors. From this it follows that neither the faculties in their totality, nor the sciences separately, represent any integrity. French professors are rhapsodes, skillfully speaking about some individual subjects, without any thought about science, about its integrity, about the mutual connection between all sciences. The University of Paris is in a state of German feudalism, the wildest. Students imitate Professors in abusing personal freedom. Who knows from the French newspapers those shameful scenes of student self-will of which Professor Lerminier was a victim?22 Such scenes, of course, were never imagined by prudent Germany. This self-will is visible in all the external rituals of university life. Almost no lecture is completed calmly without the silence being broken by the noise of people coming and going. The strange custom of shouting also shows that the French student does not know his relationship to the Professor.
I cannot judge the teaching of those sciences that relate to the sphere of practical life. I assume that Medicine, natural sciences, Rights, and in general all knowledge necessary for society and applied to external benefit should flourish in France. But as for those humane, disinterested sciences that lay the foundation for human education among the people, as for Philosophy, Ancient Philology, Modern Literature, General History and even the History of France, their teaching is in complete decline and in the most pitiful state. The reason for this is obvious. Those who were called upon to maintain the dignity of the central University of France and strengthen its future by educating young generations, those, carried away by the glory of the tribune and the temptations of political life, shied away from their high and sacred calling, however, retaining the benefits that were associated with their professorships43. And here again is the abuse of personal freedom, which is corrupted by political life!
Literature among the people is always the result of their cumulative development in all branches of human education. From the previous, the reasons for the decline may now be clear modern literature in France, whose works, unfortunately, are too well known in our Fatherland. A people who, through the abuse of personal freedom, destroyed the feeling of Religion in themselves, despirited art and made science meaningless, had, of course, to bring the abuse of their freedom to the highest degree of extreme in literature, not curbed either by the laws of the state or the opinion of society. It is quite remarkable how, for some time now, scholarly works have become rare in France, the fruits of many years of office activity. The historical works of both Thierry, Augustine and Amédée,23 are among the rare phenomena in France. The three volumes of the History of Ancient French Literature, published by Ampere24, seem to modern critics to be the work of a Benedictine. When you walk through the halls of the Royal Library and look at the countless volumes of unpublished manuscripts in its cabinets, the works of former scientists of France, completed even without the hope of showing them to the world, you look at them with reverence and remember with compassion how the scientist of her generation has now changed!
For that, in the so-called fine literature, what activity! How many writers! How many ephemeral phenomena! so many bastards or fiends of fantasy! How many tellers! Everything that the depraved imagination of some writer invents in the silence of his office, all this immediately becomes the property of the people, flows from the world of fantasy into the juices of their life! You really don’t know who corrupts whom more: literature, or society, or society?
Finding themselves in such an unpleasant humiliation before the political world, feeling the full weight of it, oppressing them into the most unenviable position, the writers of France, out of a similar feeling of vengeance, all for the most part belong to the party of the dissatisfied, and form, if not entirely political, then at least the printed opposition, which is much harmful to the prosperity and tranquility of France. Hence, from this literary aggregation, all the furies of the restless opposition journals; hence all the corrupt poisonous feathers hired by retired ministers for the hidden designs of their wounded ambition. Here literature has been turned into one craft, corrupt, like any other, with the only difference that here the sacred gift of God, the word given to man for higher purposes, is sold, and is used to satisfy petty passions and to seduce people from the true path. Such is the relationship of literature to political life in France. She takes out her humiliation on her, sowing a rebellious spirit among the people and corrupting their morals.
All writers with the gift of style are assigned to political magazines and act as one with them. Journalism, supported by this literary gathering, this ever-writing coalition, constantly moving all the printing presses of Paris, has formed such a force in France, against which the voices of the best speakers, caring for the good of their fatherland, have more than once rebelled.
Reading the works of its novelists outside France, you think that their imagination is much more depraved than life itself, that the faces and morals of their romantic world are blatant slander against their own fatherland. But, looking closely at France, unfortunately you are convinced of the opposite. Yes, this frantic, this ugly literature of France is a terrible mirror of its life. [...]26
To this corrupted imagination and taste of the people, accustomed to looking for some caustic novelty, something terrible, unusual, chattering magazines try to please from trade types, vying with each other about every sophisticated crime, about every trial that disgraces the history of human morality, about every execution, which, with a colorful story, can only give rise to a new victim for her in the reader. All the stains darkening on humanity are here before the eyes of the people; the whole world appears to him in its blackness alone; but who ever tells him about virtues? who talks about the exploits of the soul and heart? Murders, vices and executions are public; A hundred thousand magazine rumors thunder about them in the ears of thirty million people of France: one virtue, like Religion, has no publicity. Only occasionally, once a year, will the French Academy announce Montion Prizes27 for deeds of goodness that it has found somewhere; but the novelists of France laugh at them and are in no hurry to publish their journals, greedy only for the baseness of humanity.
How terrible must be the future of that people, where the literature of the real world and the literature of the world of fantasy vied with each other before their eyes to conduct a hasty chronicle of everything that can disgrace humanity!
The lack of mental and moral unity in French artistic literature, carried away only by selfish interests, is also reflected in the social relations of writers among themselves. Having no thought that would unite them, not feeling the loftiness of their calling, they are all divided into small parties, each of which has its own luminary. These are not schools divided by opinions of taste; these are not parties arguing over political opinions; this is not a struggle of truth and love for the beautiful and true with charlatanism and ignorance. No, the basis of the feud is personal pride, thirsting for primacy. Therefore, the writers of France do not form any special class, bound by unity of thought and vocation: this phenomenon seems incomprehensible among the people who created communal society, and yet we can vouch for its loyalty. The French Academy, which alone, according to its long-standing traditions, could support the social dignity of literature and serve as some kind of center for uniting writers, is in a relationship hostile to the new generation and is therefore alien to any influence.
The decline of literature and morals is even more clearly visible on the stage of France. Drama is one of the necessary needs of her people: fifteen theaters in Paris are open every day and filled with audiences, greedy for spectacles of all kinds. Here is a new powerful tool for education or corruption! This literature is subject to the strictest censorship, which prohibits absolutely everything political, and very favorably allows everything that can spoil morals and please the base passions of a jaded public.
It is sad to see the destruction of everything beautiful that is human in any nation; it’s hard to watch how an entire nation is crushing itself in all the foundations of its inner being; but it is even more difficult to notice how the most fundamental, natural feeling of fun in her, which remained unchanged through many centuries, echoing among all other peoples of the world, is suddenly poisoned in front of you by some kind of soulful secret of sadness, eaten by an evil worm growing from the painful rotting life.
We will conclude the sad picture of France by pointing out one common feature that is clearly noticeable in almost all its contemporary writers. All of them themselves feel the painful state of their fatherland in all sectors of its development; they all unanimously point to the decline of his Religion, politics, education, sciences, and Literature itself, which is their own business. In any work concerning modern life, you will surely find several pages, several lines devoted to condemnation of the present. Their common voice can sufficiently cover and reinforce our own in this case. But here's what's strange! That feeling of apathy that is always accompanied by such censures, which have become a kind of habit among the writers of France, have become a fashion, have become a common place. Every ailment among the people is terrible, but even more terrible is the cold hopelessness with which those who, the first, should have thought about means to cure it, speak about it. *
Let us cross the Rhine, to the country neighboring us, and try to delve into the mystery of its intangible development. Firstly, we are struck by the striking contrast with the land from which we have just emerged, this external improvement of Germany in everything that concerns its state, civil and social development. What order! how slim! You are amazed at the German prudence, which knew how to remove from itself all possible temptations of its rebellious Trans-Rhine neighbors and strictly confine itself to the sphere of its own life. The Germans even harbor a kind of open hatred or high contempt for the abuse of personal freedom that infects all parts of French society. The sympathy of some German writers for French self-will found almost no echo in prudent Germany and did not leave any harmful trace in its entire current life! This country is in different parts his own can present excellent examples of development in all branches of complex human education. Its state structure is based on the love of its Sovereigns for the good of its subjects and on the obedience and devotion of these latter to their rulers. Its civil structure rests on the laws of the purest and most frank justice, inscribed in the hearts of its rulers and in the minds of its subjects, called to the execution of civil affairs. Its universities are flourishing and spreading the treasures of learning throughout all the lower institutions entrusted with the education of the people. Art is developing in Germany in such a way that it now places it in worthy rivals with its mentor, Italy. Industry and domestic trade making progress quickly. Everything that serves to facilitate relations between its various possessions, everything that modern civilization can be proud of in relation to the conveniences of life, such as mail, customs, roads, etc., all this is excellent in Germany and elevates it to the level of a country. , which excels in its external improvement on the solid ground of Europe. What does she seem to lack for her unshakable eternal prosperity?
But above this solid, happy, well-ordered appearance of Germany floats another intangible, invisible world thoughts, completely separate from her external world. Her main illness is there, in this abstract world, which has no contact with her political and civil structure. In the Germans, in a miraculous way, mental life is separated from external, social life. Therefore, in the same German you can very often meet two people: external and internal. The first will be the most faithful, most obedient subject of his Sovereign, a truth-loving and zealous citizen of his fatherland, an excellent family man and an unfailing friend, in a word, a zealous performer of all his external duties; but take the same man within, penetrate into his mental world: you can find in him the most complete corruption of thought - and in this world inaccessible to the eye, in this intangible mental sphere, the same German, meek, submissive, faithful in state, society and family - is violent, frantic, raping everything, not recognizing any other power over his thoughts... This is the same ancient unbridled ancestor of his, whom Tacitus saw in all his native wildness emerging from his treasured forests, with that The only difference is that the new, educated one transferred his freedom from the external world to the mental world. Yes, depravity of thought is the invisible illness of Germany, generated in it by the Reformation and deeply hidden in its internal development.
Germany, as a country of Philosophy, can be divided philosophically according to the three constituent elements of man: body, soul and spirit. Prussia will, of course, be a country of spirit: it is the center of Protestantism; it is the cradle and nursery of German Philosophy. The University of Berlin knew how to attract to itself all the leading minds of Germany, in all parts of the sciences - and one must think that it will finally establish for itself the power and scepter of German learning. It is impossible not to notice that Russia is in the happiest relationship with this university, and draws science from where its source is deeper and more abundant. - If Prussia personifies the spirit of Germany, then Austria, of course, is the representative of its body. This is the most enlightened, most refined materialism brilliantly applied to the life of the state and the people. Everything that the human body can nourish, clothe, and delight its senses with is excellent in Austria, and even elementary schools, to the extent that they are needed for the convenience of life, and even the Faculty of Medicine, which absorbs all other branches of University education. The middle between Prussia and Austria is occupied by Bavaria with its neighboring southern and Rhineland countries: it is somewhat trying to reconcile the abstract spiritual direction of Prussia with Austrian materialism. She, together with her neighboring country, Swabia, revealed in herself this special spiritual principle, the fusion of mind and feeling, which in German is correctly expressed by the word Gemi.itїї2 "and which has no expression in other languages. In relation to Religion, Bavaria also represents a happy the middle, and in it it would only have been possible to reconcile the dry, abstract Protestantism of Prussia with the material Catholicism of Austria if some learned men under the strong influence of the Jesuits had not prevented this.
This spiritual and religious principle, developed in Bavaria and on the banks of the Rhine, greatly contributes to the prosperity of art in these countries. Munich and Dusseldorf are his two capitals in modern Germany. The Protestant trend of Prussia, the predominance of Hegelian Philosophy, in which there is no living sense of nature - these are the reasons why art did not find a home in Berlin, despite the fact that the sciences are here at the highest level of their development. In Austria, art does not bloom for other reasons: although it descends to human feelings, ennobling and elevating their pleasures; but it cannot blossom where a person is immersed in only the crude materialism of sensuality and where all mental development is eliminated.
The brilliant development of Germansky’s art is in no way matched by the development of artistic literature. This decline of German poetry is sad, this is its helpless state after the death of Goethe. If anywhere the opinion of the Hegelists, who believe that Poetry is one of the stages of man in his desire for an all-consuming Philosophy, can be justified by local phenomena, then this is, of course, in Germany. This opinion cannot be applied to the general development of mankind, but here it has the meaning of a local truth; it is extracted deeply from the people's consciousness. German poetry was exactly a step towards the development of Philosophy; she carried it within herself like a child. Schiller31 and Goethe predicted Hegel32 with their works. That is why the Philosopher himself and his students now love to refer to the poems of Schiller and Goethe as poetic premonitions of those thoughts that Hegel later reached through logical deductions. German poetry, expressing the life of its people, necessarily had to contain a philosophical element, which later, having mastered the others, ruined it. Goethe's last symbolic works show too much dominance of this element: this is the second part of his Faust. Here I see how German poetry is decaying and ready to turn into a philosophical skeleton. This is why the Hegelists declare special sympathy for the second half of Goethe’s Faust: in this rotting of poetry is the germ of their own existence! To use Goethe's comparison: Faust and Helen in Germany produced their Euphorion33; but this was not a lively, playful, volatile, restless Byron, as in Goethe’s drama, but a dry philosophical abstract: The Euphorion of German poetry was Hegelian Logic.
A very remarkable phenomenon is the poetry of Germany in relation to its local development. The northwestern part, the cradle of her Philosophy, was completely barren in relation to this art. The South contained poetic substance, this endless lyricism, an element always abundant in German poetry. The most brilliant development of all types of this art followed in middle Germany, where both of its elements could be combined and reconciled. But it seems that the philosophical element was predominant. Southern Germany is still rich in lyrical ether; even Austria produces poets who are remarkable in this field. However, since Philosophy in the north reached its full development and said the decisive and final word, since then Poetry has not produced anything remarkable and is still limited in the south to Lyrics alone.
It is strange to see on the modern German stage a mixture of the great works of Goethe and Schiller, wonderful translations of Shakespeare with translations of new French plays, which are carried from all the theaters of Paris to all the theaters of Europe. It is strange that the great geniuses of Germany could not, however, establish dramatic traditions in their fatherland, could not even temporarily establish an elegant direction of taste, not contrary to the aesthetic concepts created by Germany. [...]34
The magazine and trade trend, which prudent Germany did not avoid in its literature, brought a lot of harm there, as elsewhere. All scientists who care about the benefits of Russian sciences, everyone with whom I happened to talk about the state of German Literature, deeply sympathize with this and recognize the unfortunate traces of this influence on the young generation, which is withdrawing from important and practical studies of science and the Russian word for some empty, chatty fiction, imported from others and indecent to the important German spirit.
Previously, in the flourishing days, German Literature cared little about the beauty of the forms of its prose style and even less about the luxury of publications: appearance in all respects gave way to decisive primacy to the wealth of internal content, the sensible world of thought. The difficult and long Latin period, gray paper and bad, only just legible printing: here they were, in their time, external signs German Literature. The current writers of Germany have embarked on the beauty of style, and want, at all costs, to transform their ponderous prose: stylism kills everything. Impoverished in thought, Germany began to study the beauty of the forms of language. Publishers, for their part, are ashamed of gray paper and bad type: they have indulged in typographic luxury, and publications of German fiction want to outdo French ones in external elegance. And German literature declares its rights to shine in ladies' boudoir! What would the Klopstocks, Lessings, Wielands, Herders35, and even Schiller and Goethe say, seeing such cutesy panache of the literature they created and accustomed to moderation in everything that concerns its external life?
The former important character of German literature is also lost due to the many popular works and publications in which they teach the people everything, cheaply and haphazardly. Copious literature for all classes appeared in Germany as well. Here the cheapness is in stark contrast to the high cost of dandy fiction.
It is curious to see how, in this case, a country that has given everyone else an example of thorough and thoughtful education and teaching, abandons its own methods in favor of the superficial methods of those peoples who, of course, cannot serve as an example for it in this matter.
They also notice a strong development of criticism in Germany: yes, there is a lot of criticism, but there are few critics! I'm not even talking about those who could equal Lessing in the power of analysis, or Herder in the power of feeling: there is nothing even close to the Schlegel brothers36 [...]37
It has now become very fashionable to publish reviews of modern literature: this usually serves as a debut for young athletes performing in the field. Just as before, every talented student, having completed a university course and feeling the vocation of a writer, began by composing some kind of Aesthetics, invented in his spare time in the quiet of his office: so now everyone writes a review for his literary debut. This fashion has become so strong in Germany that it threatens over time to turn all its literature into reviews of reviews alone.
But, of course, it is not empty fiction of Germany that concentrates the most important questions of its modern life. It is not in this area that what is now most remarkable in its literature lies. The main vital question that now occupies it is a religious-philosophical question that emerged from the greatest event in its History - from the Reformation. After its artistic episode, which concluded with the brilliant phenomenon of Goethe, Germany returns again to its old, fundamental question, the solution of which it has been solving all its life. Yes, the Reformation is not over yet: the struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism is renewed hotly and is preparing for something final. The difference between present and ancient debates is that these latter took place in active life, and were even transferred to the battlefield, while the current ones are peacefully carried out in the mental area, but may have a much higher significance in their inevitable consequences than those that are noisy and were committed bloodily.
We hinted above that Germany, in relation to the religious issue, is divided into two sharp halves: the northeastern and southwestern, of which the first is a representative of Protestantism, the second of Catholicism. What state are both parties in now? Did they move towards each other, at least to some extent? Have you committed mutual concessions in favor of truth and for the well-being of the fatherland? - Not at all. Both parties are falling into complete extremes: their inner rage, which previously came out in material battles, is now concentrated in the mental world and hardened. Protestantism, on the one hand, destroys all traditions and establishes perfect, complete freedom, violating any unity, any possibility of wholeness: this is the wildest feudalism in Religion, complete disunity. On the other hand, Catholicism will remain stagnant in the inveterate prejudices of papism; does not move forward at all, does not at all respond to the demands of the age; adheres strictly to its cherished traditions, its material benefits, based on the superstitious ignorance of the people, and again gives freedom, opens a full field for action to that order, whose name has been branded with horror by the History of Europe. A middle ground between these two extremes is impossible; connection - absolutely cannot arise; Germany in the religious and moral world is threatened by complete disintegration, which can be disastrous in its consequences.
What role does Philosophy play in this great, ancient dispute? Her kingdom, as is known, is in the north; center - Berlin. Being herself a product of Protestantism, she, of course, must be faithful to the principles that she received from him. Carried away by the pride of reason, she decisively declared her liberation, and, like Gregory VII, her infallibility.
Hegel, as we know, said the last word to German Philosophy - and after his death he did not bequeath his dominance and primacy to anyone. Now his teaching has become the prey of many and has given rise to different interpretations. It is known that it is still limited almost to Prussia alone: Berlin, Konigsberg and Halle comprise its main representatives. But in Berlin itself this teaching has strong opponents in the religious school, headed by Neander38, and in the historical school, headed by Savigny39. Hegelian philosophy has not yet penetrated into Göttingen, nor onto the banks of the Rhine, nor into Munich. There was no Hegelian teaching in Göttingen even at a time when its University was flourishing and when it was particularly distinguished by its German national direction.
The reason that Hegel's teaching does not find such a universal echo in all the universities of Germany is twofold: firstly, the complete impossibility of subordinating this Philosophy to the Christian Religion and thereby satisfying the needs that are felt especially in southwestern Catholic Germany; secondly, the private, Prussian side of this Philosophy, which, in addition to general and local significance in the country where it was formed, and is part of the management system. This particular-national character of Philosophy seems to be offensive to the general German nationality. Almost all the inferior states of Germany had already adopted the customs system of Prussia; but the Prussian Philosophy is not accepted because in the matter of the mind national exclusivity is offensive: the mark on a product is not as heavy as on a thought.
It is known that Hegel’s teaching is now expounded by his students: there are few works left written by the pen of the teacher himself. But not all students are faithful to the thoughts of their mentor: in each of them these thoughts take on a special shade; - often followers of the same philosopher contradict each other; They often contradict themselves in such a way that it is difficult from all these scattered members to form a single, complete Hegel, true to himself in everything, and a real, genuine, unadulterated Hegel. You can’t help but remember Horace’s disjecta membra40, but not Poetae, but philosophi. [...]41
But of all the followers of the great and last philosopher of Prussia, of all the branches into which his teaching is now divided, the best and most useful side are represented by those who contain the field of Philosophy in one pure region of thinking, in one Logic, as Hegel concluded it before, and They do not apply their principles to any science or to any other human development. This kind of philosophical exercise can be useful separately, for the refinement of human thought, and is alien to the harm that they cause if applied to anything. The great master of intangible and elusive speculations himself did not like the abstract mental principle of his Logic to be applied to anything real: for it was crushed at the first touch of any substance. [...]42
This isolation of Philosophy from other branches of human development and the limitation of its possessions to the pure ether of thought was very wisely invented by those who foresee in advance the harm that could flow from its applications. But no less than that, the question of the relationship in which Religion and Philosophy should stand among themselves exists and is heard loudly, especially in southern Germany, which cannot accept the decision of the north, which is contrary to Christian feeling.
This question, the greatest of questions modern humanity, thunders not only there, but everywhere where a person thinks. It reverberates here too, perhaps even more strongly than elsewhere. In all countries there are scientists working to the best of their ability to resolve it. But everyone's eyes are turned to that country, which in our time was the birthplace of European Philosophy. Everyone expects from her: what will she say?
There, in midday Germany, there is a man on whom the eyes of everyone involved in resolving this issue are fixed. It rightfully deserves him: for he himself occupies a place among the philosophers of Germany, he himself contributed to the development of science - and suddenly the giant of thought stopped and bowed his humble brow before Religion. Everyone knows that this phenomenon took place in him out of pure conviction, without any external influences, without any concessions: this is the highest psychological fact of our century, and it is all the more remarkable because, having occurred initially in the soul of the head of the thinker, it was repeated in all his disciples, who, together with their mentor, not knowing about his inner change, felt the same need in themselves; They stopped at the same question, their heads drooping. Everyone is waiting impatiently: what will the teacher say? When will he open his silent lips? When will he make a great confession in the face of the world and bring knowledge to the foot of Faith?
Everyone is waiting for Shellingov's feat; but Schelling43 is silent and ossified in his silence. Meanwhile, the elder’s strength is weakening - and time may rob him of the opportunity to accomplish a great deed.
But what does Schelling's silence mean? - it cannot stem from a lack of conviction: the noble character of the thinker guarantees that the conviction was pure and complete. Out of a feeling of powerlessness? - this cannot be assumed in such a head as Schellingova. Moreover, an internal consciousness of truth should give him even greater strength. Is it not out of pride, as many explain? It’s unpleasant to renounce alive your entire past, to destroy your entire previous life by voluntary consciousness of your errors in the face of the whole world! - No, we don't think so. Abdication is complete, everyone knows that. It remains a new feat in the chronicles of the thoughts of Christian humanity to crown one’s life and perpetuate the memory for the good of the truth! No, pride cannot be offended here: here it is high food, even if it required it.
No, we think that the reason for Schelling’s silence is deeper: it is not in himself, not in his personality, not in his relationships. No, this reason is outside of him, it is in Germany itself. If the Philosopher had been confident that his new religious Philosophy, clearly recognized by himself, would produce complete conviction in the majority of Germany, he would certainly not have been slow in accomplishing his feat. But he has a presentiment of the opposite, and therefore does not dare. If we called Schelling’s appeal to the Christian Religion and his idea to subordinate German Philosophy to it the highest psychological event of our century, then on the other hand his stubborn silence is a fact no less remarkable, testifying to us deeply that the spiritual disintegration in Germany has taken place, and that reconciliation Philosophy and Religion, subject to subordination on the part of the first of them, is impossible. Schelling's silence is the most obvious and the best for that proof.
Yes, the discord between the Philosophical principle and the Religious is an event that is obvious from everywhere in the life of Germany: this is its weak side, its Achilles heel. Its external state and civil structure is strong; but spoiled by organic damage to her inner world. The reason for everything is its great, inevitable illness - the Reformation. But the original root of evil lies even deeper; he is at the very beginning of Western development. The man who first dared to call himself the living Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the Church, he also gave birth to Luther, who denied the Pope and the extremity of his Antichrist, which has already arisen in modern Germany and, like a worm, is eating away at its moral and spiritual existence. *
The direction now taken by both countries that have had and are making a strong influence on us is so contrary to the beginning of our life, so inconsistent with everything that has happened that we have internally more or less recognized the need to sever our further ties with the West in literary terms. I, of course, am not talking here about those glorious examples of his great past, which we must always study: they, as the property of all humanity, belong to us, and to us, by right, are the closest and direct heirs in the line of peoples entering the stage of the living and active world . I’m not talking about those modern writers who in the West, seeing for themselves the direction of humanity around them, arm themselves against it and oppose it: such writers sympathize with us a lot and even impatiently await our activities. They, however, are a small exception. I do not mean, of course, those scientists who work on certain individual parts of the sciences and gloriously cultivate their fields. No, I’m talking in general about the spirit of Western education, about its main thoughts and the movement of its new literature. Here we encounter phenomena that seem incomprehensible to us, that in our opinion do not follow from anything, that we are afraid of, and sometimes we pass by them indifferently, senselessly, or with a feeling of some kind of childish curiosity that irritates our eyes.
Russia, fortunately, has not experienced those two great ailments, which harmful extremes begin to act strongly there: hence the reason why the phenomena there are incomprehensible to her and why she cannot connect them with anything of her own. Peacefully and prudently she contemplated the development of the West: taking it as a precautionary lesson for her life, she happily avoided the discord or duality of principles to which the West was subjected in her internal development, and preserved her cherished and all-powerful unity; adopted for herself only what could be appropriate for her in the sense of universal humanity, and rejected the extraneous... And now, when the West, like Mephistopheles in the conclusion of Goethe’s Faust, preparing to open that fiery abyss where it strives, comes to us and thunders with his terrible: Komm! Komm! - Russia will not follow him: she did not give him any vow, she did not connect her existence with his existence by any agreement: she did not share his ailments with him; it has preserved its great unity, and in a fatal moment, perhaps, it was appointed by Providence to be His great instrument for the salvation of mankind.
Let us not hide the fact that our Literature, in its relations with the West, has developed some shortcomings. We bring them to three. The first of them is that the characteristic feature of our moment is indecision. It is clear from everything that has been said above. We cannot continue literary development together with the West, because we have no sympathy for its modern works: in ourselves we have not yet fully discovered the source of our own national development, although there have been some successful attempts. The magical charm of the West still has a strong effect on us, and we cannot suddenly abandon it. I believe this indecision is one of the main reasons for the stagnation that has continued for several years in our literature. We wait in vain for modern inspirations from where we previously drew them; The West sends us what our minds and hearts reject. We are now left to our own strengths; we must, involuntarily, confine ourselves to the rich past of the West and look for our own in our ancient history.
The activity of new generations, entering our field under the usual influence of the latest thoughts and phenomena of the modern West, is involuntarily paralyzed by the impossibility of applying what is there to ours, and every young man seething with strength, if he looks into the depths of his soul, will see that all the ardent delight and everything internal forces he is shackled by a feeling of heavy and idle indecision. Yes, all literary Russia is now playing Hercules, standing at a crossroads: the West insidiously beckons her to follow him, but of course Providence has destined her for a different path.
The second shortcoming in our literature, closely related to the previous one, is distrust of one’s own strengths. Until when, in any case, last book West, the latest issue of the magazine will act on us with some kind of magical force and fetter all our own thoughts? How long will we greedily swallow only ready-made results, derived there from a way of thinking that is completely alien to us and does not agree with our traditions? Do we really not feel strong enough to take on the sources ourselves and discover within ourselves a new view of the entire History and Literature of the West? This is a necessity for us and a service for him, which even we owe to him: no one can be impartial in his work, and peoples, like poets, when creating their being, do not reach his consciousness, which is left to their heirs.
Finally, our third shortcoming, the most unpleasant, from which we suffer most in our Literature, is Russian apathy, a consequence of our friendly relations with the West. Plant a young, fresh plant under the shade of a hundred-year-old cedar or oak, which will cover its young existence with the old shadow of its wide branches, and only through them will feed it with the sun and cool with the heavenly dew, and will give little food to its fresh roots from the greedy, hardened in that land their roots. You will see how a young plant will lose the colors of its youthful life and will suffer from the premature old age of its decrepit neighbor; but cut down the cedar, return the sun to its young tree, and it will find strength within itself, will rise vigorously and freshly, and with its strong and harmless youth will even be able to gratefully cover the new shoots of its fallen neighbor.
Assign an old nanny to a living, playful child: you will see how the ardor of age will disappear in him, and his seething life will be shackled by insensibility. Make friends with an ardent young man, full of all the hopes of life, with a mature, disappointed husband, who has squandered his life, who has lost both faith and hope with it: you will see how your ardent young man will change; disappointment will not stick to him; he did not deserve it by his past; but all his feelings are shrouded in the cold of inactive apathy; his fiery eyes will fade; he, like Freishitz45, will begin to tremble his terrible guest; in front of him, he will be ashamed of both his blush and his ardent feelings, blush with his delight, and like a child, he will put on the mask of disappointment that is unbecoming to him.
Yes, the disappointment of the West has given rise to cold apathy in us. Don Juan produced Eugene Onegin, one of the general Russian types, aptly captured by the brilliant thought of Pushkin46 from our modern life. This character is often repeated in our Literature: our narrators dream about it, and just recently one of them, who brilliantly entered the field of Poet, painted us the same Russian apathy, even more so, in the person of his hero, whom we, according to our national feeling, do not would like to, but must, be recognized as a hero of our time.
The last shortcoming is, of course, the one with which we must struggle most of all in our modern lives. This apathy is the reason in us both for the laziness that overcomes our fresh youth, and for the inactivity of many writers and scientists who betray their high calling and are distracted from it by the cramped world of housekeeping or large types of all-consuming trade and industry; in this apathy is the germ of that worm of melancholy, which each of us more or less felt in our youth, sang in poetry and bored our most supportive readers with it.
But even if we have endured some inevitable shortcomings from our relations with the West, we have kept three fundamental feelings pure within ourselves, in which are the seed and guarantee of our future development.
We have retained our ancient religious feeling. The Christian Cross laid its sign on our entire initial education, on all of Russian life. Our ancient mother Rus' blessed us with this cross and with it sent us on the dangerous road of the West. Let's express it in a parable. The boy grew up in the holy home of his parents, where everything breathed the fear of God; The face of his gray-haired father, kneeling before the holy icon, was imprinted on his first memory: he did not get up in the morning, did not go to bed without his parent’s blessing; Every day was sanctified by prayer, and before every holiday, his family’s house was a house of prayer. The boy left his parents' house early; cold people surrounded him and clouded his soul with doubt; evil books corrupted his thoughts and froze his feelings; he was visiting peoples who do not pray to God and think that they are happy... A stormy time of youth passed... The young man matured into a husband... His family surrounded him, and all the memories of his childhood rose, like bright Angels, from the bosom of his soul him... and the feeling of Religion awoke more vividly and stronger... and his entire being was sanctified again, and a proud thought dissolved in a pure prayer of humility... and a new world of life opened up to his eyes... The parable is clear to each of us: is it necessary interpret its meaning?
The second feeling with which Russia is strong and its future prosperity is ensured is the feeling of its state unity, which we also learned from our entire History. Of course, there is no country in Europe that could be proud of such harmony of its political existence as our Fatherland. In the West, almost everywhere, discord has begun to be recognized as the law of life, and the entire existence of peoples is accomplished in a difficult struggle. With us, only the Tsar and the people form one inseparable whole, which does not tolerate any barrier between them: this connection is based on a mutual feeling of love and faith and on the endless devotion of the people to their Tsar. This is the treasure that we brought from our ancient life, which the divided West looks at with particular envy, seeing in it an inexhaustible source of state power. He would like to take it away from us with everything he can; but now I can’t, because the previously accepted feeling of our unity, taken by us from our previous life, having gone through all the temptations of education, having passed all doubts, has risen in every educated Russian, who understands his history, to the level of a clear and lasting consciousness - and Now this conscious feeling will remain more than ever unshakable in our Fatherland.
Our third fundamental feeling is the consciousness of our nationality and the confidence that any education can only take down lasting roots in us when it is assimilated by our national feeling and expressed in popular thought and word. In this feeling lies the reason for our indecision to continue literary development with the exhausting West; in this feeling there is a powerful barrier to all his temptations; All the private, fruitless efforts of our compatriots to instill in us that which does not suit the Russian mind and the Russian heart are crushed by this feeling; this feeling is the measure of the lasting success of our writers in the history of Literature and education, it is the touchstone of their originality. It spoke out strongly in best works each of them: they concluded, in it Lomonosov, and Derzhavin, and Karamzin, and Zhukovsky, and Krylov47, and Pushkin, and everyone close to them agreed and responded to each other, no matter what Latin, French, German, English or other influence. This feeling now directs us to the study of our ancient Rus', which, of course, preserves the original pure image of our nation. The Government itself actively encourages us to do this. With this feeling, our two capitals are related and act for one thing, and what is planned in the north passes through Moscow, as through the heart of Russia, in order to turn into the blood and living juices of our people. Moscow is that faithful crucible in which the entire past from the West is burned out and receives the pure stamp of the Russian people.
With three fundamental feelings our Rus' is strong and its future is certain. Husband Tsar's Council 48, to whom the emerging generations are entrusted, has long ago expressed them in deep thought, and they form the basis for the education of the people.
The West, by some strange instinct, does not like these feelings in us, and especially now, having forgotten our former goodness, forgetting the sacrifices made to it from us, in any case expresses its dislike for us, even similar to some kind of hatred that is offensive to every Russian visiting his lands. This feeling, undeserved by us and senselessly contradicting our previous relations, can be explained in two ways: either the West in this case resembles a grumpy old man who, in the capricious impulses of his impotent age, is angry with his heir, who is inevitably called upon to take possession of his treasures over time; or another: he, knowing by instinct our direction, anticipates the gap that must inevitably follow between him and us, and he himself, with a gust of his unjust hatred, further accelerates the fatal moment.
In disastrous eras of turning points and destruction, such as the history of mankind represents, Providence sends in the person of other peoples a preserving and observing force: may Russia be such a force in relation to the West! May she preserve for the benefit of all mankind the treasures of his great past and may she prudently reject everything that serves to destruction and not to creation! may he find in himself and in his former life a source of his own people, in which everything alien, but humanly beautiful, will merge with the Russian spirit, the vast, universal, Christian spirit, the spirit of comprehensive tolerance and worldwide communication!
Stepan Petrovich Shevyrev(1806-1864) representative of official criticism. nationalities."
"A Russian's view of modern education Europe"(1841): in categorical form he made a statement that the West is “rotting” and “dying”, and Russia lives and prospers under royal rule in the article. Gov. that Russia needs to sever literary ties with the West (in its history there is only a “safety lesson” for its life). 3 fundamental feelings, cat. are the key to our salvation: religion, a sense of state unity, and the consciousness of our people.
Art. "Works of Pushkin" tried to oppose in Russian lit. “Pushkin’s” and “Gogol’s” for example (rebuff from Belinsky’s station). Sh. praised the strict prose of Pushkin, the singer of the joys of existence and life under the auspices of the “official nationality.”
Art. "Hero of our time"(1841): extolled the image of Maxim Maksimych as a native Russian good man, cat. there is no western influence, he rejected the image of Pechorin (he has nothing Russian in himself).
“Poems by M. Lermontov”: there is no originality in his poems, “echoes of lyres already familiar to us,” but his talent is noted; “Song about the merchant Kalashnikov” is the best work, and the characters of Mtsyri and Pechorin are ghosts.
1842 - 2 articles about " Dead souls»:
challenged Belinsky's point of view, the Sobakevichs and the Nozdrevs - not images of real persons, but only ghosts, shadows of illness. I believed that the satirical approach prevents Gogol from depicting people as a whole - everything turns out one-sided. When “Selected Places...” came out, I was glad that Gogol abandoned the previous direction in his work.
"Look at modern trends Russian literature"(1842): search for zap. a pernicious spirit among the entire young generation of Rus.lit. He called Belinsky and the direction he led “the side of the mob.” He called the spokesmen of the “official nationality” the “light side” (Pushkin, Sollogub, Pavlov, Odoevsky, Dal).
He gave professorial assessments of Herzen's style, attacked words and bold phrases that carried new concepts and then came into general use.
Samarin Yuri Fedorovich (1819-1876)
publicist, critic, historian, philologist, social activist. He was strongly influenced by Hegelian philosophy, and after meeting K. S. Aksakov, he became close to the leading Slavophiles: A. S. Khomyakov and the Kireevsky brothers.
In 1841, Samarin responded to the news of the death of M. Yu. Lermontov: regret that a man whose word was not indifferent to many left without fully expressing himself.
In 1845 in St. Petersburg, Samarin wrote his first literary critical article - review of the story “Tarantas” V. A. Solloguba. S. noted with approval that in the person of 2 main heroes, Sollogub talentedly reflected the gap between life and consciousness in modern Russian society: in the 1st hero - absolute detachment from all spheres of social activity (a consequence of Peter’s reform), the absence of any desire to comprehend actions, in others - separation from the people and inability to understand them.
In 1847 S. wrote an article “On the historical and literary opinions of Sovremennik”. In this polemical essay, dedicated to the first book of the updated Sovremennik, 3 program articles by Kavelin, Nikitenko and “A Look at Russian Literature of 1846” by Belinsky were considered. In the literary-critical part of the article, S., from the standpoint of Slavophile aesthetics, criticized the “natural school” and its theoretical interpreter Belinsky (the desire of the “natural school” to depict predominantly the negative sides of Russian life). The problem of the relationship between Gogol and the “natural school”.
One of the most powerful ideas of the article is the idea of unity, integrity of any phenomenon -> the key to the reasonable development of society.
In 1856 S. published an article “Two words about nationality in science”, where he defended the idea of nationality humanities, interpreting nationality as an original, national outlook. In n. 1860s S. wrote his last critical article “S. T. Aksakov and his literary works.”
23. AESTHETIC CRITICISM. A. V. DRUZHININ AS A CRITIC
TERMINOLOGY: criticism of “pure art”, EC, “artistic” criticism, theory of art for art’s sake, theory of eternal art.
MAIN IDEA: they opposed the service role of art, including literature, proclaimed its end in itself, condemned tendentiousness and utilitarianism. The main merit of EC is its careful attitude to the artistic structure of the work, to the artist. form. How they are independent. The course of EC took shape in the middle. 50s The permanent publication of the EC was the journal “Library for Reading”, whose editor in 1856 was A.V. Druzhinin.
DRUZHININ (1824-1864)
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS: Writer in in a broad sense: prose writer, playwright, poet, translator (“father of English studies”), writer. critic, editor "Library for reading." His name. "an honest knight of literature." Apologist for labor: everything true is created with help. labor. Literary criticism activity began at Sovremennik. I was looking for other forms to express my views: monthly review essays, feuilletons, letters and notes. Later there is a break with Sovremennik, at the beginning. 50s rapprochement with the “Library for Reading”, in 1856 - becomes the editor of this magazine. The artistic direction opposed the didactic one. The reason for the division was Chernyshevsky’s article, cat. he developed the idea “literature is the art of life.” The answer is Druzhinin’s article “Criticism of the Gogol period of Russian literature and our attitude towards it,” in cat. form. Principles of pure art. In the distance artistic direction name Pushkin, didactic - Gogol. In 1855, he was preparing a publication of Pushkin's works; the eighth volume included materials from Pushkin's biography. He considered Tolstoy and Goncharov to be free creators. The titles of the articles were very simple. He was the initiator and one of the organizers of the “Literary Fund”.
CRITICAL ARTICLES:
1) “A.S. Pushkin and the latest edition of his works."
- notes Paul. influence of French literature and culture.
- efficiency, erudition, love of literature.
- defends "Belkin's Tale"
- defends the belief that Pushkin’s talent is post. developed and did not fade away.
2) “Ostrovsky’s works.”
- speaks enthusiastically about dramaturgy
- says that he is a European writer, but he began in a way that no one else in Europe began.
- notes the perfection of intrigue, language, and construction of plays.
- “The Balzaminov Trilogy” is a brilliant Russian joke.
3) "Oblomov". Roman Goncharova."
- Goncharov is a realist, but his realism is warmed by poetry. It is far from sterile and dry naturalness.
- “Oblomov’s Dream” is a magnificent episode, which became the first powerful step towards understanding Oblomov with his Oblomovism. The second step is the creation of Olga Ilyinskaya. Oblomov’s type is explained by love: he reveals all the charm, all the weakness and all the sad comedy of his nature.
He also has articles about Tolstoy, Fet, Nekrasov.
25. CRITICISM OF V. P. BOTKIN (1811-1869)
Essayist, critic, translator.
In the first half of the 40s. B. is distinguished by his extreme radicalism of views: he sharply criticized Pushkin for the ending of “Eugene Onegin” (in correspondence with Belinsky).
He was fond of Hoffmann and Western ideas, but after 48 he became a conservative monarchist. Evolves towards the ideals of pure art => critic of aesthetics. Art is aimless. It is complete in itself. Political ideas are the grave of art. He was interested in the ideas of the English critic Carlyle. He was characterized not only by spiritual pleasure, but also by sensual pleasure. The foreigner knew him well. language, followed the Hebrew lit., was a friend. relations with Belinsky, Herzen, Annenkov, Bakunin, Turgenev. In "Mosk. Observer” published articles about concerts, Hoffmann’s translation of “Don Juan”. Reviews German lit. with criticism of Schelling’s lecture on the “philosophy of revelation” in “Notes of the Fatherland”
Art. "Poems of Fet": “a set of catechisms (rules).”
A person can feel, think and express himself poetically without any thought about it. A poetic feeling is characteristic of almost every person, but it varies infinitely, depending on the nature of the person, his moral abilities and his spiritual development. The main advantage in Mr. Fet seems to us to be the lyricism of his feelings. Only the depth, strength and clarity of feeling make it lyrical. The most precious property of truly poetic talent and the surest proof of its reality and power is the originality and originality of motives. G. Fet is primarily a poet of the impressions of nature. In his poems there is a sound that had not been heard before in Russian poetry - this is the sound of a bright, festive feeling of life.
The theory of free creativity - “the artist expresses his feelings and thoughts.” Supporter of unconscious, intuitive, spontaneous art. The fundamental principle is the poetic feeling of people. It is primordial, natural and is the 6th sense (the highest!).
After 57, the critic traveled a lot.
He was an esthete and a gourmet => reflected in the articles. Compares literature with music and painting.
Art. “On the aesthetic significance of the new piano school.”
Collaborated with Telescope and Rumor.
In 1863, after the Polish uprising, B. from a liberal Westerner became a conservative monarchist, together with Fet he wrote a sharply negative review for the Russian Messenger. review of Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?”(was not published).
Having picked up the notorious work and read a few lines, we had to agree with the author’s confession, in the place in the preface where he says: “I don’t have a shadow of talent. I don’t even speak the language well.” There is nothing more difficult and fruitless than talking with the deaf about sounds, with the blind about colors, etc. When asking what to do? how to live? a novel follows, and we can only draw the line at the conclusion and say: therefore, we must do what the people recommended by the author’s sympathy do in the novel, and not do what the people over whom his contempt weighs down do.
B. had long nurtured the idea of creating a book about the history of world painting, but did not have time to implement it; only small excerpts have survived. B.'s letters with analyzes of the novels of Turgenev and L. Tolstoy are of great value. In a letter to A. A. Fet dated June 9, 1869, he described “War and Peace” as follows: “Excluding the pages about Freemasonry, which are of little interest and somehow boringly presented, this novel is excellent in all respects. What brightness and together the depth of the characterization! What a character Natasha is and how sustained she is!”
Turgenev noted that the image of Bazarov “was completely understood... only by two persons: Dostoevsky and Botkin.”
Botkin's style is characterized by clarity, caution, distrust of the reader, and questions to the reader.
PSTGU Bulletin
IV: Pedagogy. Psychology
2007. Vol. 4 (7). pp. 149-177
A Russian's view of modern times
EDUCATION EUROPE
Shevyrev S.P.
Readers are invited to the third and fourth parts of the well-known article by S.P. Shevyrev (1806-1864) “A Russian’s view of modern education in Europe.” In the first two parts of the essay, published in the previous issue of the PSTGU Bulletin (series IV. Pedagogy. Psychology. No. 3), we talked about Italy and England. Despite its fame and numerous references, the article, however, has not been published anywhere else (as far as the author of the publication knows), although it is of undoubted interest not only for a philologist, but also for the history of pedagogy.
The publication was prepared by Ph.D. ist. Sciences, leading researcher at the Institute of Theory and History of Pedagogy of the Russian Academy of Education L.N. Belenchuk
France and Germany are the two parties under whose influence we were directly and now are. In them, one might say, all of Europe is concentrated for us. There is no separating sea or obscuring Alps. Every book, every thought of France and Germany soon resonates with us rather than in any other Western country. Previously, the French influence prevailed: in new generations the German influence prevails. All of educated Russia can be fairly divided into two halves: French and German, according to the influence of one or another education.
That is why it is especially important for us to delve into the current situation of these two countries and the attitude in which we stand towards them. Here we will boldly and sincerely express our opinion, knowing in advance that it will arouse many contradictions, offend many prides, stir up the prejudices of education and teaching, and violate traditions hitherto accepted. But in the issue we are deciding, the first condition is the sincerity of the conviction.
France and Germany were the scenes of two greatest events, to which the entire history of the new West is summed up, or more correctly:
two critical diseases corresponding to each other. These diseases were - the Reformation in Germany, the revolution in France: the disease is the same, only in two different forms. Both were an inevitable consequence of Western development, which accepted the duality of principles and established this discord as a normal law of life. We think that these diseases have already ceased; that both countries, having experienced a turning point in their illness, returned to healthy and organic development. No, we are wrong. Diseases generated harmful juices, which now continue to act and which, in turn, have already produced organic damage in both countries, a sign of future self-destruction. Yes, in our sincere, friendly, close relations with the West, we do not notice that we are dealing as if with a person who carries an evil, contagious illness within himself, surrounded by an atmosphere of dangerous breathing. We kiss him, we hug, we share the meal of thought, we drink the cup of feeling... and we don’t notice the hidden poison in our carefree communication, we don’t smell in the fun of the feast the future corpse that he already smells of!
He captivated us with the luxury of his education; he takes us on his winged steamships, rides us along the railways; without our labor, he pleases all the whims of our sensuality, lavishes before us the wit of thought and the pleasures of art. We are glad that we arrived at the feast ready for such a rich host... We are intoxicated; It’s fun for us to taste for nothing what cost so much. But we do not notice that these dishes contain juice that our fresh nature cannot bear... We do not foresee that the satiated owner, having seduced us with all the delights of a magnificent feast, will corrupt our mind and heart; that we will leave him drunk beyond our years, with a heavy impression from an orgy incomprehensible to us...
But let us rest in faith in Providence, whose finger is evident in our history. Let’s delve deeper into the nature of both ailments and determine for ourselves a lesson in wise protection.
There is a country in which both changes occurred even earlier than in the entire West, and thereby forestalled its development. This country is an island for Europe, both geographically and historically1. The secrets of her inner life have not yet been solved - and no one has decided why both revolutions that took place in her so early did not produce any, at least visible, organic damage.
In France, the great disease has given rise to a corruption of personal freedom that threatens the entire state with complete disorganization. France is proud of having won political freedom; but let's see how she applied it to different sectors of her society.
vein development? What did she accomplish with this acquired instrument in the fields of religion, art, science and literature? We won't talk about politics and industry. Let us only add that the development of its industry is hindered year after year by the willfulness of the lower classes of the people, and that the monarchical and noble character of the luxury and splendor of its products does not at all correspond to the direction of its popular spirit.
What is the present state of religion in France? Religion has two manifestations: personal in individuals, as a matter of everyone’s conscience, and state, as the Church. Therefore, it is possible to consider the development of religion in any nation only from these two points of view. The development of state religion is obvious; it is in front of everyone; but it is difficult to penetrate into her personal, family development, hidden in the secret of people’s life. The latter can be seen either locally, or in literature, or in education.
Since 1830, as is known, France has lost the unity of the state religion. The country, originally Roman Catholic, allowed free Protestantism both in the depths of its people and in the depths of the reigning family. Since 1830, all religious processions of the church, these solemn moments in which she appears as a servant of God before the eyes of the people, have been destroyed in the life of the French people. The most famous rite of the Western Church, the magnificent procession: corpus Domini, performed so brilliantly in all the countries of the Roman Catholic West, is never again performed on the streets of Paris. When a dying person calls upon himself the gifts of Christ before his death, the church sends them without any celebration, the priest brings them secretly, as if during the persecution of Christianity. Religion can perform its rituals only inside temples; she alone seems to be deprived of the right to publicity, while everyone in France uses it with impunity; The churches of France are like the catacombs of the original Christians, who did not dare to take outside the manifestations of their worship of God.
There is a magnificent building in Paris that looks like a temple - it bears the pagan name of the Pantheon. Many French celebrities are buried there; it contains the tombs of Voltaire and Rousseau; It also contains victims of the civil strife of 1830. The French kings had an idea to consecrate this building with Christian significance: an altar to the Christian God was erected in it. But since 1830, France has rejected the shadow of the Cross and dedicated this building to national pride. It now stands, gloomily lonely, without meaning, as a monument to the vanity and vanity of the people, as an incomprehensible anachronism, testifying to the transition from Christianity to some new paganism.
There is another magnificent building in Paris: in appearance it looks like a pagan Parthenon2. Inside it looks like an art gallery awaiting works of art. Gold jewelry entertains your attention in it. This is the Church of Magdalene, a Christian temple in pagan forms, a church without confessors, without bells, symbols of Christian architecture.
Two of the greatest works of religious architecture in Paris may give an idea of the confusion that prevails in the religious concepts of France.
Here are the phenomena of religion in France in its state development. What can we say about the private? It is difficult to judge here based on external impressions of life alone. We will be sincere: we will say both sad and comforting things.
The outward neglect of the Churches, both in the north and in the south of France, produces a kind of sad and painful feeling. I remember, in Lyon, near one round portal of an ancient Gothic church, a sculptured crown of Saints and Angels; centuries they were beheaded during the terrible rampages of the last century. On Sundays I visited the churches of France: for every seven women one could count one man. The famous cemetery in Paris gives a strange feeling to a Russian: Père la Chaise3: you will feel as if you are walking along the street of Pompeii’s coffins, enlarged in size. Some pagan symbols flash before your eyes, and instead of the comforting verbs of St. The civil formula of Scripture: concession à perpétuité4 will most often amaze your eyes. In the midst of the cemetery, where all the outdated greatness of France rests, where wealth has lavished marble, metal and taste on the splendor of monuments, the meager, devoid of any decoration, naked Church will only tell you that you are in a Christian cemetery. I remember an incident in one Parisian church: during a sermon, the riotous mob decided to demand that mass be celebrated at three o'clock instead of at 12, basing their rights on the fact that citizens pay for the maintenance of the Churches and therefore can demand service whenever they please. The time of Lent, respected in all countries of the Roman confession, in Paris is the time of the most joyful orgies of a noisy carnival among the people. All of Europe, even Protestant Europe, does not allow public merriment on those days when the sufferings of the Divine Redeemer are commemorated: during this holy time for Christians, Paris continues all its performances. On that great day, on which pious Christian Russians do not even take food, Paris celebrates spring with the most brilliant, most magnificent festivities, where it lavishes all the luxury, all the splendor of carriages and toilets.
All these phenomena in the external life of the French people do not show religious development in them. But how to solve the same question regarding the internal life of families in France? Literature brings us the saddest news, revealing pictures of this life in its tireless stories. At the same time, I remember the words I heard from the lips of one public mentor, who assured me that all religious morality can be contained in the rules of arithmetic. Such a basis for education must, of course, be reflected in the lives of the students entrusted to such a teacher, and through it in literature reflecting the mores of society.
Let us not hide the fact that there are also comforting phenomena in the religious life of France, there are noble efforts of private individuals that bring honor to all humanity. It is pleasant to see how from the midst of this disordered society, alien to religion, an inspired young man could emerge, with an extraordinary calling of the Faith. Rich in the fascinating gifts of nature and nurture, he sacrifices all the lures of seductive Paris; possessing a wonderful gift of speech, he does not want a platform; No! his aspiration is higher. He flies to Rome, puts on the heavy robe of a monk, gathers a crowd of fiery comrades around him and decides to undertake a feat unheard of for a modern Frenchman, he decides to found a Dominican monastery within the walls of Paris! This young man is Lacordaire6. In a certain city, distant from Paris, there is a modest, eloquent professor, who with living and powerful words nourishes the religious feeling in his listeners and works to solve the great modern question of the reconciliation of philosophy with religion: this Professor Botin7. Another spiritual man wanders in Italy, having left his fatherland due to illness: this is an example of meekness and humility, combined with the important thought of religious contemplation. His pen was able to perfectly reconcile the depth of Christian thought with aesthetic feeling. This chief champion of the most important modern publication in France: the Université Catholique8, is the Abbe Gerbet.
Oh, may the noble, holy efforts of these exemplary zealots of piety be crowned with the desired success in their fatherland! The state of religion in France, which still has such a broad influence on the whole of Europe through its education, literature, theater, is not an exclusively French question: it is a universal, universal question, and who in this case, loving the good of their neighbors, will not share these sincere desires?
Art always develops around religion and receives its best suggestions from it. In 1830, three thousand paintings shone at the Louvre exhibition with the freshness of their colors. There were pictures between them
and religious content; but it is remarkable that there was not a single one of them that resonated with religious animation. In France there is only one painter who can comprehend and by studying recreate the Christian style of painting: this is Ingr9 (1n£geB), a friend of Overbeck. But he has no sympathy in France: he is a victim of parties and a frequent subject of censure in the magazine ah.<...>
It is impossible not to do justice to the French in relation to their tireless activity in art. Much has been done in favor of the beauty of forms, although the traditions of the old French manner are still clearly visible, which is difficult for them to completely abandon. But to another most important question: is there a soul in this art? - our answer will be sad. She's gone.<...>
The main reason for the soullessness of art is the lack of religious feeling in artists and, consequently, in the people of France. Without it, there may be graceful landscapes, similar portraits, heated battles at sea and on land; but there will not be those great creatures in which the highest, purest inspiration of the artist appears.
What is the state of public education in France? Great improvements should have been expected in this regard, especially since 1830, when many of the Sorbonne professors, who were themselves involved in popular teaching, became statesmen. The pedagogical wanderings in Germany and Holland carried out by Cousin10, whose friends were ministers of education and who himself ruled this ministry for some time, although not for long, should have brought some fruit. But, unfortunately, we don’t find anything comforting.
In the primary schools for the people, there are still the same three main shortcomings that existed before. The first is that parents are not obliged to pay any monetary penalty11, as in Germany and Holland, if they do not send their children to public schools. The second drawback is the dominance everywhere (everywhere - L.B.) of the mechanical (formal. - L.B.) Lancastrian method12, which does not in any way develop in the student the mind that is so necessary with immoderate civil freedom. The third drawback is the absence of final schools, which in other countries complete the education of adults, and the complete freedom of parents to take their children out of school when they have not yet completed their studies and, even due to age, could not receive any positive rules of religion and morality. The reason for the first and third shortcomings is that the government cannot overcome the abuse of parental power and fights in vain against it. The reason for the second drawback is only one: the maintenance of the Lancaster method is cheaper for the government than the maintenance
rational. A strong obstacle to the improvement of the original popular education lies in the prejudices of the people, who stand for freedom and believe it even in their right to ignorance. And the prejudices of social life are still so strong in this liberal France that a rich tax farmer does not want to let his son go to the same school that the son of a poor farmer goes to.
In France, only basic education is offered to the people by the government for free. Other education, secondary and higher, is associated with costs that are beyond the means of poor people. In secondary education, preparing for university, there are two directions in France, as elsewhere: classical and real. The first is supported by the government, the second by the people; the first prevails in all schools maintained by the government; the second in all private establishments without exception. Here we also see that the government is in an unpleasant struggle with the will of its subjects. In addition, all lower institutions dependent on the university13 strive to free themselves from university dependence, especially since it, in addition to reporting on teaching, also consists of a monetary tax. Such a struggle between the lower institutions and the higher central one violates all unity and order that constitute the soul of teaching.
Finally, if we look at the University of Paris, where the men who will eventually govern France are finally being formed, then here too we will not find anything comforting for its future. Professors use their freedom for evil by giving lectures on whatever they want, and are not subject to any higher responsibility, any report to their superiors. From this it follows that neither the faculties in their totality, nor the sciences separately, represent any integrity. The professors of France are rhapsodes14, skillfully speaking about some individual subjects, without any thought about science, about its integrity, about the mutual connection between all sciences. The University of Paris is in a state of German feudalism (that is, fragmentation - L.B.), the most wild. Students imitate professors in abusing personal freedom. Who knows from the French newspapers those shameful scenes of student self-will of which Professor Lerminier15 was a victim? Such scenes, of course, were never imagined by prudent Germany. This self-will is visible in all the external rituals of university life. Almost no lecture is completed calmly without the silence being broken by the noise of people coming and going. The strange custom of applause also shows that the French student does not know his relationship to the professor.
I cannot judge the teaching of those sciences that relate to the sphere of practical life. I assume that medicine, natural sciences, rights and, in general, all knowledge necessary for society and applied to external benefits should flourish in France. But as for those humane, disinterested sciences that lay the foundation for human education among the people, as for philosophy, ancient philology, modern literature, general history and even the history of France, their teaching is in complete decline and in the most pitiful state. The reason for this is obvious. Those who were called upon to maintain the dignity of the central university of France and strengthen its future by educating young generations, those, carried away by the glory of the tribune and the temptations of political life, shied away from their high and sacred calling, but retained the benefits that were associated with their professorships16. And here again is the abuse of personal freedom, which is corrupted by political life!
Literature among the people is always the result of their cumulative development in all branches of human education. From the previous, the reasons for the decline of modern literature in France, the works of which, unfortunately, are too well known in our Fatherland, can now be clear. A people who, through the abuse of personal freedom, destroyed the sense of religion in themselves, despirited art and made science meaningless, had, of course, to bring the abuse of their freedom to the highest extreme in literature, unbridled either by the laws of the state or the opinion of society. It is quite remarkable how, for some time now, scholarly works have become rare in France, the fruits of many years of office activity. The historical works of both Thierry, Augustine and Amédée17, are among the rare phenomena in France. The three volumes of the History of Ancient French Literature, published by Ampère18, seem to modern critics to be the work of a Benedictine19. When you walk through the halls of the Royal Library and look at the countless volumes of unpublished manuscripts in its cabinets, the works of former scientists of France, completed even without the hope of showing them to the world, you look at them with reverence and remember with compassion how the scientist of her generation has now changed!
But in the so-called fine literature, what activity! How many writers! How many ephemeral phenomena! How many bastards or fiends of fantasy! So many storytellers! Everything that the depraved imagination of some writer invents in the silence of his office, all this immediately becomes the property of the people, flows from the world of fantasy into the juices of their life! You don't really know who
Who is corrupted more: literature or society, or society or literature?
Here we will not go into a detailed description of the physiognomies of the most remarkable writers of modern France, leaving that to ourselves later. We will limit ourselves to only a few general features literature, captured for the most part on the spot.
Fine literature in France occupies a very low level in public life. It is completely suppressed by politics and industry20. Everything that is talented in literature strives for the platform and craves political glory. From here you can understand Lamartine’s metamorphosis21 from poet to orator. That is why Balzac, unable to take the place of a deputy, wants to at least be a lawyer and act from the judicial platform, if the political platform is not available to him. V. Hugo creates a platform for himself on stage; there are two poets in him: the poet of his inner life, an animated lyricist, rich in true beauties, and a poet of the people, a dramatic orator who, before an audience of blue blouses, comes out frantic, exaggerated, hideously terrible. Two natures seemed to be combined in one person: one is quiet, gentle, thoughtful, often graceful, sublime and noble; the other is violent, ardent, depraved, ready for violence. This two-line phenomenon in the first poetic talent of modern France is explained from the relationship between poetry and its social life. Either mediocre writers or a few sincere priests of art who have a poetic vocation and are not disturbed by the stormy passions of state ambition remain faithful to the modest world of French fiction. There are very few of the latter, like Alfred de Vigny22, Karl Nodier23.
Finding themselves in such an unpleasant humiliation before the political world, feeling the full weight of it, oppressing them into the most unenviable position, the writers of France, out of a similar feeling of vengeance, all for the most part belong to the party of the dissatisfied and form, if not entirely political, then at least the printed opposition, which is much harmful to the prosperity and tranquility of France. From here, from this literary aggregation, all the furies of the restless journals of the opposition; hence all the corrupt poisonous feathers hired by retired ministers for the hidden designs of their wounded ambition. Here literature has been turned into one craft, corrupt, like any other, with the only difference that here the sacred gift of God, the word given to man for higher purposes, is sold, and is used to satisfy petty passions and to seduce people from the true path. Such is the relationship of literature to political
good life in France. She takes out her humiliation on her, sowing a rebellious spirit among the people and corrupting their morals.
All writers with the gift of style are assigned to political magazines and act together with them. Journalism, supported by this literary gathering, this ever-writing coalition, constantly moving all the printing presses of Paris, has formed such a force in France, against which the voices of the best speakers, concerned about the good of their fatherland, have more than once rebelled.
Reading the works of its novelists outside France, you think that their imagination is much more depraved than life itself, that the faces and morals of their romantic world are a blatant slander against their own fatherland. But, looking closely at France, unfortunately, you are convinced of the opposite. Yes, this frantic, this ugly literature of France is a terrible mirror of its life. These material interests, which absorb all human feelings, to which the content of all of Balzac’s current novels and stories can be summed up, is a sad truth on which the imagination of its best storyteller seems to have become obsessed. The notes stolen from the devil by his friend Soulier are a true chronicle of stagecoaches and back streets of France, the story of how its capital corrupts peaceful and kind provinces. If writers branded such a life with the scourge of menacing satire, their title would be sacred; but they act in concert with society itself. They are his faithful children and servants; their imagination itself grew up in the midst of this disgusting world.<...>
This spoiled imagination and taste of the people, accustomed to looking for some caustic novelty, something terrible, unusual, are tried to please by chatty magazines from the trade types, vying with each other about every elegant crime, about every trial that disgraces the history of human morality, about every execution that is colorfully the story can only give rise to a new victim for her in the reader. All the stains darkening on humanity are here before the eyes of the people; the whole world appears to him in its blackness alone; but who ever tells him about virtues? who talks about the exploits of the soul and heart? Murders, vices and executions are public; A hundred thousand magazine rumors thunder about them in the ears of thirty million people of France: virtue alone, like religion, has no publicity. Only occasionally, once a year, will the French Academy announce the Montion Prizes24 for deeds of goodness that it has found somewhere; but the novelists of France laugh at them and are in no hurry to publish their journals, greedy only for the baseness of humanity.
How terrible must be the future of that people, where the literature of the real world and the literature of the world of fantasy are vying with each other?
before his eyes a hasty chronicle of everything that can disgrace mankind!
The lack of mental and moral unity in French fiction, carried away only by selfish interests, is also reflected in the social relations of writers among themselves. Having no thought that would unite them, not feeling the loftiness of their calling, they are all divided into small parties, each of which has its own luminary. These are not schools divided by opinions of taste; these are not parties arguing over political opinions; this is not a struggle of truth and love for the beautiful and true with charlatanism and ignorance. No, the basis of the discord is personal pride, thirsting for primacy. Therefore, the writers of France do not form any special class, bound by unity of thought and vocation: this phenomenon seems incomprehensible among the people who created communal society, and yet we can vouch for its loyalty. The French Academy, which alone, according to its long-standing traditions, could support the social dignity of literature and serve as some kind of center for the union of writers, is in a relationship hostile to the new generation and is therefore alien to any influence.
The decline of literature and morals is even more clearly visible on the stage of France. Drama is one of the necessary needs of her people: fifteen theaters in Paris are open every day and filled with public, greedy for spectacles of all kinds. Here is a new powerful tool for education or corruption! This literature is subject to the strictest censorship, which, while absolutely prohibiting everything political, very favorably allows everything that can spoil morals and please the base passions of a jaded public.<...>
We will conclude the sad picture of France by pointing out one common feature that is clearly noticeable in almost all its contemporary writers. All of them themselves feel the painful state of their fatherland in all sectors of its development; they all unanimously point to the decline of his religion, politics, education, sciences, and literature itself, which is their own business. In any work concerning modern life, you will surely find several pages, several lines devoted to condemnation of the present. Their common voice can sufficiently cover and reinforce our own in this case. But here's what's strange! That feeling of apathy that is always accompanied by such censures, which have become a kind of habit among the writers of France, have become a fashion, have become a common place. Every ailment among the people is terrible, but even more terrible is the cold hopelessness with which those who should be the first to think about means to cure it speak about it.
Let us cross the Rhine, to the country neighboring us, and try to delve into the mystery of its intangible development. Firstly, we are struck by the striking contrast with the land from which we have just emerged, this external improvement of Germany in everything that concerns its state, civil and social development. What order! how slim! You are amazed at the German prudence, which knew how to remove from itself all possible temptations of its rebellious Trans-Rhine neighbors and strictly confine itself to the sphere of its own life. The Germans even harbor a kind of open hatred or high contempt for the abuse of personal freedom that infects all parts of French society. The sympathy of some German writers for French self-will found almost no echo in prudent Germany and did not leave any harmful trace in its entire external life! This country, in its different parts, can present excellent examples of development in all branches of complex human education. Its state structure is based on the love of its sovereigns for the good of its subjects and on the obedience and devotion of these latter to their rulers. Its civil structure rests on the laws of the purest and most frank justice, inscribed in the hearts of its rulers and in the minds of its subjects called to the execution of civil affairs. Its universities are flourishing and spreading the treasures of learning throughout all the lower institutions entrusted with the education of the people. Art is developing in Germany in such a way that it now places it in worthy rivals with its mentor, Italy. Industry and domestic trade are making rapid progress. Everything that serves to facilitate relations between its various possessions, everything that modern civilization can be proud of in relation to the conveniences of life, such as mail, customs, roads, etc., all this is excellent in Germany and elevates it to the level of a country. , which excels in its external improvement on the solid ground of Europe. What does she seem to lack for her unshakable eternal prosperity?
But above this solid, happy, well-ordered appearance of Germany floats another intangible, invisible world of thought, completely separate from its external world. Her main illness is there, in this abstract world, which has no contact with her political and civil structure. Among the Germans, in a miraculous way, mental life is separated from external, social life. Therefore, in the same German you can very often meet two people: external and internal. The first one will be the most likely
a most obedient subject of his sovereign, a truth-loving and zealous citizen of his fatherland, an excellent family man and unfailing friend, in a word, a zealous performer of all his external duties; but take the same man inside, penetrate into his mental world: you can find in him the most complete corruption of thought - and in this world inaccessible to the eye, in this intangible mental sphere, the same German, meek, submissive, faithful in the state , society and family, is violent, frantic, raping everything, not recognizing any other power over his thoughts. This is the same ancient unbridled ancestor whom Tacitus saw in all his native wildness emerging from his treasured forests, with the only difference being that the new, educated one transferred his freedom from the external world to the mental world. Yes, depravity of thought is the invisible illness of Germany, generated in it by the Reformation and deeply hidden in its internal development.
Germany, as a country of philosophy, can be divided philosophically according to the three constituent elements of man: body, soul and spirit. Prussia will, of course, be a country of spirit: it is the center of Protestantism; it is the cradle and nursery of German philosophy. The University of Berlin knew how to attract to itself all the leading minds of Germany in all parts of the sciences - and one must think that it will finally establish for itself the power and scepter of German learning. It is impossible not to notice that Russia is in the happiest relationship with this university and draws science from where its source is deeper and more abundant. If Prussia personifies the spirit of Germany, then Austria, of course, is the representative of its body. This is the most enlightened, most refined materialism brilliantly applied to the life of the state and the people. Everything that the human body can nourish, clothe, and delight its senses with is excellent in Austria, and even elementary schools to the extent that they are needed for the convenience of life, and even Faculty of Medicine, absorbing all other branches of university education. The middle between Prussia and Austria is occupied by Bavaria with its neighboring southern and Rhineland countries: it is somewhat trying to reconcile the abstract spiritual direction of Prussia with Austrian materialism. She, together with her neighboring country, Swabia, revealed to herself this special spiritual principle, a fusion of mind and feeling, which in German is correctly expressed by the word Gemеth25 and which has no expression in other languages. In relation to religion, Bavaria also represents a happy middle ground, and it would only have been possible to reconcile the dry, abstract Protestantism of Prussia with the material Catholicism of Austria, if some learned men under the influence had not prevented it.
strong influence of the Jesuits. This spiritual and religious principle, developed in Bavaria and on the banks of the Rhine, greatly contributes to the prosperity of art in these countries. Munich and Dusseldorf are his two capitals in modern Germany. The Protestant trend of Prussia, the predominance of Hegelian26 philosophy, in which there is no living sense of nature, are the reasons why art has not found a home in Berlin, despite the fact that the sciences are here at the highest level of their development. In Austria, art does not bloom for other reasons: although it descends to human feelings, ennobling and elevating their pleasures, it cannot bloom where a person is immersed in only the crude materialism of sensuality and where all mental development is eliminated.
Munich is, of course, now one of those wonderful cities where the attention of an educated traveler who wants to follow modern European developments flocks. The crowned patron of art27 with his power and thought drives his seething activity in his capital. Eight hundred artists inhabit the city of 80,000 inhabitants. Temples, palaces, galleries, public buildings, monuments quickly rise one after another and decorate the capital. There, on the high bank of the Danube, on a rock, the Scandinavian-German Valhalla is erected in the form of the Greek Parthenon28. In Munich you enter the palace of the king: walk through its rooms - and in paintings and bas-reliefs created by the best artists, you will go through the entire history of Greek poetry; in the queen’s rooms you will see the entire history of German poetry, from the Song of the Nibelungs to the works of Tieck. Another new palace is being erected, where painting and sculpture lavish all their riches. Twelve colossal bronze statues dipped in gold will be cast to decorate the palace halls. Close to it stands a new, newly built church in the Byzantine style. There, behind the Isar29, a Gothic temple stretches its patterned arrow towards the sky. Two white towers appeared on the other side of the city: this is the Church of St. Louis in the Renaissance style.<...>
Bronze monuments rise in the middle of the squares. The paintings sparkle with bright colors on the Isar Gate, on the pediment of the theater, on the post office building, in the galleries of the bazaar.
Art flourishes in Munich under the auspices of royal power; but on the banks of the Rhine there is a picturesque town where it has found shelter in the presence of beautiful nature and where it blooms solely through the labors and efforts of artists inspired by the selfless love of art. The school of little Düsseldorf competes with the Munich one and even prevails over the latter with its lively flavor.<...>
The brilliant development of German art is in no way matched by the development of artistic literature. This decline of German poetry is sad, this is its helpless state after the death of Goethe30. If anywhere the opinion of the Hegelists, who believe that poetry is one of the stages of man in his desire for an all-consuming philosophy, can be justified by local phenomena, then this is, of course, in Germany. This opinion cannot be applied to the general development of mankind, but here it has the meaning of a local truth; it is extracted deeply from the people's consciousness. German poetry was exactly a step towards the development of philosophy; she carried it within herself like a child. Schiller31 and Goethe predicted Hegel with their works. That is why the philosopher himself loved, and his students now love to refer to the poems of Schiller and Goethe, as poetic premonitions of those thoughts that Hegel later achieved through logical deductions. German poetry, expressing the life of its people, necessarily had to contain a philosophical element, which later, having mastered the others, ruined it. Goethe's last symbolic works show too strong a predominance of this element: this is the second part of his Faust. Here I see how German poetry is decaying and ready to turn into a philosophical skeleton. This is why the Hegelists declare special sympathy for the second half of Goethe’s Faust: in this rotting of poetry is the germ of their own existence! To use Goethe's comparison: Faust and Helen in Germany produced their Euphorion32; but this was not a lively, playful, volatile, restless Byron, as in Goethe’s drama, but a dry abstract of philosophy: The Euphorion of German poetry was Hegelian logic.
A very remarkable phenomenon is the poetry of Germany in relation to its local development. The northwestern part, the cradle of her philosophy, was completely barren in relation to this art. The South contained poetic substance, this endless lyricism, an element always abundant in German poetry. The most brilliant development of all types of this art followed from middle Germany, where both its elements could be combined and reconciled. But it is clear that the philosophical element was predominant. Southern Germany is still rich in lyrical ether; even Austria produces poets who are remarkable in this field. However, since philosophy in the north reached its full development and said the decisive and final word, since then poetry has not produced anything remarkable and is still limited in the south to lyrics alone.<...>
The magazine and trade trend, which prudent Germany did not avoid in its literature, brought a lot of harm there, as elsewhere. All scientists who care about the benefits of domestic sciences,
everyone with whom I happened to talk about the state of German literature deeply sympathizes with this and recognizes the unfortunate traces of this influence on the young generation, which is being avoided from important and practical studies in science and the Russian word for some empty chatty fiction, imported from others and indecent important German spirit.
Previously, in its flourishing days, German literature cared little about the beauty of the forms of its prose style and even less about the luxury of publications: appearance in all respects gave way to decisive primacy to the wealth of internal content, the sensible world of thought. The difficult and long Latin period, gray paper and bad, barely legible printing: these were, during that time, the external signs of German literature. Today's writers in Germany have embarked on the beauty of style and want, at all costs, to transform their ponderous prose: stylism kills everything. Impoverished in thought, Germany began to study the beauty of the forms of language. Publishers, for their part, are ashamed of gray paper and bad type: they have indulged in typographic luxury, and publications of German fiction want to outdo French ones in external elegance. And German literature declares its rights to shine in ladies' boudoir! What would the Klopstocks, Lessings, Wielands, Herders33, and even Schiller and Goethe say, seeing such cutesy panache in the literature they created and accustomed to moderation in everything that concerns its external life?
The former important character of German literature is also lost due to the many popular works and publications in which they teach the people everything cheaply and haphazardly. Cheap literature for all classes also appeared in Germany. Here the cheapness is in stark contrast to the high cost of dandy fiction.
It is curious to see how, in this case, a country that has given everyone else an example of thorough and thoughtful education and teaching, abandons its own methods in favor of the superficial methods of those peoples who, of course, cannot serve as an example for it in this matter.
They also notice a strong development of criticism in Germany: yes, there is a lot of criticism, but there are few critics!<...>
It has now become very fashionable to publish reviews of modern literature: this usually serves as a debut for young athletes performing in the field. Just as before, every talented student, having completed a university course and feeling a vocation as a writer, began by composing some kind of Aesthetics, invented in his spare time in the quiet of his office, so now everyone writes for a literary debut.
that review. This fashion has become so strong in Germany that it threatens over time to turn all its literature into reviews of reviews alone.
But, of course, it is not empty fiction of Germany that concentrates the most important questions of its modern life. It is not in this area that what is now most remarkable in its literature lies. Main question The vital question that now occupies it is a religious-philosophical question that arose from the greatest event in its history - from the Reformation. After its artistic episode, which concluded with the brilliant phenomenon of Goethe, Germany returns again to its old, fundamental question, the solution of which it has been solving all its life. Yes, the Reformation is not over yet: the struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism is renewed hotly and is preparing for something final. The difference between present and ancient debates is that these latter took place in active life, and were even transferred to the battlefield, while the current ones take place peacefully in the mental area, but have, perhaps, a much higher significance in their inevitable consequences than those which were carried out noisily and bloodily.
We hinted above that Germany, in relation to the religious issue, is divided into two sharp halves: the northeastern and southwestern, of which the first is a representative of Protestantism, the second of Catholicism. What state are both parties in now? Did they move towards each other, at least to some extent? Have they made mutual concessions in favor of truth and the well-being of the fatherland? Not at all. Both parties go to complete extremes: their inner rage, which previously came out in material battles, is now concentrated in the mental world and hardened. Protestantism, on the one hand, destroys all traditions and introduces perfect, complete freedom, violating all unity, all possibility of wholeness: this is the wildest feudalism in religion, complete disunity. On the other hand, Catholicism will stagnate in the inveterate prejudices of papism; does not move forward at all, does not at all respond to the demands of the age; adheres strictly to its cherished traditions, its material benefits, based on the superstitious ignorance of the people, and again gives freedom, opens a full field for action to that order, whose name has been branded with horror by the history of Europe34. A middle ground between these two extremes is impossible; connection - absolutely cannot arise; Germany in the religious and moral world is threatened by complete disintegration, which can be disastrous in its consequences.
What role does philosophy play in this great, ancient dispute? Her kingdom, as is known, is in the north; center - Berlin.
Being herself a product of Protestantism, she, of course, must be faithful to the principles that she received from him. Carried away by the pride of reason, she decisively declared her liberation, and, like Gregory VII35, her infallibility.
Hegel, as we know, said the last word to German philosophy - and after his death he did not bequeath his dominance and primacy to anyone. Now his teaching has become the prey of many and has given rise to different interpretations. It is known that it is still limited almost to Prussia alone: Berlin, Konigsberg and Halle comprise its main representatives. But in Berlin itself this teaching has strong opponents in the religious school, headed by Neander36, and in the historical school, headed by Savigny37. Hegelian philosophy has not yet penetrated either Göttingen,38 or the banks of the Rhine, or Munich. There was no Hegelian teaching in Göttingen, even at a time when its university was flourishing and when it was distinguished by a particularly German national trend.
The reason that Hegel's teaching does not find such a universal echo in all universities in Germany is twofold: firstly, the complete impossibility of subordinating this philosophy to the Christian religion and thereby satisfying the need that is felt especially in southwestern Catholic Germany; secondly, the private, Prussian side of this philosophy, which, in addition to general and local significance in the country where it was formed, and is part of the management system. This particular-national character of philosophy seems to be offensive to the general German nationality. Almost all the inferior states of Germany had already adopted the customs system of Prussia; but Prussian philosophy is not accepted because in the matter of the mind national exclusivity is offensive: the mark on a product is not as heavy as on a thought.
It is known that Hegel’s teaching is now expounded by his students: there are few works left written by the pen of the teacher himself. But not all students are faithful to the thoughts of their mentor: in each of them these thoughts take on a special shade; Often the followers of the same philosopher contradict each other, and often contradict themselves in such a way that it is difficult from all these scattered members to form a single, complete, true to oneself in everything, and a real, genuine, unadulterated Hegel. You can’t help but remember Horace’s disjecti membra, but not Poetae, but philosophi39. The general opinion prevails in Berlin that of all exponents the most faithful and accurate in presentation is Goto,40 the publisher of Hegel's Aesthetics.
But of all the followers of the great and last philosopher of Prussia, of all the branches into which his teaching is now divided,
The best and most useful side is represented by those who contain the field of philosophy in one pure area of thinking, in one logic, as Hegel concluded it before, and do not apply their principles to any science or to any other human development. This kind of philosophical exercise can be useful separately, for the refinement of human thought, and is alien to the harm that they cause if applied to anything. The great master of intangible and elusive speculations himself did not like the abstract mental principle of his Logic to be applied to anything real: for it was crushed at the first touch of any substance. This is how the most prudent of Hegel’s students deal with his philosophy, and the head of this school of pure thinkers can be placed as a young professor in Berlin, Werder,41 teaching logic, who combines an extraordinary gift of speech with the depth of speculation. This also includes Feuerbach42, who lives in Mannheim and still does not have such a field of activity as the University of Berlin opens to Werder.
This isolation of philosophy from other branches of human development and the limitation of its possessions to the pure ether of thought was very wisely invented by those who foresee in advance the harm that could flow from its applications. But no less than that, the question of the relationship in which religion and philosophy should stand among themselves exists and is heard loudly, especially in southern Germany, which cannot accept the decision of the north, which is contrary to Christian feeling.
This question, the greatest of the questions of modern humanity, thunders not only there, but everywhere where man thinks. It reverberates here too, perhaps even more strongly than elsewhere. In all countries there are scientists working to the best of their ability to resolve it. But everyone's eyes are turned to that country, which in our time was the birthplace of European philosophy. Everyone expects from her: what will she say?
There, in midday Germany, there is a man on whom the eyes of everyone involved in resolving this issue are fixed. It rightfully befits him: for he himself occupied a place among the philosophers of Germany, he himself contributed to the development of science - and suddenly the giant of thought stopped and bowed his humble brow before Religion. Everyone knows that this phenomenon took place in him out of pure conviction, without any external influences, without any concessions: this is the highest psychological fact of our century, and it is all the more remarkable because, having occurred initially in the soul of the head of the thinker, it was repeated in
all his disciples who, together with their mentor, not knowing about his inner change, felt the same need in themselves; They stopped at the same question, their heads drooping. Everyone is waiting impatiently: what will the teacher say? when will he open his silent lips? when will he make a great confession in the face of the world and bring knowledge to the foot of Faith?
Everyone is waiting for Schellingov's feat43, but Schelling is silent and ossified in his silence. Meanwhile, the elder’s strength is weakening, and time may rob him of the opportunity to accomplish a great deed. But what does Schelling's silence mean? It cannot stem from a lack of conviction: the noble character of the thinker guarantees that the conviction was pure and complete. Out of a feeling of powerlessness? This cannot be assumed in a head like Schelling’s. Moreover, the inner consciousness of truth should give it even greater strength. Is it not out of pride, as many explain? It’s unpleasant to renounce alive your entire past, to destroy your entire previous life by voluntary consciousness of your errors in the face of the whole world! No, we don't think so. The renunciation is complete, everyone knows it. It remains a new feat in the chronicles of the thoughts of Christian humanity to crown one’s life and perpetuate the memory for the good of the truth! No, pride cannot be offended here: here it is high food, even if it required it.
No, we think that the reason for Schelling’s silence is deeper: it is not in himself, not in his personality, not in his relationships. No, this reason is outside of him, it is in Germany itself. If the philosopher had been confident that his new religious philosophy, clearly recognized by himself, would produce complete conviction in the majority of Germany, he, of course, would not have been slow in accomplishing his feat. But he probably has a presentiment of the opposite and therefore does not dare. If we called Schelling’s appeal to the Christian religion and his idea to subordinate German philosophy to it the highest psychological event of our century, then, on the other hand, his stubborn silence is a fact no less remarkable, testifying to us deeply that the spiritual disintegration in Germany has taken place and that reconciliation philosophy with religion, subject to subordination on the part of the first of them, is impossible. Schelling's silence is the most obvious and best proof of this.
Speaking about those learned men who work beneficially in the field of religious philosophy, I cannot fail to mention Baader44, who acts more openly than Schelling, and, despite his advanced years, works cheerfully and tirelessly. His teaching is based on purely Christian principles and is even applied to dog-
mats of the original Church. It is true that it has not been brought into strict logical system and has a rhapsodic character. But Baader is a fierce opponent of papism, also an opponent of the Protestant party, and therefore cannot have a field for his philosophical activity in Bavaria, nor does he arouse sympathy in the north. His futile efforts, not supported by any followers, also serve as proof of the sad truth that we learned from Schelling’s silence.
Yes, discord philosophical beginning with the religious there is an event that is obvious from everywhere in the life of Germany: this is its weak side, its Achilles heel45. Its external state and civil structure is strong; but spoiled by organic damage to her inner world. The great reason for everything, its inevitable illness is the Reformation. But the original root of evil lies even deeper; he is at the very beginning of Western development. The man who first dared to call himself the living vicar of Christ and the visible head of the Church gave birth to Luther, who denied the Pope, and his extreme Antichrist, who has already arisen in modern Germany and, like a worm, is eating away at its moral and spiritual existence.
The direction that those two countries that have made and are making a strong influence on us are now taking is so contrary to the beginning of our life, so inconsistent with everything that has happened to us, that we all internally, more or less, recognize the need to sever our further ties with the West in the literary sense. respect. I, of course, am not talking here about those glorious examples of his great past, which we must always study: they, as the property of all humanity, belong to us, and to us by right are the closest and direct heirs in the line of peoples entering the stage of the living and the current world. I’m not talking about those modern writers who in the West, seeing for themselves the direction of humanity around them, arm themselves against it and oppose it: such writers sympathize with us a lot and even impatiently await our activities. They, however, are a small exception. I do not mean, of course, those scientists who work on certain individual parts of the sciences and gloriously cultivate their fields. No, I’m talking in general about the spirit of Western education, about its main thoughts and the movement of its new literature. Here we encounter phenomena that seem incomprehensible to us, which, in our opinion, do not follow from anything, which we are afraid of, and sometimes pass through
passing them indifferently, senselessly, or with a feeling of some kind of childish curiosity that irritates our eyes.
Russia, fortunately, has not experienced those two great ailments, which harmful extremes begin to act strongly there: hence the reason why the phenomena there are incomprehensible to her and why she cannot connect them with anything of her own. Peacefully and prudently she contemplated the development of the West: taking it as a precautionary lesson for her life, she happily avoided the discord or duality of principles to which the West was subjected in its internal development, and preserved its cherished and all-powerful unity; she adopted for herself only what could be appropriate for her in a universal human sense and rejected what was extraneous. And now, when the West, like Mephistopheles at the conclusion of Goethe’s Faust, preparing to open that fiery abyss to which it is striving, appears to us and thunders its terrible: Komm! Komm!46, - Russia will not follow him: she did not give him any vow, did not connect her existence with his existence by any agreement: she did not share his ailments with him; it has preserved its great unity, and in a fatal moment, perhaps, it was appointed by Providence to be His great instrument for the salvation of mankind.
Let us not hide the fact that our literature, in its relations with the West, has developed some shortcomings.
We bring them to three. The first of them is a characteristic feature of our moment, there is indecision. It is clear from everything that has been said above. We cannot continue literary development together with the West, because we have no sympathy for its modern works: in ourselves we have not yet fully discovered the source of our own national development, although there have been some successful attempts. The magical charm of the West still has a strong effect on us, and we cannot suddenly abandon it. I believe this indecision is one of the main reasons for the stagnation that has continued for several years in our literature. We wait in vain for modern inspirations from where we previously drew them; The West sends us what our minds and hearts reject. We are now left to our own devices; we must inevitably confine ourselves to the rich past of the West and look for our own in our ancient history. The activity of new generations, entering our field under the usual influence of the latest thoughts and phenomena of the modern West, is involuntarily paralyzed by the impossibility of applying what is there to ours, and every young man seething with strength, if he looks into the depths of his soul, will see that all the ardent delight and all the inner his strength is constrained by a feeling of heavy and idle indecision. Yes, all of literary Russia is now playing Hercules,
standing at a crossroads: the West insidiously beckons her, but of course Providence has destined her for a different path.
The second shortcoming in our literature, closely related to the previous one, is distrust of one’s own strengths. Until when, in any matter, will the last book of the West, the last issue of a magazine, act on us with some kind of magical force and fetter all our own thoughts? How long will we greedily swallow only ready-made results, derived there from a way of thinking that is completely alien to us and does not agree with our traditions? Do we really not feel strong enough to take on the sources ourselves and discover within ourselves a new view of the entire history and literature of the West? This is a necessity for us and a service for him, which even we owe to him: no one can be impartial in his work, and peoples, like poets, when creating their being, do not reach his consciousness, which is left to their heirs.
Finally, our third shortcoming, the most unpleasant, from which we suffer most in our literature, is Russian apathy, a consequence of our friendly relations with the West. Plant a young, fresh plant under the shade of a hundred-year-old cedar or oak, which will cover its young existence with the old shadow of its wide branches, and only through them will feed it with the sun and cool it with heavenly dew, and will give its fresh roots little food from the greedy, hardened in that land their roots. You will see how a young plant will lose the colors of its youthful life and will suffer from the premature old age of its decrepit neighbor; but cut down the cedar, return the sun to its young tree, and it will find strength within itself, will rise vigorously and freshly, and with its strong and harmless youth will even be able to gratefully cover the new shoots of its fallen neighbor.
Assign an old nanny to a living, playful child: you will see how the ardor of age will disappear in him, and his seething life will be shackled by insensibility. Make friends with an ardent young man, full of all the hopes of life, with a mature, disappointed husband, who has squandered his life, who has lost both faith and hope with it: you will see how your ardent young man will change; disappointment will not stick to him; he did not deserve it by his past; but all his feelings are shrouded in the cold of inactive apathy; his fiery eyes will fade; he, like Freishitz47, will tremble his terrible guest; in front of him, he will be ashamed of both his blush and his ardent feelings, blush with his delight and, like a child, put on an unbecoming mask of disappointment.
Yes, the disappointment of the West has given rise to cold apathy in us. Don Juan produced Eugene Onegin, one of the common Russian types,
aptly captured by Pushkin’s brilliant thought from our modern life. This character is often repeated in our literature: our narrators dream about it, and just recently one of them, who brilliantly emerged as a poet, depicted to us the same Russian apathy, even more so, in the person of his hero48, whom we, in our national feeling, We wouldn’t like to, but we must recognize him as a hero of our time.
The last shortcoming is, of course, the one with which we must struggle most of all in our modern life. This apathy is the reason in us both for the laziness that overcomes our fresh youth, and for the inactivity of many writers and scientists who betray their high calling and are distracted from it by the cramped world of housekeeping or large types of all-consuming trade and industry; in this apathy is the germ of that worm of melancholy, which each of us more or less felt in our youth, sang in poetry and tired of our most supportive readers. But if we have endured some inevitable shortcomings from our relations with the West, we have kept three fundamental feelings pure in ourselves, in which are the seed and guarantee of our future development.
We have retained our ancient religious feeling. The Christian Cross laid its sign on our entire initial education, on all of Russian life. Our ancient mother Rus' blessed us with this cross and with it sent us on the dangerous road of the West. Let's express it in a parable. The boy grew up in a bright parental home, where everything breathed the fear of God; The face of his gray-haired father, kneeling before the holy icon, was imprinted on his first memory: he did not get up in the morning, did not go to bed without his parent’s blessing; Every day was sanctified by prayer, and before every holiday, his family’s house was also a house of prayer. The boy left his parents' house early; cold people surrounded him and clouded his soul with doubt; evil books corrupted his thoughts and froze his feelings; he was visiting peoples who do not pray to God and think that they are happy. A turbulent time of youth passed. The young man has matured into a husband. His family surrounded him, and all the memories of childhood rose, like bright angels, from the bosom of his soul... and the feeling of religion awoke more vividly and strongly. and his whole being was sanctified again, and the proud thought dissolved in the pure prayer of humility. And a new world of life opened up to his eyes. The parable is clear to each of us: is it necessary to interpret its meaning?
The second feeling with which Russia is strong and which ensured its future prosperity is the feeling of its state unity,
which we also learned from our entire history. Of course, there is no country in Europe that could be proud of such harmony of its political existence as our Fatherland. In the West, almost everywhere, discord has begun to be recognized as the law of life, and the entire existence of peoples is accomplished in a difficult struggle. With us, only the Tsar and the people form one inseparable whole, which does not tolerate any barrier between them: this connection is based on a mutual feeling of love and faith and on the endless devotion of the people to their Tsar. This is the treasure that we brought from our ancient life, which the divided West looks at with particular envy, seeing in it an inexhaustible source of state power. He would like to take it away from us with everything he can; but now I can’t, because the old, accepted feeling of our unity, which we brought from our previous life, having gone through all the temptations of education, having passed all doubts, has risen in every educated Russian, who understands his history, to the level of a clear and lasting consciousness - and now this conscious feeling will remain, more than ever, unshakable in our Fatherland.
Our third fundamental feeling is the consciousness of our nationality and the confidence that any education can only take firm root in us when it is assimilated by our national feeling and expressed in popular thought and word. In this feeling lies the reason for our indecision to continue literary development with the exhausting West; in this feeling there is a powerful barrier to all his temptations; All the private, fruitless efforts of our compatriots to instill in us that which does not suit the Russian mind and the Russian heart are crushed by this feeling; this feeling is the measure of the lasting success of our writers in the history of literature and education, it is the touchstone of their originality. It was expressed strongly in the best works of each of them: Lomonosov, Derzhavin, Karamzin, Zhukovsky, Krylov, Pushkin, and all those close to them, despite any Latin, French, concluded, agreed and responded to each other. , German, English or other influence. This feeling now directs us to the study of our ancient Rus', which, of course, preserves the original pure image of our nation. The government itself actively encourages us to do so. With this feeling, our two capitals are related and act together, and what is planned in the north passes through Moscow, as through the heart of Russia, in order to turn into the blood and living juices of our people. Moscow is that faithful crucible in which everything that comes from the West is burned out and receives the pure stamp of the Russian people.
With three fundamental feelings our Rus' is strong and its future is certain. The husband of the Royal Council, to whom the emerging generations are entrusted, has long ago expressed them with deep thought; and they are the basis for the education of the people49.
The West, by some strange instinct, does not like these feelings in us, and especially now, having forgotten our former goodness, forgetting the sacrifices made to it from us, in any case expresses its dislike for us, even similar to some kind of hatred that is offensive to every Russian visiting his lands. This feeling, undeserved by us and senselessly contradicting our previous relations, can be explained in two ways: either the West in this case resembles a grumpy old man who, in the capricious impulses of his impotent age, is angry with his heir, who is inevitably called upon to take possession of his treasures over time; or another: he, knowing by instinct our direction, anticipates the gap that must inevitably follow between him and us, and he himself, with a gust of his unjust hatred, even more accelerates the fatal moment.
In disastrous eras of turning points and destruction, such as the history of mankind represents, Providence sends in the person of other peoples a preserving and observing force: may Russia be such a force in relation to the West! May she preserve for the benefit of all mankind the treasures of his great past and may she prudently reject everything that serves to destruction and not to creation! May she find in herself and in her former life a source of her own people, in which everything alien, but humanly beautiful, will merge with the Russian spirit, the vast, universal, Christian spirit, the spirit of comprehensive tolerance and universal communication!
Notes
2 The famous temple in Athens, one of the best examples of ancient architecture.
3 Pere la Chaise, a cemetery that still exists in Paris today.
4 Concession a perpetuite (French) - the right to lease land.
5 Auguste Comte considered the main tasks of education to be the teaching of physical and mathematical sciences.
6 Lacordaire Henri Dominique (1802-1861) - preacher, academician, publisher of a Catholic newspaper.
7 Louis Boten (1796-1867) - professor of moral philosophy at the theological faculty of the University of Paris.
8 "Catholic University"
9 Ingres Jean Auguste Dominique (1781-1867) - French painter.
10 Cousin Victor (1792-1867) - philosopher, professor at the Sorbonne. In 1840 he served as Minister of Education of France.
11 Fine.
12 The method of mutual teaching, introduced into practice by the English teacher Bell and the priest Lancaster, received its name from the latter, when more knowledgeable students taught less knowledgeable ones under the supervision of an experienced teacher. At one time it was widely used in Europe and America. It made it possible to quickly teach the rudiments of literacy to the broad masses at minimal cost.
13 In France, the so-called Condorcet's principle, when the university was not only scientific and educational, but also administrative center education system of the region (educational district); With the reform of Alexander I, this principle was approved in Russia.
14 Rhapsode is an ancient Greek wandering singer and storyteller.
15 Lerminier Jean Louis Eugene (1803-1859) - professor, lawyer, legal historian, famous lecturer, whose transition to conservative positions caused such strong opposition from his listeners that it forced him to stop teaching.
16 We hope someday to present a more detailed picture of popular teaching in France.
17 Thierry Augustin (Augustine) (1795-1856) - historian, founder of the so-called. "genetic" school, member French Academy. Thierry Amédée (1797-1873) - historian.
18 Ampere Jean-Jacques (1800-1864) - historian, specialist in ancient French literature, member of the French Academy, son of the famous physicist Andre-Marie Ampere.
19 The monks of the Benedictine Order, which existed since the 6th century, were famous for their schools and scientific works. In Paris, the order published the works of the Church Fathers and ancient documents. “The Work of the Benedictine” is a painstaking, thoughtful and lengthy scientific study.
20 Here: business relations, trade.
21 Lamartine Alphonse Marie Louis (1790-1869) - Republican poet, became famous for his fiery speeches.
22 Alfred de Vigny (1799-1863) - poet, author of historical novels and dramas.
23 Nodier Charles (Karl) (1780-1844) - writer, author of fantastic and humorous stories.
24 Montion Antoine Auger, baron (1733-1820) - a famous French philanthropist, established prizes for virtue, as well as for works glorifying it.
25 Temper, character of the soul.
26 Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1770-1831) - the greatest German philosopher, the author of a system that influenced the entire world of science.
27 The kings of Bavaria were famous for their love of grace and patronage of the arts.
28 Valhalla - according to Northern European mythology, the place of residence of those killed in battle, the palace of the supreme god Odin. In Bavaria in 1841, the architect Klenz built a palace, the so-called. Valhalla, in the form of a Doric colonnade (very similar to the Greek Parthenon), which was decorated with bas-reliefs of military battles of the ancient Germans and busts of famous people of Bavaria.
29 The river on which Munich stands.
30 Goethe Johann Wolfgang (1749-1838) - great German poet, author of Faust and other dramas and poems.
31 Schiller Johann Christopher Friedrich (1759-1805) - great German poet, friend of Goethe, professor of history at the University of Jena.
32 Euphorion - in ancient greek mythology a winged boy born to Achilles and Helen, who married after death. He fled from the wrath of Zeus and was struck by lightning. This myth was used by Goethe in the second part of Faust.
33 Klopstock Friedrich (1721-1803) - German poet.
Wieland Christoph Martin (1733-1813) - Swiss German poet, professor at the Universities of Erfurt and Weimar, was a member of Goethe's circle together with Herder.
Lessing Gotthold Ephraim (1728-1781) - German writer, philosopher and historian, had a huge influence on German poetry.
Herder Johann Gottfried (1744-1803) - thinker and poet, philosopher, historian, critic, folklorist. Goethe's teacher and mentor.
34 Jesuits.
35 See n. 5.
36 Neander August (1789-1850) - German church historian, professor at the Universities of Göttingen and Berlin.
37 Savigny Friedrich Karl (1779-1861) - famous lawyer and Prussian statesman, professor of Roman law at the University of Berlin, minister of justice (1842-1848).
38 The largest university center in Germany.
39 Disjecti membra poetae - members of a poet torn to pieces (Horace, “Satires”). Here we are talking about the members of a philosopher (philoso-phi) torn into pieces, i.e. his philosophical concepts/
40 Goto Heinrich Gustav (1802-1873) - art historian, professor at the University of Berlin.
41 Werder Karl (1806-1893) - professor of philosophy in Berlin, Hegelian. Turgenev, Bakunin, Stankevich took his course.
42 Feuerbach Ludwig (1804-1872) - a major German materialist philosopher.
43 Schelling Friedrich Wilhelm (1779-1854) - an outstanding German philosopher, had a strong influence on the development of philosophical thought in Russia.
44 Baader Franz (1765-1841) - German philosopher, professor at the University of Munich.
45 Achilles (Achilles) - in ancient Greek mythology, an invincible hero who had only one weak point - his heel.
46 Let's go! Let's go to!
47 Freischutz (free shooter) - the hero of the German epic, who, by agreement with the devil, shot without missing. Weber's famous opera of the same name was written based on this plot.
48 Pechorin - main character poem by M. I. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”.
49 It was on the principles of Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality that the Minister of Public Education, Count S.S., proposed building the education of youth. Uvarov (1786-1855) in 1838-1854.
Russian view on modern European education
The readers are offered to read the 3rd and the 4th parts of the well-known article “Russian View on Modern European Education” written by Shevyryov S.P. (18061864). The first two parts of the essay published in the previous issue of STOSU’s Vestnik (No. 3, series IV: “Pedagogics. Psychology”) dealt with Italy and England. Despite its being well-referred to, the article, nevertheless, has never been published anywhere else (as far as the author of the article is aware) though it is of real interest not only to philologists but also those who study the history of pedagogics.
The publication is made by Belentchuck L.N., the Candidate of History, the top research assistant of Pedagogics Theory and History Institute attached to the Russian Academy of Education.
Ermashov D. V.
Born on October 18 (30), 1806 in Saratov. Graduated from the Noble boarding school at Moscow University (1822). Since 1823, he served in the Moscow archive of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, joining the circle of the so-called. "archival youths", who later formed the backbone of the "Society of Philosophy" and were engaged in the study philosophical ideas German romanticism, Schelling, etc. In 1827 he participated in the creation of the magazine “Moskovsky Vestnik”, with which A.S. also collaborated at first. Pushkin. In 1829, as a teacher of the prince’s son. BEHIND. Volkonskoy went abroad. Spent three years in Italy, devoting everything free time studying European languages, classical philology and art history. Returning to Russia, at the suggestion of S.S. Uvarov took the place of adjunct in literature at Moscow University. To acquire the proper status, in 1834 he presented the essay “Dante and His Century”, two years later - doctoral dissertation"The Theory of Poetry in its Historical Development among Ancient and New Peoples" and the study "History of Poetry", which deserved positive feedback Pushkin. For 34 years he taught a number of courses on the history of Russian literature, the general history of poetry, the theory of literature and pedagogy. Professor at Moscow University (1837–1857), head of the department of history of Russian literature (since 1847), academician (since 1852). All these years he was actively engaged in journalistic activities. In 1827–1831 Shevyrev was an employee of the Moskovsky Vestnik, in 1835–1839 he was a leading critic of the Moscow Observer, from 1841 to 1856 he was M.P.’s closest associate. Pogodin according to the publication "Moskvityanin". Some time after leaving his position as a professor, he left for Europe in 1860, giving lectures on the history of Russian literature in Florence (1861) and Paris (1862).
Shevyrev was characterized by the desire to build his worldview on the foundation of Russian national identity, which, from his point of view, had deep historical roots. Considering literature as a reflection of the spiritual experience of the people, he tried to discover in it the sources of Russian identity and the foundations of national education. This topic is key in Shevyrev’s scientific and journalistic activities. He is credited with being the “discoverer” of ancient Russian fiction in general; he was one of the first to prove to the Russian reader the fact of its existence since the times Kievan Rus, introduced into scientific circulation many now well-known monuments of pre-Petrine Russian literature, attracted many novice scientists to the comparative study of domestic and foreign literature, etc. In a similar spirit, Shevyrev’s political views developed, the main motives of whose journalism were to assert Russian originality and criticism Westernism, which rejected it. From this point of view, Shevyrev was one of the most prominent ideologists of the so-called. theory of “official nationality” and at the same time one of its most prominent popularizers. During the period of cooperation in "Moskvityanin", which brought him a reputation as an ardent supporter of the official ideology, Shevyrev devoted his main efforts to developing one problem - proving the detrimental nature of European influence for Russia. A significant place among the thinker’s works on this topic is occupied by his article “A Russian’s View of Modern Education in Europe,” in which he postulated theses about the “rotting of the West,” its spiritual incurable disease, which later became widely known; about the need to counteract the “magical charm” with which the West still captivates the Russian people, and to realize their originality, putting an end to disbelief in their own strengths; about Russia’s calling to save and preserve in a higher synthesis all the spiritual healthy values of Europe, etc., etc.
Essays:
A Russian’s view of modern education in Europe // Moskvityanin. 1941. No. 1.
Anthology of world political thought. T. 3. M., 1997. pp. 717–724.
History of Russian literature, mainly ancient. M., 1846–1860.
About Russian literature. M., 2004.
Letters from M.P. Pogodina, S.P. Shevyrev and M.A. Maksimovich to Prince P.A. Vyazemsky. St. Petersburg, 1846.
Bibliography
Peskov A.M. At the origins of philosophizing in Russia: Russian idea S.P. Shevyreva // New literary review. 1994. No. 7. pp. 123–139.
Lyrics
A Russian's view of modern education in Europe (1)
There are moments in history when all of humanity is expressed by one all-consuming name! These are the names of Cyrus (2), Alexander (3), Caesar (4), Charlemagne (5), Gregory VII (6), Charles V (7). Napoleon was ready to put his name on modern humanity, but he met Russia.
There are eras in History when all the forces acting in it are resolved into two main ones, which, having absorbed everything extraneous, come face to face, measure each other with their eyes and come out for a decisive debate, like Achilles and Hector at the conclusion of the Iliad (8 ). - Here are the famous martial arts of world history: Asia and Greece, Greece and Rome, Rome and the German world.
In the ancient world, these martial arts were decided by material force: then force ruled the universe. In the Christian world, worldwide conquests have become impossible: we are called to the combat of thought.
The drama of modern history is expressed by two names, one of which sounds sweet to our hearts! The West and Russia, Russia and the West - this is the result arising from everything previous; here is the last word of history; here are two data for the future!
Napoleon (we didn’t start with him for nothing); contributed a lot to outline both words of this result. The instinct of the entire West was concentrated in the person of his gigantic genius - and moved to Russia when he could. Let us repeat the words of the Poet:
Praise! He is to the Russian people
the high lot indicated.(9)
Yes, a great and decisive moment. The West and Russia stand in front of each other, face to face! - Will he captivate us in his worldwide endeavor? Will he understand it? Shall we go in addition to his education? Shall we make some unnecessary additions to his story? - Or will we remain in our originality? Shall we form a special world, according to our own principles, and not the same European ones? Shall we take a sixth of the world out of Europe for the future development of humanity?
Here is a question - a great question, which is not only heard here, but also echoes in the West. Solving it - for the benefit of Russia and humanity - is the work of our present and future generations. Everyone who has been called to any significant service in our Fatherland must begin by resolving this issue if he wants to connect his actions with the present moment of life. This is the reason why we start with it.
The question is not new: the millennium of Russian life, which our generation can celebrate in twenty-two years, offers a complete answer to it. But the meaning of the history of any people is a mystery hidden under the external clarity of events: everyone unravels it in their own way. The question is not new; but in our time its importance has come to life and has become palpable to everyone.
Let us take a general look at the state of modern Europe and the attitude in which our Fatherland stands towards it. We eliminate here all political types and limit ourselves to only one picture of education, which embraces religion, science, art and literature, the latter as the most complete expression of the entire human life of peoples. We will, of course, touch only on the main countries that act in the field of European peace.
Let's start with those two whose influence reaches us least of all and which form the two extreme opposites of Europe. We mean Italy and England. The first took for her share all the treasures of the ideal world of fantasy; almost completely alien to all the lures of modern luxury industry, she, in the miserable rags of poverty, sparkles with her fiery eyes, enchants with her sounds, sparkles with ageless beauty and is proud of her past. The second selfishly appropriated to itself all the essential benefits of the everyday world; drowning herself in the wealth of life, she wants to entangle the whole world with the bonds of her trade and industry. […]
***
France and Germany are the two parties under whose influence we were directly and now are. In them, one might say, all of Europe is concentrated for us. There is no separating sea or obscuring Alps. Every book, every thought of France and Germany is more likely to resonate with us than in any other Western country. Previously, the French influence prevailed: in new generations the German influence prevails. All of educated Russia can be fairly divided into two halves: French and German, according to the influence of one or another education.
That is why it is especially important for us to delve into the current situation of these two countries and the attitude in which we stand towards them. Here we will boldly and sincerely express our opinion, knowing in advance that it will arouse many contradictions, offend many prides, stir up the prejudices of education and teaching, and violate traditions hitherto accepted. But in the issue we are deciding, the first condition is the sincerity of the conviction.
France and Germany were the scenes of two greatest events, to which the entire history of the new West leads, or more correctly: two turning points, corresponding to each other. These diseases were - the reformation in Germany (10), the revolution in France (11): the disease is the same, only in two different forms. Both were an inevitable consequence of Western development, which brought into itself the duality of principles and established this discord as a normal law of life. We think that these diseases have already ceased; that both countries, having experienced a turning point in their illness, returned to healthy and organic development. No, we are wrong. Diseases generated harmful juices, which now continue to act and which, in turn, have already produced organic damage in both countries, a sign of future self-destruction. Yes, in our sincere, friendly, close relations with the West, we do not notice that we seem to be dealing with a person who carries an evil, contagious illness within himself, surrounded by an atmosphere of dangerous breathing. We kiss him, we hug, we share the meal of thought, we drink the cup of feeling... and we don’t notice the hidden poison in our careless communication, we don’t smell in the fun of the feast the future corpse that he already smells of.
He captivated us with the luxury of his education; he takes us on his winged steamships, rides us along the railways; without our labor, he pleases all the whims of our sensuality, lavishes before us the wit of thought, the pleasures of art... We are glad that we came to the feast ready for such a rich host... We are intoxicated; It’s fun for us to taste for nothing what cost so much... But we don’t notice that in these dishes there is a juice that our fresh nature cannot bear... We do not foresee that the sated host, having seduced us with all the delights of a magnificent feast, will corrupt our mind and heart; that we will leave him drunk beyond our years, with a heavy impression from an orgy incomprehensible to us...
But let us rest in faith in Providence, whose finger is evident in our history. Let’s delve deeper into the nature of both ailments and determine for ourselves a lesson in wise protection.
There is a country in which both changes occurred even earlier than in the entire West and thereby forestalled its development. This country is an island for Europe, both geographically and historically. The secrets of her inner life have not yet been solved - and no one has decided why both revolutions that took place in her so early did not produce any, at least visible, organic damage.
In France, the great disease has given rise to the depravity of personal freedom, which threatens the entire state with complete disorganization. France is proud of having won political freedom; but let's see how she applied it to various sectors of her social development? What did she accomplish with this acquired instrument in the fields of religion, art, science and literature? We won't talk about politics and industry. Let us only add that the development of its industry is hindered year by year by the willfulness of the lower classes of the people, and that the monarchical and noble character of the luxury and splendor of its products does not in the least correspond to the direction of its popular spirit.
What is the present state of religion in France? - Religion has two manifestations: personal in individuals, as a matter of everyone’s conscience, and state, as the Church. Therefore, it is possible to consider the development of religion in any nation only from these two points of view. The development of state religion is obvious; it is in front of everyone; but it is difficult to penetrate into her personal, family development, hidden in the secret of people’s life. The latter can be seen either locally, or in literature, or in education.
Since 1830, as is known, France has lost the unity of the state religion. The country, originally Roman Catholic, allowed free Protestantism both in the depths of its people and in the depths of the reigning family. Since 1830, all religious processions of the church, these solemn moments in which she appears as a servant of God before the eyes of the people, have been destroyed in the life of the French people. The most famous rite of the Western Church, the magnificent procession: corpus Domini(12), performed so brilliantly in all the countries of the Roman Catholic West, is never again performed on the streets of Paris. When a dying person calls upon himself the gifts of Christ before his death, the church sends them without any celebration, the priest brings them secretly, as if during the times of persecution of Christianity. Religion can perform its rituals only inside temples; she alone seems to be deprived of the right to publicity, while everyone in France uses it with impunity; the churches of France are like the catacombs of the original Christians, who did not dare to take outside the manifestations of their worship of God. [...]
All these phenomena in the current life of the French people do not show religious development in them. But how to solve the same question regarding the internal life of families in France? Literature brings us the saddest news, revealing pictures of this life in its tireless stories. At the same time, I remember the word I heard from the lips of one public mentor, who assured me that all religious morality can be contained in the rules of Arithmetic. [...]
Literature among the people is always the result of their cumulative development in all branches of human education. From the previous, the reasons for the decline of modern literature in France, the works of which, unfortunately, are too well known in our Fatherland, can now be clear. A people who, through the abuse of personal freedom, destroyed the feeling of Religion in themselves, despirited art and made science meaningless, had, of course, to bring the abuse of their freedom to the highest degree of extreme in literature, not curbed either by the laws of the state or the opinion of society. [...]
We will conclude the sad picture of France by pointing out one common feature that is clearly noticeable in almost all its contemporary writers. All of them themselves feel the painful state of their fatherland in all sectors of its development; they all unanimously point to the decline of his Religion, politics, education, sciences, and Literature itself, which is their own business. In any work concerning modern life, you will surely find several pages, several lines devoted to condemnation of the present. Their common voice can sufficiently cover and reinforce our own in this case. But here's what's strange! That feeling of apathy that is always accompanied by such censures, which have become a kind of habit among the writers of France, have become a fashion, have become a common place. Every ailment among the people is terrible, but even more terrible is the cold hopelessness with which those who, the first, should have thought about means to cure it, speak about it.
***
Let us cross the Rhine (13), into the country neighboring us, and try to delve into the mystery of its intangible development. Firstly, we are struck by the striking contrast with the land from which we have just emerged, this external improvement of Germany in everything that concerns its state, civil and social development. What order! how slim! You are amazed at the German prudence, which knew how to remove from itself all possible temptations of its rebellious Trans-Rhine neighbors and strictly confine itself to the sphere of its own life. The Germans even harbor a kind of open hatred or high contempt for the abuse of personal freedom that infects all parts of French society. The sympathy of some German writers for French self-will found almost no echo in prudent Germany and did not leave any harmful trace in its entire current life! This country, in its different parts, can present excellent examples of development in all branches of complex human education. Its state structure is based on the love of its Sovereigns for the good of its subjects and on the obedience and devotion of these latter to their rulers. Its civil structure rests on the laws of the purest and most frank justice, inscribed in the hearts of its rulers and in the minds of its subjects, called to the execution of civil affairs. Its universities are flourishing and spreading the treasures of learning throughout all the lower institutions entrusted with the education of the people. Art is developing in Germany in such a way that it now places it in worthy rivals with its mentor, Italy. Industry and domestic trade are making rapid progress. Everything that serves to facilitate relations between its various possessions, everything that modern civilization can be proud of in relation to the conveniences of life, such as mail, customs, roads, etc., all this is excellent in Germany and elevates it to the level of a country, preeminent in its external improvement on the solid ground of Europe. What does she seem to lack for her unshakable eternal prosperity?
But above this solid, happy, well-ordered appearance of Germany hovers another intangible, invisible world of thought, completely separate from its external world. Her main illness is there, in this abstract world, which has no contact with her political and civil structure. In the Germans, in a miraculous way, mental life is separated from external, social life. Therefore, in the same German you can very often meet two people: external and internal. The first will be the most faithful, most obedient subject of his Sovereign, a truth-loving and zealous citizen of his fatherland, an excellent family man and unfailing friend, in a word, a zealous performer of all his external duties; but take the same man within, penetrate into his mental world: you can find in him the most complete corruption of thought - and in this world inaccessible to the eye, in this intangible mental sphere, the same German, meek, submissive, faithful in state, society and family - is violent, frantic, raping everything, not recognizing any other power over his thoughts... This is the same ancient unbridled ancestor of his, whom Tacitus (14) saw in all his native wildness emerging from his treasured forests , with the only difference that the new, educated one transferred his freedom from the external world to the mental world. Yes, depravity of thought is the invisible illness of Germany, generated in it by the Reformation and deeply hidden in its internal development. [...]
The direction that those two countries that have made and are making the strongest influence on us are now taking is so contrary to the beginning of our life, so inconsistent with everything that has happened to us, that we all internally, more or less, recognize the need to sever our further ties with the West in the literary sense. respect. I, of course, am not talking here about those glorious examples of his great past, which we must always study: they, as the property of all humanity, belong to us, and to us by right are the closest and direct heirs in the line of peoples entering the stage of the living and the current world. I’m not talking about those modern writers who in the West, seeing for themselves the direction of humanity around them, arm themselves against it and oppose it: such writers sympathize with us a lot and even impatiently await our activities. They are, however, a small exception. Of course, I do not mean those scientists who work on certain individual parts of the sciences and gloriously cultivate their fields. No, I’m talking in general about the spirit of Western education, about its main thoughts and the movements of its new literature. Here we encounter phenomena that seem incomprehensible to us, which in our opinion do not follow from anything, which we are afraid of, and sometimes we pass by them indifferently, senselessly, or with a feeling of some kind of childish curiosity that irritates our eyes.
Russia, fortunately, has not experienced those two great ailments, which harmful extremes begin to act strongly there: hence the reason why the phenomena there are not clear to her and why she cannot connect them with anything of her own. Peacefully and prudently she contemplated the development of the West: taking it as a precautionary lesson for her life, she happily avoided the discord or duality of principles to which the West was subjected in its internal development, and preserved its cherished and all-powerful unity; she assimilated only that which could be appropriate for her in the sense of universal humanity and rejected the extraneous... And now, when the West, like Mephistopheles in the conclusion of Goethe's Faust, is preparing to open that fiery abyss where it strives, it appears to us and thunders its terrible: Komm ! Komm! (15) - Russia will not follow him: she did not give him any vow, did not connect her existence with his existence by any agreement: she did not share his ailments with him; it has preserved its great unity, and in a fatal moment, perhaps, it was appointed by Providence to be His great instrument for the salvation of mankind.
Let us not hide the fact that our literature, in its relations with the West, has developed some shortcomings. We bring them to three. The first of them is a characteristic feature of our moment, there is indecision. It is clear from everything that has been said above. We cannot continue literary development together with the West, because we have no sympathy for its modern works: in ourselves we have not yet fully discovered the source of our own national development, although there have been some successful attempts. The magical charm of the West still has a strong effect on us, and we cannot suddenly abandon it. I believe this indecision is one of the main reasons for the stagnation that has continued for several years in our literature. We wait in vain for modern inspirations from where we previously drew them; The West sends us what our minds and hearts reject. We are now left to our own devices; we must, involuntarily, confine ourselves to the rich past of the West and look for our own in our ancient History.
The activity of new generations, entering our field under the usual influence of the latest thoughts and phenomena of the modern West, is involuntarily paralyzed by the impossibility of applying what is there to ours, and every young man seething with strength, if he looks into the depths of his soul, will see that all the ardent delight and all the inner his strength is constrained by a feeling of heavy and idle indecision. Yes, all of literary Russia is now playing Hercules, standing at a crossroads: the West is insidiously beckoning her along, but of course Providence has destined her to take a different path.
The second shortcoming in our literature, closely related to the previous one, is distrust of one’s own strengths. Until when, in any case, will the last book of the West, the last issue of a magazine, act on us with some kind of magical force and fetter all our own thoughts? How long will we greedily swallow only ready-made results, derived there from a way of thinking that is completely alien to us and does not agree with our traditions? Do we really not feel strong enough to take on the sources ourselves and discover within ourselves a new view of the entire History and Literature of the West? This is a necessity for us and a service for him, which even we owe to him: no one can be impartial in his work, and peoples, like poets, when creating their being, do not reach his consciousness, which is left to their heirs.
Finally, our third shortcoming, the most unpleasant, from which we suffer most in our Literature, is Russian apathy, a consequence of our friendly relations with the West. Plant a young, fresh plant under the shade of a hundred-year-old cedar or oak, which will cover its young existence with the old shadow of its wide branches, and only through them will feed it with the sun and cool it with heavenly dew, and will give little food to its fresh roots from the greedy, tired in that land their roots. You will see how a young plant will lose the colors of its youthful life and will suffer from the premature old age of its decrepit neighbor; but cut down the cedar, return the sun to its young tree, and it will find strength within itself, will rise vigorously and freshly, and with its strong and harmless youth will even be able to gratefully cover the new shoots of its fallen neighbor.
Assign an old nanny to a living, playful child: you will see how the ardor of age will disappear in him, and his seething life will be shackled by insensibility. Make friends with an ardent young man, full of all the hopes of life, with a mature, disappointed husband, who has squandered his life, who has lost both faith and hope with it: you will see how your ardent young man will change; disappointment will not stick to him; he did not deserve it by his past; but all his feelings are shrouded in the cold of inactive apathy; his fiery eyes will fade; he, like Freishitz(16), will begin to tremble his terrible guest; in front of him, he will be ashamed of both his blush and his ardent feelings, blush with his delight, and like a child, he will put on the mask of disappointment that is unbecoming to him.
Yes, the disappointment of the West has given rise to cold apathy in us. Don Juan (17) produced Eugene Onegin, one of the general Russian types, aptly captured by Pushkin’s brilliant thought from our modern life. This character is often repeated in our Literature: our narrators dream about it, and just recently, one of them, who brilliantly entered the field of the Poet, painted us the same Russian apathy, even more so, in the person of his hero, whom we, in our national feeling, We wouldn’t like to, but we must recognize him as a hero of our time.
The last shortcoming is, of course, the one with which we must struggle most of all in our modern lives. This apathy is the reason in us both for the laziness that overcomes our fresh youth, and for the inactivity of many writers and scientists who betray their high calling and are distracted from it by the cramped world of housekeeping or large types of all-consuming trade and industry; in this apathy is the germ of that worm of melancholy, which each of us more or less felt in our youth, sang in poetry and tired of our most supportive readers.
But even if we have endured some inevitable shortcomings from our relations with the West, we have kept three fundamental feelings pure within ourselves, in which are the seed and guarantee of our future development.
We have retained our ancient religious feeling. The Christian Cross laid its sign on our entire initial education, on all of Russian life. Our ancient mother Rus' blessed us with this cross and with it sent us on the dangerous road of the West. Let's express it in a parable. The boy grew up in the holy home of his parents, where everything breathed the fear of God; The face of his gray-haired father, kneeling before the holy icon, was imprinted on his first memory: he did not get up in the morning, did not go to bed without his parent’s blessing; Every day was sanctified by prayer, and before every holiday, his family’s house was a house of prayer. The boy left his parents' house early; cold people surrounded him and clouded his soul with doubt; evil books corrupted his thoughts and froze his feelings; he was visiting peoples who do not pray to God and think that they are happy... A stormy time of youth passed... The young man matured into a husband... His family surrounded him, and all the memories of his childhood rose, like bright Angels, from the bosom of his soul him... and the feeling of Religion awoke more vividly and stronger... and his entire being was sanctified again, and a proud thought dissolved in a pure prayer of humility... and a new world of life opened up to his eyes... The parable is clear to each of us: is it necessary interpret its meaning?
The second feeling with which Russia is strong and its future prosperity is ensured is the feeling of its state unity, which we also learned from our entire History. Of course, there is no country in Europe that could be proud of such harmony of its political existence as our Fatherland. In the West, almost everywhere, discord has begun to be recognized as the law of life, and the entire existence of peoples is accomplished in a difficult struggle. With us, only the Tsar and the people form one inseparable whole, which does not tolerate any barrier between them: this connection is based on a mutual feeling of love and faith and on the endless devotion of the people to their Tsar. This is the treasure that we brought from our ancient life, which the divided West looks at with particular envy, seeing in it an inexhaustible source of state power. He would like to take it away from us with everything he can; but now I can’t, because the previously accepted feeling of our unity, taken by us from our previous life, having gone through all the temptations of education, having passed all doubts, has risen in every educated Russian, who understands his history, to the level of a clear and lasting consciousness - and Now this conscious feeling will remain more than ever unshakable in our Fatherland.
Our third fundamental feeling is the consciousness of our nationality and the confidence that any education can only take down lasting roots in us when it is assimilated by our national feeling and expressed in popular thought and word. In this feeling lies the reason for our indecision to continue literary development with the exhausting West; in this feeling there is a powerful barrier to all his temptations; All the private, fruitless efforts of our compatriots to instill in us that which does not suit the Russian mind and the Russian heart are crushed by this feeling; this feeling is the measure of the lasting success of our writers in the history of Literature and education, it is the touchstone of their originality. It was expressed strongly in the best works of each of them: Lomonosov, Derzhavin, Karamzin, Zhukovsky, Krylov, Pushkin, and all those close to them, no matter how Latin, French, concluded, agreed and responded to each other. , German, English or other influence. This feeling now directs us to the study of our ancient Rus', which, of course, preserves the original pure image of our nation. The Government itself actively encourages us to do this. With this feeling, our two capitals are related and act for one thing, and what is planned in the north passes through Moscow, as through the heart of Russia, in order to turn into the blood and living juices of our people. Moscow is that faithful crucible in which the entire past from the West is burned out and receives the pure stamp of the Russian people.
With three fundamental feelings our Rus' is strong and its future is certain. The husband of the Royal Council, to whom the emerging generations are entrusted (18), has long ago expressed them in deep thought, and they form the basis for the education of the people.
The West, by some strange instinct, does not like these feelings in us, and especially now, having forgotten our former goodness, forgetting the sacrifices made to it from us, in any case expresses its dislike for us, even similar to some kind of hatred that is offensive to every Russian visiting his lands. This feeling, undeserved by us and senselessly contradicting our previous relations, can be explained in two ways: either the West in this case resembles a grumpy old man who, in the capricious impulses of his impotent age, is angry with his heir, who is inevitably called upon to take possession of his treasures over time; or another: he, knowing by instinct our direction, anticipates the gap that must inevitably follow between him and us, and he himself, with a gust of his unjust hatred, further accelerates the fatal moment.
In disastrous eras of turning points and destruction, such as the history of mankind represents, Providence sends in the person of other peoples a preserving and observing force: may Russia be such a force in relation to the West! May she preserve for the benefit of all mankind the treasures of his great past and may she prudently reject everything that serves to destruction and not to creation! may he find in himself and in his former life a source of his own people, in which everything alien, but humanly beautiful, will merge with the Russian spirit, the vast, universal, Christian spirit, the spirit of comprehensive tolerance and worldwide communication!
Notes
1. “A Russian’s view of modern education in Europe” - an article specially written by S.P. Shevyrev at the end of 1840 for the magazine “Moskvityanin”, published by M.P. Pogodin in 1841–1855, in the first issue of which it was published in January 1841. Here excerpts are published according to the edition: Shevyrev S.P. A Russian’s view of modern education in Europe // Moskvityanin. 1841. No. 1. pp. 219–221, 246–250, 252, 259, 267–270, 287–296.
2. Cyrus the Great (year of birth unknown - died in 530 BC), king of ancient Persia in 558–530, became famous for his campaigns of conquest.
3. Alexander the Great (356–323 BC), king of Macedonia from 336, one of outstanding commanders And statesmen ancient world.
4. Caesar Gaius Julius (102 or 100–44 BC), ancient Roman statesman and politician, commander, writer, lifelong dictator of Rome from 44 BC.
5. Charlemagne (742–814), king of the Franks from 768, emperor from 800. Charlemagne’s wars of conquest led to the creation for a short time in medieval Europe of the largest state, comparable in size to the Roman Empire. The Carolingian dynasty is named after him.
6. Gregory VII Hildebrand (between 1015 and 1020–1085), Pope from 1073. He was an active figure in the Cluny reform (aimed at strengthening the Catholic Church). The transformations he carried out contributed to the rise of the papacy. He developed the idea of subordinating secular power to church power.
7. Charles V (1500–1558) from the Habsburg family. King of Spain 1516–1556. German king in 1519–1531. Emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire" in 1519–1556. Waged wars with Ottoman Empires, led military actions against Protestants. For some time, his power extended over almost all of continental Europe.
8. The heroes of Homer’s epic poem (no later than the 8th century BC) “The Iliad,” whose duel, which ended in the death of Hector, is one of the popular images in world culture for metaphorically denoting an uncompromising and brutal fight.
9. Lines from the poem by A.S. Pushkin's "Napoleon" (1823).
10. Religious, social and ideological movement in Western Europe in the 16th century, directed against the Catholic Church and its teachings and which resulted in the formation of Protestant churches.
11. This refers to the Great French Revolution of 1789–1794, which overthrew the monarchy in France and, marking the beginning of the death of the feudal-absolutist system in Europe, cleared the ground for the development of bourgeois and democratic reforms.
12. Corpus Domini is the feast of the “Corpus of the Lord,” one of the most magnificent and solemn holidays of the Catholic Church.
13. The Rhine is a river in the West of Germany, in a cultural and historical sense it personifies the symbolic border between German and French territories.
14. Tacitus Publius Cornelius (about 58 –– after 117), famous Roman historical writer.
15. Komm! Komm! - Come, come (to me) (German) –– Mephistopheles’ words addressed to the choir of angels, in one of the final scenes of the tragedy “Faust” by the German poet and thinker Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749–1832).
16. The main thing actor the opera of the same name by Karl Weber (1786–1826) "Freischitz" ("The Magic Shooter"). In this case, it serves as a metaphor for timidity and excessive modesty.
17. We are talking about the main character of the unfinished poem of the same name by the English poet George Gordon Byron (1788–1824) Don Juan, a bored romantic traveler trying to fill the emptiness of his life by searching for adventures and new passions. Byron's image of Don Juan served A.S. Pushkin was one of the sources for creating the literary hero of the novel in verse "Eugene Onegin".
18. This refers to Sergei Semenovich Uvarov (1786–1855), Minister of Public Education (1833–1849), author of the famous triad “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality,” which formed the basis not only of Uvarov’s concept of education in Russia, but also of all politics and ideology of autocracy during the reign of Nicholas I.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
Let us put to good use the lesson offered by the poet. There are illnesses in a person that begin with the imagination and then, little by little, turn into reality. Let us warn ourselves so that the ghost of illness, powerfully depicted by the brush of fresh talent, does not pass for us from the world of idle dreams into the world of difficult reality.
Notes 1. For the first time - "Moskvityanin". 1841.H. I, N 2 (as part of an analysis of several in the "Criticism" section). We print based on the first publication. Lermontov, while studying at Moscow University, listened to Shevyrev’s lectures and, as the poet’s biographers write, treated him with respect. The 1829 poem "Romance" ("Dissatisfied with an insidious life...") is dedicated to Shevyrev. Nevertheless, Shevyrev became one of the most likely recipients of the “Preface,” published in the second edition (1841) and responding to critics of the novel. P. Pogodin and S.P. Shevyrev; the poet was welcomed at the Bolshoi Theater. For more details, see: Chronicle of the life and work of Alexander Pushkin: In 4 volumes. M., 1999. T.II.
