Dostoevsky Fyodor Mikhailovich
Dostoevsky Fyodor Mikhailovich
Pushkin speech
F.M.DOSTOEVSKY
PUSHKINSKAYA RECH
WRITER'S DIARY
Monthly publication Year III Single issue for 1880
CHAPTER FIRST
AN EXPLANATORY WORD ABOUT THE SPEECH PRINTED BELOW ABOUT PUSHKIN
My speech about Pushkin and his significance, placed below and forming the basis of the content of this issue of the “Diary of a Writer” (the only issue for 1880 [I hope to resume publication of the “Diary of a Writer” in the future 1881, if my health allows.]), was delivered On June 8 of this year, at a ceremonial meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, in front of a large audience, she made a significant impression. Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov, who immediately said about himself that everyone considers him to be the leader of the Slavophiles, declared from the pulpit that my speech “constitutes an event.” I am not recalling this now to boast, but to state this: if my speech constitutes an event, it is only from one and only point of view, which I will outline below. This is why I am writing this preface. Actually, in my speech I wanted to outline only the following four points in the meaning of Pushkin for Russia. 1) The fact that Pushkin was the first, with his deeply insightful and brilliant mind and purely Russian heart, to find and note the most important and painful phenomenon of our intelligent society, historically cut off from the soil, which has risen above the people. He noted and convexly placed it in front of us negative type ours, a person who is worried and not reconciled, who does not believe in his native soil and in the native forces of it, Russia and himself (that is, his own society, his own intelligent stratum that arose above our native soil) in the end denying, to do with others unwilling and sincerely suffering. Aleko and Onegin later gave birth to many others like themselves in our artistic literature. They were followed by the Pechorins, Chichikovs, Rudins and Lavretskys, the Bolkonskys (in Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”) and many others, whose appearance already testified to the truth of the thought originally given by Pushkin. Honor and glory to him, to his enormous mind and genius, which noted the most painful ulcer of the society that emerged in our society after the great reform of Peter the Great. We owe the designation and recognition of our illness to his skillful diagnosis, and he, he was the first, gave us consolation: for he also gave great hope that this disease is not fatal and that Russian society can be healed, can be renewed again and resurrected if he joins the people's truth, for 2) He was the first (precisely the first, and no one before him) gave us art types Russian beauty, which came directly from the Russian spirit, found in folk truth, in our soil, and found by him in it. This is evidenced by the types of Tatiana, a completely Russian woman who saved herself from superficial lies, historical types, such as Monk and others in “Boris Godunov,” everyday types, as in “ The captain's daughter"and in many other images flashing in his poems, stories, notes, even in "History Pugachev revolt". The main thing that needs to be especially emphasized is that all these types of positive beauty of the Russian man and his soul are taken entirely from the national spirit. Here it is necessary to tell the whole truth: not in our current civilization, not in the “European” so so-called education (which, by the way, we never had), Pushkin did not point out this beauty in the ugliness of externally adopted European ideas and forms, but found it only in the people’s spirit, and (only in it). Thus, I repeat , having designated the disease, he also gave great hope: “Believe in the spirit of the people and from him alone expect salvation and you will be saved." Having delved into Pushkin, it is impossible not to draw such a conclusion. (The third point), which I wanted to note in the meaning of Pushkin, is that a special, most characteristic feature of an artistic genius that is not found anywhere except in him - the ability of universal responsiveness and complete transformation into the genius of foreign nations, and almost perfect transformation.I said in my speech that in Europe there were the world's greatest artistic geniuses: Shakespeare, Cervantes , Schillers, but that we don’t see this ability in any of them, but we see it only in Pushkin. It’s not responsiveness alone that matters, but rather the amazing completeness of transformation. This ability, of course, I could not help but note in my assessment of Pushkin, precisely as the most characteristic feature of his genius, which belongs to him alone of all the world’s artists, which is what distinguishes him from them all. But I did not say this to belittle such great European geniuses as Shakespeare and Schiller; Only a fool could draw such a stupid conclusion from my words. The universality, (all-intelligibility) and unexplored depth of the world types of man of the Aryan tribe, given by Shakespeare forever and ever, is not subject to the slightest doubt by me. And if Shakespeare had really created Othello as a (Venetian) Moor, and not an Englishman, he would only have given him an aura of local national character, but the world significance of this type would have remained the same, for in the Italian he would have expressed the same thing what I wanted to say, with the same force. I repeat, not on global significance I wanted to encroach on Shakespeare and Schiller, denoting Pushkin’s most brilliant ability to reincarnate in the genius of foreign nations, and wanting only in this ability itself and in its fullness to note a great and prophetic indication for us, for 4) This ability is entirely a Russian, national ability, and Pushkin he only shares it with all our people, and, as the most perfect artist, he is also the most perfect exponent of this ability, at least in his activity, in the activity of an artist. Our people precisely contain in their souls this inclination towards universal responsiveness and universal reconciliation and have already demonstrated it in everything? the bicentenary of Peter's reform more than once. Denoting this ability of our people, I could not help but at the same time, in this fact, show great consolation for us in our future, our great and, perhaps, greatest hope shining ahead of us. The main thing I outlined is that our aspiration to Europe, even with all its passions and extremes, was not only legal and reasonable, in its foundation, but also popular, coincided completely with the aspirations of the very spirit of the people, and in the end, undoubtedly has highest goal. In short, too short speech mine, of course, I could not develop my thought in its entirety, but at least what was expressed seems clear. And there is no need, there is no need to be indignant at what I said, “that our poor land may, in the end, say a new word to the world.” It is also ridiculous to insist that before we say a new word to the world, “we ourselves need to develop economically, scientifically and civically, and then only dream of “new words” for such (seemingly) perfect organisms as the peoples of Europe.” I precisely emphasize in my speech that I am not trying to equate the Russian people with Western peoples in the spheres of their economic or scientific glory. I’m simply saying that the Russian soul, that the genius of the Russian people, is perhaps the most capable of all peoples to contain within itself the idea of universal unity, brotherly love, a sober look that forgives the hostile, distinguishes and excuses the dissimilar, and removes contradictions. Is not economic trait and not any other, this is only a (moral) trait, and can anyone deny and dispute that it does not exist among the Russian people? Can anyone say that the Russian people are only an inert mass, condemned only to serve (economically) the prosperity and development of our European intelligentsia, which has risen above our people, while in itself it contains only dead inertia, from which nothing should be expected and for which Is there absolutely nothing to place any hopes on? Alas, many people say so, but I ventured to declare otherwise. I repeat, I, of course, could not prove “this fantasy of mine,” as I myself put it, in detail and with all completeness, but I could not help but point out it. To assert that our poor and disorderly land cannot contain such lofty aspirations until it becomes economically and civically similar to the West is simply absurd. The main moral treasures of the spirit, in their basic essence at least, do not depend on economic power. Our poor, disorderly land, except for its highest layer, is entirely like one person. All eighty million of its population represent such a spiritual unity, which, of course, does not and cannot exist anywhere in Europe, and therefore, for this alone it cannot be said that our land is disorderly, even in the strict sense it cannot be said that beggar. On the contrary, in Europe, in this Europe, where so much wealth has been accumulated, everything? civil foundation of all European nations - all? undermined and, perhaps, tomorrow it will collapse without a trace for all eternity, and in its place will come something unheard of new, unlike anything before. And all the wealth accumulated by Europe will not save it from its fall, for “wealth will disappear in an instant.” Meanwhile, this, precisely this undermined and infected civil system of theirs, is pointed out to our people as an ideal to which they should strive, and only after they have achieved this ideal should they dare to babble any word to Europe. We affirm that it is possible to contain and carry within ourselves the power of a loving and all-unifying spirit even in our current economic poverty, and not even in such poverty as now. E? it is possible to preserve and contain it even in such poverty as it was after the invasion of Batu or after the pogrom of the Time of Troubles, when Russia was saved by the only all-unifying spirit of the people. And finally, if it really is so necessary, in order to have the right to love humanity and carry within oneself an all-unifying soul, in order to contain within oneself the ability not to hate foreign peoples because they are unlike us; in order to have a desire. ..
Quick navigation back: Ctrl+←, forward Ctrl+→
Dostoevsky Fyodor Mikhailovich
Pushkin speech
F.M.DOSTOEVSKY
PUSHKINSKAYA RECH
WRITER'S DIARY
Monthly publication Year III Single issue for 1880
AUGUST
CHAPTER FIRST
AN EXPLANATORY WORD ABOUT THE SPEECH PRINTED BELOW ABOUT PUSHKIN
My speech about Pushkin and his significance, placed below and forming the basis of the content of this issue of the “Diary of a Writer” (the only issue for 1880 [I hope to resume publication of the “Diary of a Writer” in the future 1881, if my health allows.]), was delivered On June 8 of this year, at a ceremonial meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, in front of a large audience, she made a significant impression. Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov, who immediately said about himself that everyone considers him to be the leader of the Slavophiles, declared from the pulpit that my speech “constitutes an event.” I am not recalling this now to boast, but to state this: if my speech constitutes an event, it is only from one and only point of view, which I will outline below. This is why I am writing this preface. Actually, in my speech I wanted to outline only the following four points in the meaning of Pushkin for Russia. 1) The fact that Pushkin was the first, with his deeply insightful and brilliant mind and purely Russian heart, to find and note the most important and painful phenomenon of our intelligent society, historically cut off from the soil, which has risen above the people. He noted and prominently placed before us our negative type, a person who is worried and not reconciled, who does not believe in his native soil and in the native forces of it, Russia and himself (that is, his own society, his own intelligent stratum that arose above our native soil ) in the end denying, doing with others unwilling and sincerely suffering. Aleko and Onegin later gave birth to many others like themselves in our artistic literature. They were followed by the Pechorins, Chichikovs, Rudins and Lavretskys, the Bolkonskys (in Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”) and many others, whose appearance already testified to the truth of the thought originally given by Pushkin. Honor and glory to him, to his enormous mind and genius, which noted the most painful ulcer of the society that emerged in our society after the great reform of Peter the Great. We owe to his skillful diagnosis the designation and recognition of our illness, and he, he was the first, gave us consolation: for he also gave great hope that this disease is not fatal and that Russian society can be cured, can be renewed and resurrected again, if will join the people's truth, for 2) He was the first (precisely the first, and no one before him) gave us artistic types of Russian beauty, which came directly from the Russian spirit, found in the people's truth, in our soil, and found by him in it. This is evidenced by the types of Tatyana, a completely Russian woman who saved herself from superficial lies, historical types, such as Monk and others in “Boris Godunov”, everyday types, as in “The Captain’s Daughter” and in many other images flashing in his poems, stories, notes, even in “The History of the Pugachev Rebellion.” The main thing that must be especially emphasized is that all these types of positive beauty of the Russian man and his soul are taken entirely from the national spirit. Here it is necessary to tell the whole truth: not in our current civilization, not in the “European” so-called education (which, by the way, we never had), not in the ugliness of externally adopted European ideas and forms, Pushkin indicated this beauty, but it was only in the people’s spirit that I found it, and only in it. Thus, I repeat, having outlined the disease, I also gave great hope: “Believe in the spirit of the people and expect salvation from it alone and you will be saved.” Having delved into Pushkin, it is impossible not to draw such a conclusion. The third point that I wanted to note in the meaning of Pushkin is that special, most characteristic and not found anywhere else except in him trait of artistic genius - the ability of worldwide responsiveness and complete transformation into the genius of foreign nations, and almost perfect transformation. I said in my speech that in Europe there were the world's greatest artistic geniuses: Shakespeare, Cervantes, Schiller, but that we do not see this ability in any of them, but we see it only in Pushkin. It’s not responsiveness alone that matters, but rather the amazing completeness of transformation. This ability, of course, I could not help but note in my assessment of Pushkin, precisely as the most characteristic feature of his genius, which belongs to him alone of all the world’s artists, which is what distinguishes him from them all. But I did not say this to belittle such great European geniuses as Shakespeare and Schiller; Only a fool could draw such a stupid conclusion from my words. The universality, all-intelligibility and unexplored depth of the world types of man of the Aryan tribe, given by Shakespeare for centuries, is not subject to the slightest doubt by me. And if Shakespeare really created Othello Venetian Moor , and not an Englishman, it would only give him an aura of local national character, but the world significance of this type would remain the same, because in an Italian he would have expressed the same thing that he wanted to say, with the same force. I repeat, I did not want to encroach on the world significance of Shakespeare and Schiller, denoting Pushkin’s most brilliant ability to transform into the genius of foreign nations, but wanting only in this ability itself and in its fullness to note a great and prophetic indication for us, for 4) This ability is entirely an ability Russian, national, and Pushkin only shares it with all our people, and, as the most perfect artist, he is also the most perfect exponent of this ability, at least in his activity, in the activity of an artist. Our people precisely contain in their souls this inclination towards universal responsiveness and universal reconciliation and have already demonstrated it in everything? the bicentenary of Peter's reform more than once. Denoting this ability of our people, I could not help but at the same time, in this fact, show great consolation for us in our future, our great and, perhaps, greatest hope shining ahead of us. The main thing I outlined is that our aspiration to Europe, even with all its passions and extremes, was not only legal and reasonable, in its foundation, but also popular, coincided completely with the aspirations of the very spirit of the people, and in the end, undoubtedly has highest goal. In my short, too brief speech, I, of course, could not develop my thought in its entirety, but at least what was expressed seems clear. And there is no need, there is no need to be indignant at what I said, “that our poor land may, in the end, say a new word to the world.” It is also ridiculous to insist that before we say a new word to the world, “we ourselves need to develop economically, scientifically and civically, and then only dream of “new words” for such (seemingly) perfect organisms as the peoples of Europe.” I precisely emphasize in my speech that I am not trying to equate the Russian people with Western peoples in the spheres of their economic or scientific glory. I’m simply saying that the Russian soul, that the genius of the Russian people, is perhaps the most capable of all peoples to contain within itself the idea of universal unity, brotherly love, a sober look that forgives the hostile, distinguishes and excuses the dissimilar, and removes contradictions. This is not an economic trait or any other, it is only a moral trait, and can anyone deny and dispute that it does not exist among the Russian people? Can anyone say that the Russian people are only an inert mass, condemned only to serve the economic prosperity and development of our European intelligentsia, which has risen above our people, while in itself it contains only dead inertia, from which nothing should be expected and for which there is absolutely nothing have no hopes? Alas, many people say so, but I ventured to declare otherwise. I repeat, I, of course, could not prove “this fantasy of mine,” as I myself put it, in detail and with all completeness, but I could not help but point out it. To assert that our poor and disorderly land cannot contain such lofty aspirations until it becomes economically and civically similar to the West is simply absurd. The main moral treasures of the spirit, in their basic essence at least, do not depend on economic power. Our poor, disorderly land, except for its highest layer, is entirely like one person. All eighty million of its population represent such a spiritual unity, which, of course, does not and cannot exist anywhere in Europe, and therefore, for this alone it cannot be said that our land is disorderly, even in the strict sense it cannot be said that beggar. On the contrary, in Europe, in this Europe, where so much wealth has been accumulated, everything? civil foundation of all European nations - all? undermined and, perhaps, tomorrow it will collapse without a trace for all eternity, and in its place will come something unheard of new, unlike anything before. And all the wealth accumulated by Europe will not save it from its fall, for “wealth will disappear in an instant.” Meanwhile, this, precisely this undermined and infected civil system of theirs, is pointed out to our people as an ideal to which they should strive, and only after they have achieved this ideal should they dare to babble any word to Europe. We affirm that it is possible to contain and carry within ourselves the power of a loving and all-unifying spirit even in our current economic poverty, and not even in such poverty as now. E? it is possible to preserve and contain it even in such poverty as it was after the invasion of Batu or after the pogrom of the Time of Troubles, when Russia was saved by the only all-unifying spirit of the people. And finally, if it really is so necessary, in order to have the right to love humanity and carry within oneself an all-unifying soul, in order to contain within oneself the ability not to hate foreign peoples because they are unlike us; in order to have the desire not to be strengthened by everyone in her nationality, so that she can have everything alone? got it, and consider other nationalities only as a lemon that can be squeezed (and after all, there are peoples of this spirit in Europe!) - if in fact, to achieve all this it is necessary, I repeat, to first become a rich people and drag the European civil device, then do we really have to slavishly copy this European device (which will collapse tomorrow in Europe)? Is it really possible that even here they will not and will not allow the Russian organism to develop nationally, with its own organic strength, and certainly impersonally, servilely imitating Europe? But what should one do with the Russian organism then? Do these gentlemen understand what an organism is? And they also talk about natural sciences! “The people will not allow this,” one interlocutor said on one occasion, two years ago, to an ardent Westerner. “So destroy the people!” the Westerner answered calmly and majestically. And he was not just anyone, but one of the representatives of our intelligentsia. This anecdote is true. With these four points I outlined the significance of Pushkin for us, and my speech, I repeat, made an impression. She made this impression not by her merits (I emphasize this), not by her talent of presentation (I agree with all my opponents on this and do not boast), but by her sincerity and, dare I say it, by a certain irresistibility of the facts I presented, despite all the brevity and the incompleteness of my speech. But what, however, was the “event”, as Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov put it? But it is precisely that the Slavophiles, or the so-called Russian party (God, we have a “Russian party”!), took a huge and final, perhaps, step towards reconciliation with the Westerners; for the Slavophiles declared all the legitimacy of the Westerners’ desire for Europe, all the legitimacy of even their most extreme hobbies and conclusions, and explained this legitimacy by our purely Russian national aspiration, coinciding with the very spirit of the people. Hobbies justified - historical necessity , a historical fate, so that in the end and in the end, if it is ever brought to an end, it will be clear that the Westerners served the Russian land and the aspirations of its spirit exactly as much as all those purely Russian people who sincerely loved their native land and They have, perhaps, too jealously guarded her hitherto from all the hobbies of the “Russian foreigners.” It was finally announced that all the confusion between the two parties and all the evil bickering between them had hitherto been just one great misunderstanding. This could, perhaps, become an “event,” for the representatives of Slavophilism immediately, immediately after my speech, completely agreed with all its conclusions. I declare now - and I declared it in my very speech - that the honor of this new step (if only the sincere desire for reconciliation constitutes an honor), that the merit of this new, if you like, word does not belong to me alone, but to all Slavophilism, to all the spirit and direction of our “party”, that it was always clear to those who impartially delved into Slavophilism, that the idea that I expressed was more than once, if not expressed, then indicated by them. I only managed to catch the minute in time. Now here is the conclusion: if the Westerners accept our conclusion and agree with it, then indeed, of course, all misunderstandings between both parties will be eliminated, so that “Westerners and Slavophiles will have nothing to argue about, as Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov put it, since everything? From now on it is explained." From this point of view, of course, my speech would be an “event.” But alas, the word “event” was uttered only in sincere enthusiasm on the one hand, but whether it will be accepted by the other side and will not remain only as an ideal is a completely different question. Next to the Slavophiles, who hugged me and shook my hand, right there on the stage, as soon as I left the pulpit, Westerners came up to shake my hand, and not just any of them, but the leading representatives of Westernism, occupying the first role in it , especially now. They shook my hand with the same ardent and sincere enthusiasm as the Slavophiles, and called my speech brilliant, and several times, emphasizing this word, they said that it was brilliant. But I’m afraid, I’m sincerely afraid: wasn’t this said in the first “hurts” of passion! Oh, I’m not afraid that they will abandon their opinion that my speech is brilliant, I myself know that it is not brilliant, and I was not at all seduced by praise, so with all my heart I forgive them for their disappointment in my genius, - but here’s what, however, can happen, here’s what Westerners can say, after thinking a little (Nota bene, I’m not writing about those who shook my hand, I’ll just say about Westerners in general now, that’s what I’m pushing): “And, perhaps the Westerners will say (you hear: only “maybe”, no more) - oh, you finally agreed, after much debate and bickering, that our desire for Europe was legal and normal, you admitted that there was also truth on our side, and your banners bowed down - well, we accept your confession cordially and hasten to tell you that on your part this is even quite good: it means, at least, that you have some intelligence, in which, however, , we have never refused you, with the exception of perhaps the dumbest of ours, for whom we do not want and cannot be responsible, but. .. here, you see, there is again some new comma, and this needs to be clarified as soon as possible. The fact is that your position, your conclusion that in our hobbies we seemed to coincide with the national spirit and were mysteriously guided by it, your position still remains more than doubtful for us, but therefore, an agreement between us again becomes impossible. Know that we were guided by Europe, its science and the reform of Peter, but by no means by the spirit of our people, for we did not meet or smell this spirit on our way, on the contrary, we left it behind and quickly ran away from it. From the very beginning, we went on our own, and not at all following some supposedly enticing instinct of the Russian people towards universal responsiveness and the unity of humanity - well, in a word, towards everything that you have now talked so much about. Among the Russian people, since the time has come to speak out quite frankly, we still see only an inert mass from which we have nothing to learn, which, on the contrary, slows down the development of Russia for a progressive better, and which all must be recreated and remade - if it is impossible and it is impossible organically, then at least mechanically, that is, by simply forcing her to obey us once and for all, forever and ever. And in order to achieve this obedience, it is necessary to assimilate a civil structure exactly like in the European lands, which is now being discussed. Actually, our people are poor and stinking, as they have always been, and cannot have either a face or an idea. The whole history of our people is an absurdity, from which you have still deduced God knows what, but only we have looked soberly. It is necessary that a people like ours should not have history, and that what they had under the guise of history should be forgotten by them with disgust, everything? entirely. It is necessary that only our intelligent society has a history, which the people must serve only with their labor and their own strength. Please, don’t worry and don’t shout: we don’t want to enslave our people when we talk about their obedience, oh, of course not! Please don’t deduce this: we are humane, we are Europeans, you know this too much. On the contrary, we intend to form our people little by little, in order, and to crown our building, elevating the people to ourselves and transforming their nationality into another, which will itself come after its formation. We will base his education and begin where we ourselves began, that is, on his denial of his entire past and on the curse to which he himself must betray his past. As soon as we teach a person from the people to read and write, we will immediately make him smell Europe, we will immediately begin to seduce him with Europe, well, at least with the sophistication of life, decency, costume, drinks, dances - in a word, we will make him ashamed of his former bast shoes and kvass, ashamed his ancient songs, and although there are some beautiful and musical ones, we will still make him sing rhyming vaudeville, no matter how angry you are about it. In a word, for a good purpose, we, by numerous means and by all sorts of means, will act first of all on the weak strings of character, as was the case with us, and then the people will be ours. He will be ashamed of his former self and curse him. Whoever curses his past is already ours - this is our formula! We will fully apply it when we begin to raise the people to ourselves. If the people turn out to be incapable of education, then “eliminate the people.” For then it will become clear that our people are only an unworthy, barbaric mass, which must only be forced to obey. For what can we do here: in the intelligentsia and in Europe there is only truth, and therefore, even though you have eighty million people (which you seem to be bragging about), all these millions must first of all serve this European truth, since there is no other and not May be. You won’t frighten us with the number of millions. This is our always conclusion, only now in all its nakedness, and we remain with it. We cannot, having accepted your conclusion, interpret with you, for example, about such strange things, like le Pravoslaviy and some supposedly special meaning his. We hope that you will not demand this from us, especially now that Europe and European science V general conclusion There is atheism, enlightened and humane, but we cannot help but follow Europe. Therefore, we will probably agree to accept that half of the speech in which you express praise to us with certain restrictions, so be it, we will do you this courtesy. Well, as for the half that relates to you and all these “beginnings” of yours - excuse me, we cannot accept..." This can be a sad conclusion. I repeat: not only do I not dare put this conclusion into the mouths of those Westerners who shook my hand, but also in the mouths of many, very many, the most enlightened of them, Russian leaders and completely Russian people, despite their theories, respectable and respected Russian citizens. But then the mass, the mass of outcasts and renegades , the mass of your Westernism, the middle, the street along which the idea drags - all these stinking “directions” (and they are like the sand of the sea), oh, they will certainly say something like this and, perhaps, (Nota bene. Regarding faith, for example, it has already been stated in one publication, with all its characteristic wit, that the goal of the Slavophiles is to baptize all of Europe into Orthodoxy.) But let’s cast aside gloomy thoughts and let’s hope for the progressive representatives of our Europeanism And if they accept at least half of our conclusion and our hopes for them, then honor and glory to them for this too, and we will meet them in the delight of our hearts. If they accept even one half, that is, they at least recognize the independence and personality of the Russian spirit, the legitimacy of its existence and its humane, all-unifying aspiration, then even then there will be almost nothing to argue about, at least from the main point, from the main thing. Then indeed my speech would serve as the foundation of a new event. Not she herself, I repeat for the last time, would be an event (she is not worthy of such a name), but the great Pushkin triumph, which served as an event of our unity - the unity of all educated and sincere Russian people for the most beautiful future goal.
CHAPTER TWO
PUSHKIN (ESSAY) Delivered on June 8 at a meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature
“Pushkin is an extraordinary phenomenon and, perhaps, the only manifestation of the Russian spirit,” said Gogol. I will add on my own: and prophetic. Yes, his appearance contains something undeniably prophetic for all of us Russians. Pushkin just comes at the very beginning of our correct self-awareness, which has barely begun and emerged in our society after a whole century since Peter’s reform, and his appearance greatly contributes to illuminating our dark road with a new guiding light. In this sense, Pushkin is a prophecy and an indication. I divide the activity of our great poet into three periods. I am speaking now not as a literary critic: touching on Pushkin’s creative activity, I only want to clarify my thought about his prophetic meaning for us and what I mean by this word. I will note, however, in passing that the periods of Pushkin’s activity do not, it seems to me, have firm boundaries among themselves. The beginning of “Onegin,” for example, belongs, in my opinion, to the first period of the poet’s activity, and “Onegin” ends in the second period, when Pushkin had already found his ideals in his native land, accepted and loved them entirely with his loving and perspicacious soul. It is also customary to say that in the first period of his activity, Pushkin imitated European poets, Guys, Andre Chénier and others, especially Byron. Yes, without a doubt, the poets of Europe had a great influence on the development of his genius, and they retained this influence throughout his life. Nevertheless, even Pushkin’s very first poems were not mere imitation, so that the extreme independence of his genius was already expressed in them. In imitation, such independence of suffering and such depth of self-awareness never appears that Pushkin showed, for example, in “Gypsies” - a poem that I completely attribute to the first period of his creative activity. Not to mention creative power and about swiftness, which would not have appeared so much if he had only imitated. In the type of Aleko, the hero of the poem "Gypsies", there is already a strong and deep, completely Russian thought, expressed later in such harmonious completeness in "Onegin", where almost the same Aleko no longer appears in a fantastic light, but in a tangibly real and understandable form . In Aleko, Pushkin had already found and brilliantly noted that unfortunate wanderer in his native land, that historical Russian sufferer, who so historically necessarily appeared in our society, cut off from the people. He found it, of course, not only from Byron. This type is faithful and captured unmistakably, the type is permanent and has settled with us, in our Russian land, for a long time. These Russian homeless wanderers continue their wanderings to this day and, it seems, will not disappear for a long time. And if in our time they no longer go to gypsy camps to seek from the gypsies in their wild, unique way of life their world ideals and tranquility in the lap of nature from the confused and absurd life of our Russian intelligent society, then that’s it? equally embrace socialism, which did not yet exist under Aleko, go with new faith to another field and work in it zealously, believing, like Aleko, that in their fantastic work they will achieve their goals and happiness not only for themselves, but also for the world . For the Russian wanderer needs precisely universal happiness in order to calm down: he won’t be reconciled cheaper, of course, for now it’s only a matter of theory. Is that all? the same Russian man, only appearing at different times. This man, I repeat, was born just at the beginning of the second century after the great reform of Peter the Great, in our intelligent society, divorced from the people, from popular power. Oh, the vast majority of intelligent Russians, and then, under Pushkin, as now, in our time, served and are serving peacefully in officials, in the treasury or in railways and in banks, or simply make money through various means, or even engage in science, give lectures - and that’s it? it is regular, lazy and peaceful, with the receipt of a salary, with a game of preference, without any inclination to run to gypsy camps or somewhere to places more appropriate to our time. There is a lot of liberalism “with a touch of European socialism”, but to which a certain benevolent Russian character is given - but that’s all? it's only a matter of time. What is it that one has not yet begun to worry, and the other has already managed to reach the locked door and hit his forehead hard against it. The same thing awaits everyone in due time if they do not take the saving path of humble communication with the people. Yes, even if this does not await everyone: only the “chosen ones” are enough, only a tenth of those who are worried is enough, so that the rest of the vast majority will not see peace through them. Aleko, of course, still does not know how to properly express his melancholy: he has everything? this is somehow still abstract, he only has a longing for nature, a complaint about secular society, world aspirations, a cry about a truth lost somewhere and by someone, which he cannot find. There's a little bit of Jean-Jacques Rousseau here. What this truth is, where and in what way it could appear and when exactly it was lost, of course, he himself will not say, but he suffers sincerely. A fantastic and impatient person yearns for salvation only primarily from external phenomena; and so it should be: “True, they say, somewhere outside of it it may be, somewhere in other lands, European, for example, with their solid historical order, with their established social and civil life." And he will never understand that the truth is primarily within himself, and how can he understand this: after all, he is not himself in his land, he has already been weaned from work for a whole century, has no culture, grew up as a schoolgirl in closed walls, performed strange and unaccountable duties depending on his belonging to one or another of the fourteen classes into which educated Russian society is divided. He is still just a torn-off piece of grass flying through the air. And he feels it and suffers from this, and often so painfully! Well, so what is it that, belonging, perhaps, to the family nobility and, even very likely, possessing serfs, he allowed himself, at the liberty of his nobility, a little fantasy to be seduced by people living “without the law,” and for a while he began to take Mishka to the gypsy camp and show him off? Got it, woman, “ wild woman", in the words of one poet, could most likely give him hope for the outcome of his melancholy, and he, with frivolous but passionate faith, rushes to Zemfira: "Here, they say, where is my outcome, here is where, perhaps, my happiness is here, on in the bosom of nature, far from the light, here, among people who have no civilization and no laws!" And what happens: at your first encounter with the conditions of this wildlife he cannot stand it and stains his hands with blood. Not only for world harmony, but even for the gypsies, the unfortunate dreamer was of no use, and they drive him out - without revenge, without malice, majestically and innocently:
Leave us, proud man; We are wild, we have no laws, We do not torture, we do not execute.
Sun? This, of course, is fantastic, but the “proud man” is real and aptly captured. The first time he was captured from us was by Pushkin, and this must be remembered. Precisely, precisely, almost over him, and he will viciously tear to pieces and execute for his offense or, what is even more convenient, remembering that he belongs to one of the fourteen classes, he himself will cry out, perhaps (for this also happened), to the law that torments and the one who executes, and will call him, if only his personal offense is avenged. No, this brilliant poem is not an imitation! Here a Russian solution to the question, the “damned question”, is already suggested. folk faith and truth: “Humble yourself, proud man, and first of all break your pride. Humble yourself, idle man, and first of all work in your native field,” this is the decision according to the people’s truth and the people’s reason. “The truth is not outside of you, but in yourself; find yourself, subordinate yourself to yourself, master yourself - and you will see the truth. This truth is not in things, not outside of you and not overseas somewhere, but first of all in your own work on yourself. You will conquer yourself, you will pacify yourself - and you will become free as you never imagined, and you will begin a great work, and you will make others free, and you will see happiness, for your life will be filled, and you will finally understand your people and their holy truth. Not among the gypsies and there is world harmony nowhere if you yourself are the first to be unworthy of it, angry and proud and demand life for free, without even suggesting that you have to pay for it.” This solution to the problem is already strongly suggested in Pushkin’s poem. It is expressed even more clearly in "Eugene Onegin", a poem no longer fantastic, but tangibly real, in which real Russian life is embodied with such creative power and with such completeness that never happened before Pushkin, and perhaps even after him. Onegin comes from St. Petersburg - certainly from St. Petersburg, this was undoubtedly necessary in the poem, and Pushkin could not miss such a major real feature in the biography of his hero. I repeat again, this is the same Aleko, especially later when he exclaims in anguish:
Why, like a Tula assessor, am I not lying in paralysis?
But now, at the beginning of the poem, he is still half socialite, and had lived too little to have time to become completely disillusioned with life. But he is already beginning to be visited and disturbed by
The noble demon of boredom is a secret.
In the wilderness, in the heart of his homeland, he is certainly not at home, he is not at home. He doesn’t know what to do here, and feels as if he’s visiting himself. Subsequently, when he wanders in longing for his native land and foreign lands, he, as an undeniably intelligent and undeniably sincere person, feels even more like a stranger to himself among strangers. It’s true that he loves his native land, but he doesn’t trust it. Of course, he’s heard about his native ideals, but he doesn’t believe them. He only believes in the complete impossibility of any kind of work in his native field, and he looks at those who believe in this possibility - and then, as now, a few - with sad mockery. He killed Lensky simply from the blues, who knows, maybe from the blues according to the world ideal - that’s too much for us, it’s probable. Tatyana is not like that: she is a solid type, standing firmly on her own ground. She is deeper than Onegin and, of course, smarter than him. She already senses with her noble instinct where and what the truth is, which is expressed in the ending of the poem. Perhaps Pushkin would have even done better if he had named his poem after Tatyana, and not Onegin, for undoubtedly she main character poems. This is a positive type, not a negative one, this is a type of positive beauty, this is the apotheosis of the Russian woman, and the poet intended her to express the idea of the poem in the famous scene of Tatyana’s last meeting with Onegin. One might even say that a positive type of Russian woman of such beauty has almost never been repeated in our country. fiction- except perhaps for the image of Lisa in Turgenev’s “The Noble Nest”. But the manner of looking down made it so that Onegin did not even recognize Tatyana at all when he met her for the first time, in the wilderness, in the modest image of a pure, innocent girl, who was so shy before him the first time. He failed to distinguish completeness and perfection in the poor girl and, indeed, perhaps mistook her for a “moral embryo.” This is her embryo, this is after her letter to Onegin! If there is anyone who is a moral embryo in the poem, it is, of course, himself, Onegin, and this is indisputable. And he could not recognize her at all: does he know the human soul? This is an abstract person, this is a restless dreamer throughout his life. He did not recognize her even later, in St. Petersburg, in the guise of a noble lady, when, in his own words, in a letter to Tatyana, “he comprehended with his soul all her perfections.” But these are only words: she passed by him in his life, unrecognized and unappreciated by him; That’s the tragedy of their romance. Oh, if then, in the village, at the first meeting with her, Childe Harold, or even, somehow, Lord Byron himself, had arrived there from England and, noticing her timid, modest charm, would have pointed out to him? Oh, Onegin would immediately be amazed and surprised, for in these world sufferers there is sometimes so much spiritual servility! But this did not happen, and the seeker of world harmony, having read a sermon to her and still acting very honestly, set off with his world melancholy and with the blood shed in stupid anger on his hands to wander around his homeland, not noticing it, and, seething with health and strength , exclaim with curses:
I am young, the life in me is strong, What should I wait for, longing, longing!
Tatyana understood this. In the immortal stanzas of the novel, the poet depicted her visiting the house of this man, so wonderful and mysterious to her. I'm not even talking about the artistry, the unattainable beauty and depth of these stanzas. Here she is in his office, she looks at his books, things, objects, tries to guess his soul from them, to solve her riddle, and the “moral embryo” finally stops in thought, with a strange smile, with a premonition of solving the riddle, and her lips quietly whisper :
Isn't he a parody?
Yes, she had to whisper it, she figured it out. In St. Petersburg, then, a long time later, when they met again, she already knew him completely. By the way, who said that secular, court life had a pernicious effect on her soul and that it was the dignity socialite and were new secular concepts partly the reason for her refusal to Onegin? No, it wasn't like that. No, it’s the same Tanya, the same old village Tanya! She is not spoiled, she, on the contrary, is depressed by this magnificent St. Petersburg life, broken and suffering; she hates her rank as a society lady, and anyone who judges her differently does not understand at all what Pushkin wanted to say. And so she firmly says to Onegin:
But I was given to someone else and I will be faithful to him forever.
She said this precisely as a Russian woman, this is her apotheosis. She expresses the truth of the poem. Oh, I won’t say a word about her religious beliefs, about her view of the sacrament of marriage - no, I won’t touch on that. But what: is it because she refused to follow him, despite the fact that she herself told him: “I love you,” or because she is “like a Russian woman” (and not southern or not some kind of French) , incapable of taking a bold step, unable to break her bonds, unable to sacrifice the charm of honor, wealth, her secular significance, the conditions of virtue? No, the Russian woman is brave. A Russian woman will boldly go after what she believes in, and she has proven it. But she “was given to someone else and will be faithful to him forever.” To whom and what is she loyal? What are these responsibilities? This old general, whom she cannot love, because she loves Onegin, and whom she married only because her “mother begged her with tears of enchantment,” and in her offended, wounded soul there was then only despair and no hope, no clearance? Yes, faithful to this general, her husband, to an honest man, who loves her, respects her and is proud of her. Even though her mother “begged” her, she, and not anyone else, gave her consent, after all, she herself swore to him to be his honest wife. She may have married him out of desperation, but now he is her husband, and her betrayal will cover him with shame, shame and kill him. Can a person base his happiness on the misfortune of another? Happiness does not lie in the pleasures of love alone, but also in the highest harmony of the spirit. How to calm the spirit if there is a dishonest, ruthless person standing behind, inhuman act? Should she run away just because my happiness is here? But what kind of happiness can there be if it is based on someone else’s misfortune? Let me imagine that you yourself are erecting the building of human destiny with the goal of ultimately making people happy, finally giving them peace and quiet. And imagine, too, that for this it is necessary and inevitably necessary to torture just one thing human , moreover, even if he is not so worthy, funny even at a different glance, a creature, not some Shakespeare, but just an honest old man, the husband of a young wife, in whose love he blindly believes, although he does not know her heart at all, respects her, is proud with her, happy with her and at peace. And now you just need to disgrace, dishonor and torture him and build your building on the tears of this dishonored old man! Would you agree to be the architect of such a building on this condition? Here's the question. And can you allow even for a moment the idea that the people for whom you built this building would agree to accept such happiness from you, if its foundation is based on the suffering of, let’s say, an insignificant creature, but mercilessly and unjustly tortured, and Having accepted this happiness, remain happy forever? Tell me, could Tatyana, with her high soul, with her heart, so damaged, have decided differently? No; the pure Russian soul decides this way: “Let me, let me alone be deprived of happiness, let my misfortune be immeasurably stronger than the misfortune of this old man, let, finally, no one ever, and this old man too, recognize my sacrifice and appreciate it, but I don’t want to be happy by ruining someone else!” Here is a tragedy, it is happening, and it is impossible to cross the limit, it is too late, and now Tatyana sends Onegin away. They will say: but Onegin is also unhappy; She saved one and destroyed the other! Excuse me, here is another question, and perhaps even the most important one in the poem. By the way, the question: why Tatyana didn’t go with Onegin, has, at least in our literature, a kind of very characteristic story, and that’s why I allowed myself to expand on this question. And what is most characteristic is that the moral resolution of this issue has been in doubt for so long. This is what I think: even if Tatyana had become free, if her old husband had died and she had become a widow, then even then she would not have followed Onegin. You need to understand the whole essence of this character! After all, she sees who he is: the eternal wanderer suddenly saw a woman whom he had previously neglected in a new, brilliant, inaccessible environment - but in this environment, perhaps, the whole essence of the matter. After all, this girl, whom he almost despised, is now worshiped by the world - the light, this terrible authority for Onegin, despite all his worldly aspirations - that’s why he rushes to her, blinded! Here is my ideal, he exclaims, here is my salvation, here is the outcome of my melancholy, I overlooked it, but “happiness was so possible, so close!” And just as Aleko went to Zemfira before, so he rushes to Tatyana, looking for all his solutions in a new bizarre fantasy. But doesn’t Tatyana see this in him, and hasn’t she seen him a long time ago? After all, she knows for sure that he essentially loves only his new fantasy, and not her, humble, as before, Tatyana! She knows that he takes her for something else, and not for what she is, that even he doesn’t love her, that maybe he doesn’t love anyone, and is not even capable of loving anyone , despite the fact that he suffers so painfully! He loves fantasy, but he is a fantasy himself. After all, if she follows him, then tomorrow he will be disappointed and look at his hobby mockingly. It has no soil, it is a blade of grass carried by the wind. She is not like that at all: even in despair and in the suffering consciousness that her life has been lost, she still has something solid and unshakable on which her soul rests. These are her childhood memories, memories of her homeland, the rural wilderness in which her humble, pure life began - this is “the cross and the shadow of the branches over the grave of her poor nanny.”
Dostoevsky Fyodor Mikhailovich
Pushkin speech
F.M.DOSTOEVSKY
PUSHKINSKAYA RECH
WRITER'S DIARY
Monthly publication Year III Single issue for 1880
CHAPTER FIRST
AN EXPLANATORY WORD ABOUT THE SPEECH PRINTED BELOW ABOUT PUSHKIN
My speech about Pushkin and his significance, placed below and forming the basis of the content of this issue of the “Diary of a Writer” (the only issue for 1880 [I hope to resume publication of the “Diary of a Writer” in the future 1881, if my health allows.]), was delivered On June 8 of this year, at a ceremonial meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, in front of a large audience, she made a significant impression. Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov, who immediately said about himself that everyone considers him to be the leader of the Slavophiles, declared from the pulpit that my speech “constitutes an event.” I am not recalling this now to boast, but to state this: if my speech constitutes an event, it is only from one and only point of view, which I will outline below. This is why I am writing this preface. Actually, in my speech I wanted to outline only the following four points in the meaning of Pushkin for Russia. 1) The fact that Pushkin was the first, with his deeply insightful and brilliant mind and purely Russian heart, to find and note the most important and painful phenomenon of our intelligent society, historically cut off from the soil, which has risen above the people. He noted and prominently placed before us our negative type, a person who is worried and not reconciled, who does not believe in his native soil and in the native forces of it, Russia and himself (that is, his own society, his own intelligent stratum that arose above our native soil ) in the end denying, doing with others unwilling and sincerely suffering. Aleko and Onegin later gave birth to many others like themselves in our artistic literature. They were followed by the Pechorins, Chichikovs, Rudins and Lavretskys, the Bolkonskys (in Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”) and many others, whose appearance already testified to the truth of the thought originally given by Pushkin. Honor and glory to him, to his enormous mind and genius, which noted the most painful ulcer of the society that emerged in our society after the great reform of Peter the Great. We owe to his skillful diagnosis the designation and recognition of our illness, and he, he was the first, gave us consolation: for he also gave great hope that this disease is not fatal and that Russian society can be cured, can be renewed and resurrected again, if will join the people's truth, for 2) He was the first (precisely the first, and no one before him) gave us artistic types of Russian beauty, which came directly from the Russian spirit, found in the people's truth, in our soil, and found by him in it. This is evidenced by the types of Tatyana, a completely Russian woman who saved herself from superficial lies, historical types, such as Monk and others in “Boris Godunov”, everyday types, as in “The Captain’s Daughter” and in many other images flashing in his poems, stories, notes, even in “The History of the Pugachev Rebellion.” The main thing that must be especially emphasized is that all these types of positive beauty of the Russian man and his soul are taken entirely from the national spirit. Here it is necessary to tell the whole truth: not in our current civilization, not in the “European” so-called education (which, by the way, we never had), not in the ugliness of externally adopted European ideas and forms, Pushkin indicated this beauty, but found it only in the spirit of the people, and (only in it). Thus, I repeat, having outlined the disease, I also gave great hope: “Believe in the spirit of the people and expect salvation from it alone and you will be saved.” Having delved into Pushkin, it is impossible not to draw such a conclusion. (The third point), which I wanted to note in the meaning of Pushkin, is that special, most characteristic and not found anywhere else except in him trait of artistic genius - the ability of worldwide responsiveness and complete transformation into the genius of foreign nations, and almost perfect transformation. I said in my speech that in Europe there were the world's greatest artistic geniuses: Shakespeare, Cervantes, Schiller, but that we do not see this ability in any of them, but we see it only in Pushkin. It’s not responsiveness alone that matters, but rather the amazing completeness of transformation. This ability, of course, I could not help but note in my assessment of Pushkin, precisely as the most characteristic feature of his genius, which belongs to him alone of all the world’s artists, which is what distinguishes him from them all. But I did not say this to belittle such great European geniuses as Shakespeare and Schiller; Only a fool could draw such a stupid conclusion from my words. The universality, (all-intelligibility) and unexplored depth of the world types of man of the Aryan tribe, given by Shakespeare forever and ever, is not subject to the slightest doubt by me. And if Shakespeare had really created Othello as a (Venetian) Moor, and not an Englishman, he would only have given him an aura of local national character, but the world significance of this type would have remained the same, for in the Italian he would have expressed the same thing what I wanted to say, with the same force. I repeat, I did not want to encroach on the world significance of Shakespeare and Schiller, denoting Pushkin’s most brilliant ability to transform into the genius of foreign nations, but wanting only in this ability itself and in its fullness to note a great and prophetic indication for us, for 4) This ability is entirely an ability Russian, national, and Pushkin only shares it with all our people, and, as the most perfect artist, he is also the most perfect exponent of this ability, at least in his activity, in the activity of an artist. Our people precisely contain in their souls this inclination towards universal responsiveness and universal reconciliation and have already demonstrated it in everything? the bicentenary of Peter's reform more than once. Denoting this ability of our people, I could not help but at the same time, in this fact, show great consolation for us in our future, our great and, perhaps, greatest hope shining ahead of us. The main thing I outlined is that our aspiration to Europe, even with all its passions and extremes, was not only legal and reasonable, in its foundation, but also popular, coincided completely with the aspirations of the very spirit of the people, and in the end, undoubtedly has highest goal. In my short, too brief speech, I, of course, could not develop my thought in its entirety, but at least what was expressed seems clear. And there is no need, there is no need to be indignant at what I said, “that our poor land may, in the end, say a new word to the world.” It is also ridiculous to insist that before we say a new word to the world, “we ourselves need to develop economically, scientifically and civically, and then only dream of “new words” for such (seemingly) perfect organisms as the peoples of Europe.” I precisely emphasize in my speech that I am not trying to equate the Russian people with Western peoples in the spheres of their economic or scientific glory. I’m simply saying that the Russian soul, that the genius of the Russian people, is perhaps the most capable of all peoples to contain within itself the idea of universal unity, brotherly love, a sober look that forgives the hostile, distinguishes and excuses the dissimilar, and removes contradictions. This is not an economic trait or any other, it is only a (moral) trait, and can anyone deny and dispute that it does not exist among the Russian people? Can anyone say that the Russian people are only an inert mass, condemned only to serve (economically) the prosperity and development of our European intelligentsia, which has risen above our people, while in itself it contains only dead inertia, from which nothing should be expected and for which Is there absolutely nothing to place any hopes on? Alas, many people say so, but I ventured to declare otherwise. I repeat, I, of course, could not prove “this fantasy of mine,” as I myself put it, in detail and with all completeness, but I could not help but point out it. To assert that our poor and disorderly land cannot contain such lofty aspirations until it becomes economically and civically similar to the West is simply absurd. The main moral treasures of the spirit, in their basic essence at least, do not depend on economic power. Our poor, disorderly land, except for its highest layer, is entirely like one person. All eighty million of its population represent such a spiritual unity, which, of course, does not and cannot exist anywhere in Europe, and therefore, for this alone it cannot be said that our land is disorderly, even in the strict sense it cannot be said that beggar. On the contrary, in Europe, in this Europe, where so much wealth has been accumulated, everything? civil foundation of all European nations - all? undermined and, perhaps, tomorrow it will collapse without a trace for all eternity, and in its place will come something unheard of new, unlike anything before. And all the wealth accumulated by Europe will not save it from its fall, for “wealth will disappear in an instant.” Meanwhile, this, precisely this undermined and infected civil system of theirs, is pointed out to our people as an ideal to which they should strive, and only after they have achieved this ideal should they dare to babble any word to Europe. We affirm that it is possible to contain and carry within ourselves the power of a loving and all-unifying spirit even in our current economic poverty, and not even in such poverty as now. E? it is possible to preserve and contain it even in such poverty as it was after the invasion of Batu or after the pogrom of the Time of Troubles, when Russia was saved by the only all-unifying spirit of the people. And finally, if it really is so necessary, in order to have the right to love humanity and carry within oneself an all-unifying soul, in order to contain within oneself the ability not to hate foreign peoples because they are unlike us; in order to have the desire not to be strengthened by everyone in her nationality, so that she can have everything alone? got it, and consider other nationalities only as a lemon that can be squeezed (and after all, there are peoples of this spirit in Europe!) - if in fact, to achieve all this it is necessary, I repeat, to first become a rich people and drag the European civil device, then do we really have to slavishly copy this European device (which will collapse tomorrow in Europe)? Is it really possible that even here they will not and will not allow the Russian organism to develop nationally, with its own organic strength, and certainly impersonally, servilely imitating Europe? But what should one do with the Russian organism then? Do these gentlemen understand what an organism is? They also talk about natural sciences! “The people will not allow this,” one interlocutor said on one occasion, two years ago, to an ardent Westerner. "So destroy the people! ", the Westerner answered calmly and majestically. And he was not just anyone, but one of the representatives of our intelligentsia. This anecdote is true. With these four points I outlined the significance of Pushkin for us, and my speech, I repeat, made an impression. Not by my merits She made this impression (I emphasize this) not by the talent of her presentation (I agree with all my opponents on this and do not boast), but by her sincerity and, I dare say, by a certain irresistibility of the facts I presented, despite all the brevity and incompleteness of my speech. But what, however, was the “event”, as Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov put it? But precisely that the Slavophiles, or the so-called Russian party (God, we have a “Russian party”!), made was a huge and final, perhaps, step towards reconciliation with the Westerners; for the Slavophiles declared all the legitimacy of the Westerners’ aspirations to Europe, all the legitimacy of even their most extreme hobbies and conclusions, and explained this legitimacy by our purely Russian folk aspirations, coinciding with the very spirit of the people. Hobbies were justified - by historical necessity, historical fate, so that in the end and in the end, if it is ever let down, it will be clear that the Westerners served the Russian land and the aspirations of its spirit just as much as all those purely Russian people who who sincerely loved their native land and, perhaps, too jealously protected it hitherto from all the hobbies of the “Russian foreigners.” It was finally announced that all the confusion between the two parties and all the evil bickering between them had hitherto been just one great misunderstanding. This could, perhaps, become an “event,” for the representatives of Slavophilism immediately, immediately after my speech, completely agreed with all its conclusions. I declare now - and I declared it in my very speech - that the honor of this new step (if only the sincere desire for reconciliation constitutes an honor), that the merit of this new, if you like, word does not belong to me alone, but to all Slavophilism, to all the spirit and direction of our “party”, that it was always clear to those who impartially delved into Slavophilism, that the idea that I expressed was more than once, if not expressed, then indicated by them. I only managed to catch the minute in time. Now here is the conclusion: if the Westerners accept our conclusion and agree with it, then indeed, of course, all misunderstandings between both parties will be eliminated, so that “Westerners and Slavophiles will have nothing to argue about, as Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov put it, since everything? from now on explained." From this point of view, of course, my speech would be an "event." But alas, the word "event" was uttered only in sincere enthusiasm on the one hand, but will it be accepted by the other side and not remain only in the ideal, this is already a completely different question. Next to the Slavophiles, who hugged me and shook my hand, right there on the stage, as soon as I left the pulpit, Westerners came up to me to shake my hand, and not just any of them, but the leading representatives of Westernism, occupying first role in it, especially now. They shook my hand with the same ardent and sincere enthusiasm as the Slavophiles, and called my speech brilliant, and several times, emphasizing this word, they said that it was brilliant. But I’m afraid, I’m sincerely afraid: Was it not in the first “hurts” of passion that this was uttered! Oh, I’m not afraid that they will give up their opinion that my speech is brilliant, I myself know that it is not brilliant, and I was not at all seduced by the praise, so that with all my heart I will forgive them for their disappointment in my genius - but this is what, however, can happen, this is what Westerners can say, after thinking a little (Nota bene, I am not writing about those who shook my hand, I just In general, I’ll now say about Westerners, this is what I’m pushing): “Oh, maybe the Westerners will say (you hear: only “maybe”, no more) - oh, you finally agreed, after much debate and bickering, that the desire our trip to Europe was legal and normal, you admitted that there was truth on our side too, and bowed your banners - well, we accept your confession cordially and hasten to tell you that on your part this is even quite good: it means, according to at least you have some intelligence, which, however, we have never denied you, with the exception of perhaps the stupidest of ours, for whom we do not want and cannot be responsible, but... here, you see, again some new comma, and this needs to be clarified as soon as possible. The fact is that your position, your conclusion that in our hobbies we seemed to coincide with the national spirit and were mysteriously guided by it, your position still remains more than doubtful for us, but therefore, an agreement between us again becomes impossible. Know that we were guided by Europe, its science and the reform of Peter, but by no means by the spirit of our people, for we did not meet or smell this spirit on our way, on the contrary, we left it behind and quickly ran away from it. From the very beginning, we went on our own, and not at all following some supposedly enticing instinct of the Russian people towards universal responsiveness and the unity of humanity - well, in a word, towards everything that you have now talked so much about. Among the Russian people, since the time has come to speak out quite frankly, we still see only an inert mass from which we have nothing to learn, which, on the contrary, slows down the development of Russia for a progressive better, and which all must be recreated and remade - if it is impossible and it is impossible organically, then at least mechanically, that is, by simply forcing her to obey us once and for all, forever and ever. And in order to achieve this obedience, it is necessary to assimilate a civil structure exactly like in the European lands, which is now being discussed. Actually, our people are poor and stinking, as they have always been, and cannot have either a face or an idea. The whole history of our people is an absurdity, from which you have still deduced God knows what, but only we have looked soberly. It is necessary that a people like ours should not have history, and that what they had under the guise of history should be forgotten by them with disgust, everything? entirely. It is necessary that only our intelligent society has a history, which the people must serve only with their labor and their own strength. Please, don’t worry and don’t shout: we don’t want to enslave our people when we talk about their obedience, oh, of course not! Please don’t deduce this: we are humane, we are Europeans, you know this too much. On the contrary, we intend to form our people little by little, in order, and to crown our building, elevating the people to ourselves and transforming their nationality into another, which will itself come after its formation. We will base his education and begin where we ourselves began, that is, on his denial of his entire past and on the curse to which he himself must betray his past. As soon as we teach a person from the people to read and write, we will immediately make him smell Europe, we will immediately begin to seduce him with Europe, well, at least with the sophistication of life, decency, costume, drinks, dances - in a word, we will make him ashamed of his former bast shoes and kvass, ashamed his ancient songs, and although there are some beautiful and musical ones, we will still make him sing rhyming vaudeville, no matter how angry you are about it. In a word, for a good purpose, we, by numerous means and by all sorts of means, will act first of all on the weak strings of character, as was the case with us, and then the people will be ours. He will be ashamed of his former self and curse him. Whoever curses his past is already ours - this is our formula! We will fully apply it when we begin to raise the people to ourselves. If the people turn out to be incapable of education, then “eliminate the people.” For then it will become clear that our people are only an unworthy, barbaric mass, which must only be forced to obey. For what can we do here: in the intelligentsia and in Europe there is only truth, and therefore, even though you have eighty million people (which you seem to be bragging about), all these millions must first of all serve this European truth, since there is no other and not May be. You won’t frighten us with the number of millions. This is our always conclusion, only now in all its nakedness, and we remain with it. We cannot, having accepted your conclusion, interpret with you, for example, about such strange things as le Pravoslaviе and some supposedly special meaning of it. We hope that you will not demand this from us, especially now, when the last word of Europe and European science in the general conclusion is atheism, enlightened and humane, and we cannot help but follow Europe. Therefore, we will probably agree to accept that half of the speech in which you express praise to us with certain restrictions, so be it, we will do you this courtesy. Well, as for the half that relates to you and all these “beginnings” of yours - excuse me, we cannot accept..." This can be a sad conclusion. I repeat: not only do I not dare put this conclusion into the mouths of those Westerners who shook my hand, but also in the mouths of many, very many, the most enlightened of them, Russian leaders and completely Russian people, despite their theories, respectable and respected Russian citizens. But then the mass, the mass of outcasts and renegades , the mass of your Westernism, the middle, the street along which the idea drags - all these stinking “directions” (and they are like the sand of the sea), oh, they will certainly say something like this and, perhaps, (Nota bene. Regarding faith, for example, it has already been stated in one publication, with all its characteristic wit, that the goal of the Slavophiles is to baptize all of Europe into Orthodoxy.) But let’s cast aside gloomy thoughts and let’s hope for the progressive representatives of our Europeanism And if they accept at least half of our conclusion and our hopes for them, then honor and glory to them for this too, and we will meet them in the delight of our hearts. If they accept even one half, that is, they at least recognize the independence and personality of the Russian spirit, the legitimacy of its existence and its humane, all-unifying aspiration, then even then there will be almost nothing to argue about, at least from the main point, from the main thing. Then indeed my speech would serve as the foundation of a new event. Not she herself, I repeat for the last time, would be an event (she is not worthy of such a name), but the great Pushkin triumph, which served as an event of our unity - the unity of all educated and sincere Russian people for the most beautiful future goal.
My speech about Pushkin and his significance, placed below and forming the basis of the content of this issue of the “Diary of a Writer” (the only issue for 1880 [I hope to resume publication of the “Diary of a Writer” in the future 1881, if my health allows.]), was delivered On June 8 of this year, at a ceremonial meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, in front of a large audience, she made a significant impression. Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov, who immediately said about himself that everyone considers him to be the leader of the Slavophiles, declared from the pulpit that my speech “constitutes an event.” I am not recalling this now to boast, but to state this: if my speech constitutes an event, it is only from one and only point of view, which I will outline below. This is why I am writing this preface. Actually, in my speech I wanted to outline only the following four points in the meaning of Pushkin for Russia.
1) The fact that Pushkin was the first, with his deeply insightful and brilliant mind and purely Russian heart, to find and note the most important and painful phenomenon of our intelligent society, historically cut off from the soil, which has risen above the people. He noted and prominently placed before us our negative type, a person who is worried and not reconciled, who does not believe in his native soil and in the native forces of it, Russia and himself (that is, his own society, his own intelligent stratum that arose above our native soil ) in the end denying, doing with others unwilling and sincerely suffering. Aleko and Onegin later gave birth to many like themselves in our fiction. They were followed by the Pechorins, Chichikovs, Rudins and Lavretskys, the Bolkonskys (in Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”) and many others, whose appearance already testified to the truth of the thought originally given by Pushkin. Honor and glory to him, to his enormous mind and genius, which noted the most painful ulcer of the society that emerged in our society after the great reform of Peter the Great. We owe to his skillful diagnosis the designation and recognition of our illness, and he, he was the first, gave us consolation: for he also gave great hope that this disease is not fatal and that Russian society can be cured, can be renewed and resurrected again, if will join the people's truth, for 2) He was the first (precisely the first, and no one before him) gave us artistic types of Russian beauty, which came directly from the Russian spirit, found in the people's truth, in our soil, and found by him in it.
This is evidenced by the types of Tatyana, a completely Russian woman who saved herself from superficial lies, historical types, such as Monk and others in “Boris Godunov”, everyday types, as in “The Captain’s Daughter” and in many other images flashing in his poems, stories, notes, even in “The History of the Pugachev Rebellion.” The main thing that must be especially emphasized is that all these types of positive beauty of the Russian man and his soul are taken entirely from the national spirit. Here it is necessary to tell the whole truth: not in our current civilization, not in the “European” so-called education (which, by the way, we never had), not in the ugliness of externally adopted European ideas and forms, Pushkin indicated this beauty, but found it only in the spirit of the people, and (only in it). Thus, I repeat, having outlined the disease, I also gave great hope: “Believe in the spirit of the people and expect salvation from it alone and you will be saved.” Having delved into Pushkin, it is impossible not to draw such a conclusion.
(The third point), which I wanted to note in the meaning of Pushkin, is that special, most characteristic and not found anywhere else except in him trait of artistic genius - the ability of worldwide responsiveness and complete transformation into the genius of foreign nations, and almost perfect transformation. I said in my speech that in Europe there were the world's greatest artistic geniuses: Shakespeare, Cervantes, Schiller, but that we do not see this ability in any of them, but we see it only in Pushkin. It’s not responsiveness alone that matters, but rather the amazing completeness of transformation. This ability, of course, I could not help but note in my assessment of Pushkin, precisely as the most characteristic feature of his genius, which belongs to him alone of all the world’s artists, which is what distinguishes him from them all. But I did not say this to belittle such great European geniuses as Shakespeare and Schiller; Only a fool could draw such a stupid conclusion from my words. The universality, (all-intelligibility) and unexplored depth of the world types of man of the Aryan tribe, given by Shakespeare for centuries, is not subject to the slightest doubt by me. And if Shakespeare had really created Othello as a (Venetian) Moor, and not an Englishman, he would only have given him an aura of local national character, but the world significance of this type would have remained the same, for in the Italian he would have expressed the same thing what I wanted to say, with the same force. I repeat, I did not want to encroach on the world significance of Shakespeare and Schiller, denoting Pushkin’s most brilliant ability to transform into the genius of foreign nations, but wanting only in this ability itself and in its fullness to note a great and prophetic indication for us, for 4) This ability is entirely an ability Russian, national, and Pushkin only shares it with all our people, and, as the most perfect artist, he is also the most perfect exponent of this ability, at least in his activity, in the activity of an artist. Our people precisely contain in their souls this inclination towards universal responsiveness and universal reconciliation, and have already demonstrated it more than once throughout the two centuries since Peter’s reform. Denoting this ability of our people, I could not help but at the same time, in this fact, show great consolation for us in our future, our great and, perhaps, greatest hope shining ahead of us. The main thing I outlined is that our aspiration to Europe, even with all its passions and extremes, was not only legal and reasonable, in its foundation, but also popular, coincided completely with the aspirations of the very spirit of the people, and in the end, undoubtedly has highest goal. In my short, too brief speech, I, of course, could not develop my thought in its entirety, but at least what was expressed seems clear. And there is no need, there is no need to be indignant at what I said, “that our poor land may, in the end, say a new word to the world.” It is also ridiculous to insist that before we say a new word to the world, “we ourselves need to develop economically, scientifically and civically, and then only dream of “new words” for such (seemingly) perfect organisms as the peoples of Europe.” I precisely emphasize in my speech that I am not trying to equate the Russian people with Western peoples in the spheres of their economic or scientific glory. I’m simply saying that the Russian soul, that the genius of the Russian people, is perhaps the most capable of all peoples to contain within itself the idea of universal unity, brotherly love, a sober look that forgives the hostile, distinguishes and excuses the dissimilar, and removes contradictions. This is not an economic trait or any other, it is only a (moral) trait, and can anyone deny and dispute that it does not exist among the Russian people? Can anyone say that the Russian people are only an inert mass, condemned only to serve (economically) the prosperity and development of our European intelligentsia, which has risen above our people, while in itself it contains only dead inertia, from which nothing should be expected and for which Is there absolutely nothing to place any hopes on? Alas, many people say so, but I ventured to declare otherwise. I repeat, I, of course, could not prove “this fantasy of mine,” as I myself put it, in detail and with all completeness, but I could not help but point out it. To assert that our poor and disorderly land cannot contain such lofty aspirations until it becomes economically and civically similar to the West is simply absurd. The main moral treasures of the spirit, in their basic essence at least, do not depend on economic power. Our poor, disorderly land, except for its highest layer, is entirely like one person. All eighty million of its population represent such a spiritual unity, which, of course, does not and cannot exist anywhere in Europe, and therefore, for this alone it cannot be said that our land is disorderly, even in the strict sense it cannot be said that beggar. On the contrary, in Europe, in this Europe, where so much wealth has been accumulated, the entire civil foundation of all European nations has been undermined and, perhaps, tomorrow will collapse without a trace forever, and in its place will come something unheard of new, unlike anything before. And all the wealth accumulated by Europe will not save it from its fall, for “wealth will disappear in an instant.” Meanwhile, this, precisely this undermined and infected civil system of theirs, is pointed out to our people as an ideal to which they should strive, and only after they have achieved this ideal should they dare to babble any word to Europe. We affirm that it is possible to contain and carry within ourselves the power of a loving and all-unifying spirit even in our current economic poverty, and not even in such poverty as now. It can be preserved and contained within oneself even in such poverty as was the case after Batuev’s invasion or after the pogrom of the Time of Troubles, when Russia was saved by the only all-unifying spirit of the people. And finally, if it really is so necessary, in order to have the right to love humanity and carry within oneself an all-unifying soul, in order to contain within oneself the ability not to hate foreign peoples because they are unlike us; in order to have a desire not to strengthen one’s nationality from everyone, so that only one gets everything, and considers other nationalities only as lemons that can be squeezed (and there are peoples of this spirit in Europe!) - if indeed for To achieve all this, I repeat, we must first become a rich people and drag the European civil system to ourselves, then do we really have to slavishly copy this European system (which will collapse tomorrow in Europe)? Is it really possible that even here they will not and will not allow the Russian organism to develop nationally, with its own organic strength, and certainly impersonally, servilely imitating Europe? But what should one do with the Russian organism then?
Do these gentlemen understand what an organism is? They also talk about natural sciences! “The people will not allow this,” one interlocutor said on one occasion, two years ago, to an ardent Westerner. “So destroy the people!” the Westerner answered calmly and majestically. And he was not just anyone, but one of the representatives of our intelligentsia. This anecdote is true.
With these four points I outlined the significance of Pushkin for us, and my speech, I repeat, made an impression. She made this impression not by her merits (I emphasize this), not by her talent of presentation (I agree with all my opponents on this and do not boast), but by her sincerity and, dare I say it, by a certain irresistibility of the facts I presented, despite all the brevity and the incompleteness of my speech. But what, however, was the “event”, as Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov put it? But it is precisely that the Slavophiles, or the so-called Russian party (God, we have a “Russian party”!), took a huge and final, perhaps, step towards reconciliation with the Westerners; for the Slavophiles declared all the legitimacy of the Westerners’ desire for Europe, all the legitimacy of even their most extreme hobbies and conclusions, and explained this legitimacy by our purely Russian national aspiration, coinciding with the very spirit of the people.
Hobbies were justified - by historical necessity, historical fate, so that in the end and in the end, if it is ever let down, it will be clear that the Westerners served the Russian land and the aspirations of its spirit just as much as all those purely Russian people who who sincerely loved their native land and, perhaps, too jealously protected it hitherto from all the hobbies of the “Russian foreigners.”
It was finally announced that all the confusion between the two parties and all the evil bickering between them had hitherto been just one great misunderstanding. This could, perhaps, become an “event,” for the representatives of Slavophilism immediately, immediately after my speech, completely agreed with all its conclusions. I declare now - and I declared it in my very speech - that the honor of this new step (if only the sincere desire for reconciliation constitutes an honor), that the merit of this new, if you like, word does not belong to me alone, but to all Slavophilism, to all the spirit and direction of our “party”, that it was always clear to those who impartially delved into Slavophilism, that the idea that I expressed was more than once, if not expressed, then indicated by them. I only managed to catch the minute in time. Now here is the conclusion: if Westerners accept our conclusion and agree with it, then indeed, of course, all misunderstandings between both parties will be eliminated, so that “Westerners and Slavophiles will have nothing to argue about, as Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov put it, since everything from now on explained." From this point of view, of course, my speech would be an “event.” But alas, the word “event” was uttered only in sincere enthusiasm on the one hand, but whether it will be accepted by the other side and will not remain only as an ideal is a completely different question. Next to the Slavophiles, who hugged me and shook my hand, right there on the stage, as soon as I left the pulpit, Westerners came up to shake my hand, and not just any of them, but the leading representatives of Westernism, occupying the first role in it , especially now. They shook my hand with the same ardent and sincere enthusiasm as the Slavophiles, and called my speech brilliant, and several times, emphasizing this word, they said that it was brilliant. But I’m afraid, I’m sincerely afraid: wasn’t this said in the first “hurts” of passion! Oh, I’m not afraid that they will abandon their opinion that my speech is brilliant, I myself know that it is not brilliant, and I was not at all seduced by praise, so with all my heart I forgive them for their disappointment in my genius, - but here’s what, however, can happen, here’s what Westerners can say, after thinking a little (Nota bene, I’m not writing about those who shook my hand, I’ll just say about Westerners in general now, that’s what I’m pushing): “Oh,” the Westerners will perhaps say (you hear: only “maybe”, no more), “oh, you finally agreed, after much debate and bickering, that our desire for Europe was legal and normal, you admitted, that there was also truth on our side, and your banners bowed down - well, we accept your confession cordially and hasten to tell you that on your part this is even quite good: it means, at least, that you have some intelligence in which, however, we have never refused you, with the exception of perhaps the stupidest of our people, for whom we do not want and cannot be responsible, but. .. here, you see, there is again some new comma, and this needs to be clarified as soon as possible.
The fact is that your position, your conclusion that in our hobbies we seemed to coincide with the national spirit and were mysteriously guided by it, your position still remains more than doubtful for us, but therefore, an agreement between us again becomes impossible. Know that we were guided by Europe, its science and the reform of Peter, but by no means by the spirit of our people, for we did not meet or smell this spirit on our way, on the contrary, we left it behind and quickly ran away from it. From the very beginning, we went on our own, and not at all following some supposedly enticing instinct of the Russian people towards universal responsiveness and the unity of humanity - well, in a word, towards everything that you have now talked so much about. Among the Russian people, since the time has come to speak out quite frankly, we still see only an inert mass from which we have nothing to learn, which, on the contrary, slows down the development of Russia for a progressive better, and which all must be recreated and remade - if it is impossible and it is impossible organically, then at least mechanically, that is, by simply forcing her to obey us once and for all, forever and ever.
And in order to achieve this obedience, it is necessary to assimilate a civil structure exactly like in the European lands, which is now being discussed. Actually, our people are poor and stinking, as they have always been, and cannot have either a face or an idea. The whole history of our people is an absurdity, from which you have still deduced God knows what, but only we have looked soberly. It is necessary that a people like ours should not have history, and that what they had under the guise of history should be forgotten by them with disgust, all in its entirety. It is necessary that only our intelligent society has a history, which the people must serve only with their labor and their own strength.
Please, don’t worry and don’t shout: we don’t want to enslave our people when we talk about their obedience, oh, of course not! Please don’t deduce this: we are humane, we are Europeans, you know this too much.
On the contrary, we intend to form our people little by little, in order, and to crown our building, elevating the people to ourselves and transforming their nationality into another, which will itself come after its formation. We will base his education and begin where we ourselves began, that is, on his denial of his entire past and on the curse to which he himself must betray his past. As soon as we teach a person from the people to read and write, we will immediately make him smell Europe, we will immediately begin to seduce him with Europe, well, at least with the sophistication of life, decency, costume, drinks, dances - in a word, we will make him ashamed of his former bast shoes and kvass, ashamed his ancient songs, and although there are some beautiful and musical ones, we will still make him sing rhyming vaudeville, no matter how angry you are about it. In a word, for a good purpose, we, by numerous means and by all sorts of means, will act first of all on the weak strings of character, as was the case with us, and then the people will be ours. He will be ashamed of his former self and curse him. Whoever curses his past is already ours - this is our formula! We will fully apply it when we begin to raise the people to ourselves. If the people turn out to be incapable of education, then “eliminate the people.” For then it will become clear that our people are only an unworthy, barbaric mass, which must only be forced to obey. For what can we do here: in the intelligentsia and in Europe there is only truth, and therefore, even though you have eighty million people (which you seem to be bragging about), all these millions must first of all serve this European truth, since there is no other and not May be. You won’t frighten us with the number of millions. This is our always conclusion, only now in all its nakedness, and we remain with it. We cannot, having accepted your conclusion, interpret with you, for example, about such strange things as le Pravoslaviе and some supposedly special meaning of it. We hope that you will not demand this from us, especially now, when the last word of Europe and European science in the general conclusion is atheism, enlightened and humane, and we cannot help but follow Europe.
Therefore, we will probably agree to accept that half of the speech in which you express praise to us with certain restrictions, so be it, we will do you this courtesy. Well, as for the half that relates to you and all these “beginnings” of yours - excuse me, we cannot accept..." This can be a sad conclusion. I repeat: not only do I not dare put this conclusion into the mouths of those Westerners who shook my hand, but also in the mouths of many, very many, the most enlightened of them, Russian leaders and completely Russian people, despite their theories, respectable and respected Russian citizens. But then the mass, the mass of outcasts and renegades , the mass of your Westernism, the middle, the street along which the idea drags - all these stinking “directions” (and they are like the sand of the sea), oh, they will certainly say something like this and, perhaps, They even punished me (Nota bene.
Regarding faith, for example, it has already been stated in one publication, with all its characteristic wit, that the goal of the Slavophiles is to baptize all of Europe into Orthodoxy.) But let’s put aside gloomy thoughts and let’s hope for the advanced representatives of our Europeanism. And if they accept at least half of our conclusion and our hopes for them, then honor and glory to them for this, and we will meet them in the delight of our hearts. If they accept even one half, that is, they at least recognize the independence and personality of the Russian spirit, the legitimacy of its existence and its humane, all-unifying aspiration, then even then there will be almost nothing to argue about, at least from the main point, from the main thing. Then indeed my speech would serve as the foundation of a new event. Not she herself, I repeat for the last time, would be an event (she is not worthy of such a name), but the great Pushkin triumph, which served as an event of our unity - the unity of all educated and sincere Russian people for the most beautiful future goal.
Smolenenkova V.V.
This speech, delivered on June 8, 1880 at the second meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature on the occasion of the opening of the monument to Pushkin in Moscow, caused such an enthusiastic and frantic reaction from the listeners, which, it seems, has never been repeated in the history of Russian public speech. Thanks to F. M. Dostoevsky’s Pushkin Speech, a fundamentally A New Look on the creativity and personality of Pushkin; many thoughts about the purpose and fate of the Russian people, expressed by the great writer, were permanently entrenched in Russian culture and Russian national identity. So what happened on June 8, 1880?
“He grew up on the stage, raised his head proudly, his eyes sparkled on his face, pale with excitement, his voice grew stronger and sounded with special strength, and his gesture became energetic and commanding. From the very beginning of his speech, that internal spiritual connection was established between him and the entire mass of listeners, consciousness and sensation of which always make the speaker feel and spread his wings. A restrained excitement began in the hall, which kept growing, and when Fyodor Mikhailovich finished, there was a minute of silence, and then, like a stormy stream, an unheard-of and unprecedented delight in my life broke through. , screams, the knocking of chairs merged together and, as they say, shook the walls of the hall. Many were crying, turning to unfamiliar neighbors with exclamations and greetings; and some young man fainted from the excitement that gripped him. Almost everyone was in such a state that, it seemed that they would follow the speaker, at his first call, anywhere! This is how, probably, in a distant time, Savonarola knew how to influence the gathered crowd." This is how the famous Russian lawyer A.F. recalled the historical speech of F. M. Dostoevsky. Horses. A. F. Koni’s assessment of Pushkin’s speech is especially significant for us, because he himself was an outstanding speaker.
We, people living at the beginning of the twenty-first century, most of us brought up in isolation from rhetorical culture, are deprived of the opportunity to be listeners of exemplary public speaking, the question naturally arises: why, due to what linguistic or other means, the author of the speech achieved such, almost in the literal sense of the word, a mind-blowing effect, an effect that came as a surprise to the speaker himself: “... I was so shocked and exhausted that I myself “I was ready to faint,” wrote Dostoevsky on June 30, 1880 in a letter to S. A. Tolstoy.
But this is not the only question that arises in connection with the phenomenon of Pushkin’s speech. The paradox of this work is that the first unambiguously positive, enthusiastic reaction of direct listeners was replaced by extremely negative, caustic and sometimes aggressive criticism in the press. How can we explain this contradiction?
Here, first of all, the difference in speech textures attracts attention: in the first case, this is the direct perception of speech by ear in the soulful performance of the author, in the second, a thoughtful, leisurely and, obviously, meticulous reading of an essay on the pages of the Moskovskie Vedomosti newspaper. Main difference auditory perception speech from the visual, as is known, lies in the fact that the listener is directly influenced by the oratorical pathos and he is not always able to “return” to previously expressed thoughts in order to once again think about what is being stated. Apparently, it is precisely in this difference in the influence of logos and pathos of Dostoevsky’s Pushkin speech that one should look for the reasons for its dual perception.
What did the public that gathered in the Hall of Columns of the Moscow Noble Assembly hear and “listen to” in June 1880?
To answer this question, you need to understand state of mind that audience, to understand and trace the movements of the souls of the listeners. But for this you need to have a broader understanding of the political situation and public sentiments of that period of Russian history, because, as I. Volgin rightly notes, “Pushkin’s speech is incomprehensible in isolation from the real historical circumstances that gave rise to it. Moreover: the removal of the text of the speech from the real social context paradoxically “bends” the text itself.”
The turn of the 70s - 80s of the 19th century - time political crisis, exacerbations revolutionary struggle, a surge of Narodnaya Volya terror: the assassination attempt by Vera Zasulich on the St. Petersburg mayor F.F. Trepov; the murder on August 4, 1878 of the chief of gendarmes and head of the III Division, Adjutant General Mezentsev; explosion on February 5, 1880 in the basement of the Winter Palace, under the dining room, where a diplomatic dinner between Alexander II and the Prince of Hesse was supposed to take place at that time; assassination attempt on the main chief of the Supreme administrative commission M.T. Lorisa-Melikova February 20, 1980, etc. The growing split in society and the expectation of future social cataclysms force the Russian intelligentsia to comprehend their aspirations and ideals, to determine their historical position. Without accepting the policies of the populists, the intelligentsia tried to find alternative ways to solve Russia's problems in the spirit of Westernism (S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, I.V. Vernadsky, I.S. Turgenev, etc.) or Slavophile (I. S. Aksakov, F.M. Dostoevsky and others) traditions. However, in the spring of 1880, the confrontation between the state and revolutionaries weakened due to the moderately liberal, conciliatory policy of Count M.T. Loris-Melikov, appointed sole chief of the Supreme Administrative Commission. Loris-Melikov's "thaw" led to the removal of the conservative minister public education YES. Tolstoy, the weakening of censorship, the unprecedented development of the press and, as a consequence of these changes, to a wait-and-see lull in the activities of Narodnaya Volya and to the cessation of organized terror. The government assigned a special role to the educated strata of society in carrying out reforms and developing national culture.
The Pushkin celebrations of 1880 took place in this atmosphere of positive change and hope. “So strongly, in its character and significance, this celebration responded to the urgent, burning, deeply hidden need of Russian society, the aspirations living among it at the moment - the mood that owns them and seeks an outcome. This incessant, rushing out need - there is a need for united action for the sake of common goal, so that social forces, dormant and dumb, finally have the opportunity to manifest themselves for the good of the country,” wrote the Nedelya newspaper on June 15, and directly on the days of the celebrations, June 8, on the pages of the same newspaper, a journalist, using the words of the famous toast Ostrovsky, characterized the events as follows: “The Pushkin holiday was the only moment for us when the intelligentsia could say that “today there is a holiday on her street,” and look with what passion she celebrated it!” Indeed, all the newspapers of that period noted an unprecedented rise public mood and activity. It was in such an atmosphere of heightened enthusiasm and enthusiasm that F.M. Dostoevsky had to read his speech.
Nervous tension brought to the extreme required an outcome, a resolution, and everyone was just waiting for the accomplishment of some event or a passionately spoken word in order to completely surrender to delight and jubilation. The first such outcome was the direct opening of the monument to the poet, when, to the sound of bells ringing from the statue of A.M. The guardian fell off the blanket. As they later wrote in the newspapers, people were “mad with happiness.” “How many sincere handshakes, good, honest kisses were exchanged here between people, sometimes even strangers!” . Such violent outpourings of emotions accompanied every dinner, meeting or concert, be it a ceremonial act at Moscow University, or a literary, musical and dramatic evening, or the (first) ceremonial meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, and most of The ovation, as a rule, was addressed to I.S. Turgenev, unofficially proclaimed “the direct and worthy heir of Pushkin.”
Everyone expected that his speech at the first meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature on June 7 would become the culmination of the holiday: “Now it was felt that the majority chose Turgenev as the point to which they could direct and pour out all their accumulated enthusiasm.” But the speech of the author of "Fathers and Sons" did not live up to the hopes of the listeners: he not only denied Pushkin the right to stand on a par with the world's geniuses, but also the title of "people's poet" (only "national"), since, according to Turgenev, a simple the people did not know the poet. Due to the fact that the main subject of our analysis is not Turgenev’s speech, let us take the liberty of using the comments of the modern American researcher Marcus C. Levitt, who studied the history of Pushkin’s festivities: “Turgenev’s speech is a careful, well-thought-out justification of Pushkin’s right to the monument, an attempt to explain why “all educated Russia” sympathized with the holiday and why “so many the best people, representatives of the land, government, science, literature and art" gathered in Moscow to pay "tribute of grateful love" to Pushkin.<…>It was an elaborate, elegant, simple and unpretentious eulogy to the poet. Turgenev's entire speech was imbued with deep respect for Pushkin; It was recognized as a serious critical statement, but did not satisfy everyone's desire to hear either a convincing assessment of the poet's significance or an important political statement and did not become, as expected, the "highlight of the program." So, there was no global release of emotions. Turgenev’s failure lay in the fact that, according to M.M. Kovalevsky, his speech “was directed more towards reason than towards the feeling of the crowd.” There was only one day of festivities left, when the public could throw out the internal tension brought to its climax.
This day, June 8, 1880, became the day of triumph of F.M. Dostoevsky. "To the one who heard him famous speech on this day, of course, it became clear what enormous power and influence could be wielded by human word, when it is said with ardent sincerity among the ripe spiritual mood of the listeners,” recalled A.F. Koni... But the day before, when Turgenev addressed the audience with his words, the “spiritual mood” was no less “ripe,” but it did not produce that the effect that Dostoevsky achieved. How was the author of “The Karamazovs” able to so win over and unite the hearts of his listeners?
It can hardly be assumed that this was due to the manner of reading. Everyone who described his speech unanimously emphasized the speaker’s unsightly appearance: “The tailcoat hung on him like on a hanger, the shirt was already wrinkled, the white tie, poorly tied, seemed about to completely come undone...”. His reading style was also unpretentious: “He spoke simply, exactly as he would talk to people he knew, without shouting out loud phrases, without throwing his head back. Simply and clearly, without the slightest digression or unnecessary embellishment, he told the public what he thought about Pushkin ..." .
Obviously, the answer lies in the text of the speech itself. Knowing the approximate composition of the audience (students, newspapermen, “grand ladies,” representatives of the Moscow and St. Petersburg intelligentsia, most of whom belonged to the liberal party), remembering its initial heightened nervous susceptibility, we can, turning to the text, trace how those or other parts of the speech influenced the mood of the audience and gradually joined them to the author, ultimately bringing them to a state of euphoria. In other words, let's analyze emotional technique argumentation, or pathos, of Pushkin's speech by Dostoevsky.
“Pushkin is an extraordinary phenomenon, and perhaps the only manifestation of the Russian spirit,” said Gogol. I will add from myself: and prophetic,” - so, already in the first phrases, Dostoevsky wins over the audience; the postulated exclusivity of the honored national poet, and even more so exclusivity with a religious-mystical connotation, is exactly what the public most wanted to hear.
Having thus set the thesis about Pushkin’s prophecy, Dostoevsky proceeds to analyze the poet’s work, dividing it into three periods. And already in connection with the characterization of the first period, the speaker introduces the concept of the “historical Russian wanderer,” which, according to the author of the speech, “was found and brilliantly noted” by Pushkin, embodying this type in the image of Aleko. And then Dostoevsky correlates literary type With current situation, recognizing in the newly-minted socialists the features of Pushkin’s Aleko: “This type is faithful and captured unmistakably, the type is permanent and reliably settled in our Russian land. These Russian homeless wanderers continue their wandering to this day, and for a long time, it seems, they will not disappear And if in our time they no longer go to gypsy camps to look for the gypsies... for their world ideals..., then they still fall into socialism, which did not yet exist under Aleko, go with new faith to another field and work for it zealously, believing , like Aleko, that in their fantastic pursuit of their goals and happiness not only for themselves, but also for the world. For the Russian wanderer needs precisely world happiness in order to calm down: he will not be reconciled cheaper..."
Such a new interpretation Pushkin's image could not help but alert and captivate the audience: the problems of speech were transferred from the literary-critical sphere to the socio-historical one. What was said was already too concerning for everyone personally, especially when the author included among Aleko’s descendants those who “served and are serving peacefully as officials, in the treasury and on railways and in banks, or simply make money by various means, or even are engaged in science, they give lectures - and all this regularly, lazily and peacefully, with the receipt of a salary, with a game of preference...” After these words good half listeners felt like they were part of the “suffering for the universal ideal” and, perhaps, were so carried away by introspection that they did not notice how the author contrasted the “saving road of humble communication with the people” to wandering. No, this has not yet sunk in, everyone is busy reflecting now. As Marcus C. Levitt rightly notes, “... Dostoevsky, having first secured the sympathy of his listeners, forces them to participate in a kind of collective introspection... Having identified the listeners with literary characters, he can proceed to analyze them moral problems and logical errors." For this kind psychological game the speaker regularly uses figures of conjecture, as if guessing the thoughts of his listeners.
One of these figures, apparently, was intended for the liberal-minded intelligentsia (and it was they who made up the majority of the audience): “though, they say, somewhere outside of it, maybe somewhere in other lands, European, for example , with their solid historical structure, with their established social and civil life." And already a few sentences below, as if modeling an artificial dialogue, Dostoevsky again uses the figure of back-and-forth, but now the words of the people, giving the answer to the “damned question” of the Russian intelligentsia, are “quoted”: “Humble yourself, proud man, and first of all, break your pride. Humble yourself , an idle person, and first of all, work in the people's field.<…>The truth is not outside you, but within yourself; find yourself within yourself, subjugate yourself, master yourself, and you will see the truth. This truth is not in things, not outside of you and not overseas somewhere, but, first of all, in your own work on yourself. You will defeat yourself... and you will finally understand your people and their holy truth." Next, the author of the speech moves on to the analysis of another Pushkin wanderer - Onegin, and thanks to a special interpretation of this image, namely the assumption that a crime can be committed out of "the blues according to the world ideal" , like Onegin, who killed Lensky, another part of the public begins to suspect in themselves the same type of “historical wanderer.” So, the male half of the public, if not yet in the power of Dostoevsky’s ideas, is definitely completely captivated by speech, because for them this speech no longer about Pushkin, but about themselves.The time has come to attract a female audience.
Onegin and others like him are contrasted with Tatyana - “a solid type, standing firmly on her own soil.” But for now, for listeners, this is simply “the apotheosis of the Russian woman.” But as soon as Dostoevsky begins to analyze the fate of this underrated, timid, modest Russian woman, recognizing in her “completeness and perfection,” women’s hearts are filled with compassion and understanding of the tragedy of Tatyana Larina, subconsciously comparing and identifying the fate of the literary heroine with their own. In how many hearts must the words of the speaker have echoed with gratitude: “By the way, who said that secular, courtly life had a pernicious effect on her soul...?<…>She is not spoiled, she, on the contrary, is depressed by this magnificent St. Petersburg life, broken and suffering; she hates her rank as a society lady, and whoever judges her differently does not understand at all what Pushkin wanted to say." How gratifying it is to feel that you were not understood in the same way as Tatyana Larina and Pushkin himself, and now, finally... then we understood! In the subconscious of the listeners, the line between the fate of a literary character, a generalized image of a Russian woman, and her own own life is finally erased after Dostoevsky’s statement that “the Russian woman is brave. The Russian woman will boldly follow what she believes in, and she proved it.”
Tatyana's part of the speech, with its carefully thought-out rhetorical construction (the use of figures of address, concession, back-and-forth, warning, etc.), and most importantly, with an unambiguously positive, sublime interpretation of the image of Pushkin's heroine, inevitably turned all Dostoevsky's listeners into his fanatical admirers. It is not for nothing that at the end of the speech a group of young women “burst onto the stage” and crowned Dostoevsky with a laurel wreath with the inscription: “For the Russian woman about whom you have said so many good things!” In the panegyric to Tatiana, they heard only praise of all Russian women, in other words - to themselves, and not to that specific type of Russian woman who was important to Dostoevsky because he “stands firmly on his own ground.” They were not only deceived, but with their stormy enthusiasm and applause they deceived the author of the speech, who saw in their enthusiasm " great victory our idea on the 25th anniversary of delusions."
But let's return to the analysis of the speech, to that episode when everyone present in the hall already felt like either sufferers for world harmony - Onegin, or undervalued "moral embryos" with an "offended, wounded soul" - Tatiana. Once Dostoevsky almost lost the trust of all the newly minted Onegins, admitting “in these world wanderers there is so much... spiritual lackeyness.” But with the very next phrase, calling the same type of Russian person “a seeker of world harmony,” he seems to reconcile himself with the public and restore a trusting balance.
So, the overwhelming majority of the public has already joined the speaker’s opinion and is morally ready to respond to his appeals. There is only one skeptical listener left in the hall. This man is Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, an old ideological opponent and literary rival of Dostoevsky. But that day the old enemy was doomed to succumb to universal enthusiasm. At the end of the speech, he even “rushed to hug” Dostoevsky with the words “You are a genius, you are more than a genius!” . True, some time later his assessment of speech will fundamentally change. In a letter to Stasyulevich, he will write: “This is a very smart, brilliant and cunning, with all its passion, speech that is entirely based on falsehood, but falsehood that is extremely pleasant for Russian pride<…>it is understandable that the public became drowsy from these compliments; and the speech was truly remarkable in its beauty and tact." And a little later, in a conversation with V.V. Stasov, he admits, "how disgusted he was with Dostoevsky’s speech, which drove thousands of people crazy among us." Similar remarks by Turgenev were not much different from his pre-holiday statements addressed to the author of “Demons.”
How did Dostoevsky manage to secure Turgenev’s recognition on June 8? There was just something hotter in the speech, sincere word, pleasant for his, Turgenev’s, pride: Dostoevsky draws an analogy between Turgenev’s heroine and Tatyana Larina: “We can say that such a beautiful, positive type of Russian woman has almost never been repeated in our fiction - except perhaps for Lisa in Turgenev’s “The Noble Nest” ". After these words, according to the recollections of contemporaries, Ivan Sergeevich was given a standing ovation.
Thus, Dostoevsky did not have time to reach key place in his speech, and the audience was already completely in his power, ready to respond to any of his calls. But before moving on to the main theses of his speech, the author of the speech outlines the emerging system of images of his own work: 1) Pushkin, the great national writer; 2) Type of Russian wanderer “Until our days and in our days”; 3) Opposed to it is “the type of positive and undeniable beauty in the person of the Russian woman.” With this move, the speaker seems to tear his listeners away from self-analysis and returns them to the original topic of discussion - Pushkin and his work. Further, moving on to characterize the third period, he introduces a new thesis: “Everywhere in Pushkin one can hear faith in the Russian character, faith in its spiritual power, and if faith, therefore, hope, great hope for the Russian people." Now the prevailing pathos is patriotic pathos. Against its background, it is easiest to carry out the idea of national identity and superiority of the Russian people: "And during this period of his activity, our poet represents something almost miraculous, unheard of and unseen before him nowhere and from no one." If the day before Turgenev denied Pushkin the title of world genius, today Dostoevsky puts the Russian poet above "Shakespeares, Cervantes, Schillers" who do not have such "the ability of worldwide responsiveness as our Pushkin." Such a view was most consistent desires and moods of the audience. To some extent, the audience (but not Dostoevsky!) could see in this a justification, a justification for the scale and pomp of the holiday. And if for Dostoevsky in this episode it was important to emphasize the responsiveness, the ability to miraculously reincarnate a genius, then the audience heard first of all, that “such a phenomenon has not been repeated in any poet in the whole world.” In Pushkin’s ability to “reincarnate” into other nations, Dostoevsky saw “the strength of the spirit of the Russian people,” the essence of which lies in “the desire to ultimate goals theirs to universality and to pan-humanity." It is precisely for understanding and expressing the basic aspirations of his people that Pushkin, in the opinion of the author of the speech, can be called a people's writer. Those who sympathized with pochvennik and Slavophile ideas easily agreed with the new thesis, but the liberal part of the public still hesitated.
To eliminate the last doubts, Dostoevsky interprets the activities of Peter I, the main idol of all Western-minded people, as a policy aimed “towards the unity of all mankind”: “... in his further development of his idea, Peter I undoubtedly obeyed some hidden instinct that attracted him to his in fact, to future goals, undoubtedly greater than immediate utilitarianism alone.” After such an interpretation, no one doubted that “our Slavophilism and Westernism are just one great misunderstanding among us.” The last doubts are dispelled, everyone in the hall feels “completely Russian”, “brother of all people”, “all man”. And this is very pleasant for Russian pride (Turgenev was right about this).
In the final part, to the feelings of pride, universal love, enthusiasm, tenderness, another one is added - religious. For only at the end of his speech does Dostoevsky allow himself to turn to his most secret idea - the idea of "the fraternal final agreement of all tribes according to Christ's gospel law": "Even though our land is poor, but this poor land "in a slave form" came from Christ, blessing." Why can't we accommodate last word him?" Later, these statements would become the subject of controversy and irony in the press, but now, in an environment brought to the limit nervous tension, this thought finds a warm response in the souls of all listeners, further increasing the emotional intensity. "Pushkin died in the full development of his powers and undoubtedly took with him to the grave some great secret. And now we are solving this mystery without him,” - this is how F.M. Dostoevsky ended his brilliant speech. And even in his last words there is another premise for the crazy ovation that the enthusiastic audience will give him in a minute. With the final phrase, the speaker makes his listeners are involved in a great mystery, the meaning of which, in fact, they do not have to guess, but has just been interpreted by the rhetorician himself. With the last sentence of his speech, Dostoevsky, without wanting it or expecting it, elevated himself in the eyes of the public to the rank of a prophet. (They will then shout to him “You are our saint, you are our prophet!”)
The speech is over. The time has come for the end of the emotional overstrain of the public. Furious, frenzied delight, turning into mass hysteria and isolated fainting. Everyone was at the mercy of emotions, but this was only intoxication with love, pride and narcissism. Dostoevsky was deceived when he regarded the stormy reaction of the public as complete, conscious acceptance of his idea of \u200b\u200ball humanity, as a “victory.” By and large, many of his provisions were not heard (in the figurative, and perhaps in the literal sense of the word, for, as Dostoevsky wrote to his wife in the evening of the same day, “they interrupted decisively on every page, and sometimes on every phrase with thunder applause").
It turns out that the stunning impression made by the speech turned out to be based almost on a misunderstanding, mass psychosis, a momentary infatuation. “Several factors working simultaneously gave an unpredictable effect.” This assumption is confirmed by the fact that the idea of the worldwide responsiveness of Pushkin and the Russian people was expressed during the days of Pushkin’s celebrations and earlier - by N.A. Nekrasov (“Our great poet represents best proof that Russian nationality cannot be distinguished by exclusivity or intolerance towards other peoples") and S.A. Yuryev ("Both the way of life and the spirit of the Russian people are prepared for the possible implementation of this great universal idea; all our national instincts are directed towards it.<…>He accepts every foreigner into his midst as a brother and exchanges spiritual treasures with him.<…>Humanity, the desire for brotherhood and community - this is our nature"), but then this idea, presented without prior emotional impact, was far from being perceived as a prophecy or indication.
Taken out of the context of the holiday, deprived of the author’s voice, with changed intonations and accents, Dostoevsky’s speech in print gives rise to another storm, but of a directly opposite nature. If on June 8, in the Hall of Columns of the Moscow Noble Assembly, many misheard the speech, then on June 13, published in Katkov’s extremely conservative newspaper “Moskovskie Vedomosti,” many misread it. (Others read it correctly, but did not want to accept it.)
The fact that Pushkin’s speech of 1880 is the result, the “concentrate” of all the ideas expressed by Dostoevsky in “The Diary of a Writer” has been said more than once. But the assumption that this is an “artistic concentrate” was clearly expressed only once - in I. Volgin’s book “The Last Year of Dostoevsky”: “All components of Pushkin’s speech can be considered as interconnected elements of a single figurative structure, where such concepts as “Pushkin”, “Tatyana”, “Russian people”, “wanderer”, “all-man” and so on, have not only a direct, immediate journalistic function, but also have an additional artistic meaning.”
Let's turn to the text and try to identify and correlate the key concepts of speech. In the introductory part, in connection with the personality and work of Pushkin, most of the conceptual concepts: prophecy, Russian spirit, indication, motherland, loving soul, depth of self-awareness. These are concepts associated with the positive pole of the artistic space of speech - Pushkin. Next, negative categories are introduced, initially relating to Aleko, later Onegin, and more broadly - the type of wanderer: wanderer, fantastic (and in Dostoevsky this is always an extremely negative epithet) activity, cut off from the people, abstract person, pride, suffering. They are contrasted with categories of a different order, introduced into the text in connection with the idea of people's truth and its bearer - Tatyana: faith and truth, humility, work on oneself, self-sacrifice, soil, suffering consciousness, contact with the homeland, with the native people, with its shrine . Returning to the image of Pushkin, Dostoevsky no longer views him as the author of brilliantly created types of the Russian intelligentsia, but as the bearer of the idea of fraternal final agreement of all tribes according to Christ's gospel law, as an all-man. To do this, he uses a number of key concepts, some of which were already used in a modified form at the beginning of the speech: truth, faith in popular forces, future independent destiny, uniqueness, universality, fraternal aspiration, Christ's gospel law.
Thus, a hierarchy is built in Dostoevsky’s speech artistic images, personifying certain types of Russian people and correlating with one or another group of key concepts of speech. Moreover, both Pushkin and his heroes find themselves on the same page. This system is a ladder of moral evolution of a (Russian) person, where in order to move from one stage to another, a person needs to develop some quality in himself.
Dostoevsky’s entire speech is an indication of the saving path of moral self-improvement and a call addressed to the Russian intelligentsia in a critical period in the history of Russia to follow this path, overcoming their pride and idleness and joining the people’s faith and truth. Anyone who accused Dostoevsky of the absence of proposals for vital, realistic actions, either did not see in his speech quite consistently outlined stages of the self-improvement program, or did not consider internal work, which was Dostoevsky’s imperative, is quite effective and appropriate in the current socio-political situation.
In other cases, journalists isolated an appeal from a speech, which in Dostoevsky was correlated with only one stage of the program, and was considered by critics as the most important and the only one. In isolation from the entire program, the meaning was distorted, the emphasis shifted, and the orderly edifice of Pushkin’s speech collapsed. In a similar way It turned out with Dostoevsky’s call to “humble yourself, proud man,” which caused particular indignation among the opponents of the author of the speech. In it they saw both a call for humility before those in power, the church, the state, and before the ignorant people, and “an ordinary sermon of complete death.”
The fact that the concept of humility is key to Dostoevsky’s worldview follows from his entire work (this idea is personified by a whole gallery of artistic images of his works: Sonya Marmeladova, Lev Myshkin, Alyosha Karamazov, Zosima, etc.). For a writer, this concept is much broader and deeper than simply reconciliation with reality, lack of pride, and willingness to obey someone else’s will. His humility is the humility of his ambitions in favor of the gospel truths, this is life according to the laws of love, according to Christ’s law, and since the only custodian of the gospel truths, according to Dostoevsky, is the Russian Orthodox people, then, ultimately, this is humility before them. This reading did not suit either the liberal-minded intelligentsia with its ideals of Western culture and progress, or the conservatives with their ideal of autocracy and the institution of power. The speech was doomed to rejection and distorted interpretation.
Ardent ideological opponents of Dostoevsky could not forgive the writer for his obvious, public triumph, and the fact that many of them were involved in the incredible exaltation and proclamation of the writer “a prophet, a genius, a saint.” Now everyone, as if making excuses, sought to emphasize the “fiery and inspirational” speech, “the delight that gripped the listeners...”: “... a clear, sharp mind, faith, courage of speech... It’s hard for the heart to resist all this.”
If sobering up from the festive euphoria embittered opponents, then the author of the speech brought the bitter realization that he was in Once again did not understand and did not accept. A barrage of caustic, angry publications that turn into personal insults falls on F. M. Dostoevsky, having a detrimental effect on him not only psychologically, but also on physical condition. Newspaper persecution also shortened the writer’s life: from the time of Pushkin’s celebrations to the death of the author of The Brothers Karamazov, a little more than six months passed. But what was said by Dostoevsky about Pushkin turned out to be true for himself, for such is the lot of prophets in Russia; and we can safely say about Dostoevsky that he “died in the full development of his powers and undoubtedly took some great secret with him to the grave. And now we are unraveling this mystery without him.”
Literature
2. Dostoevsky F.M. Pushkin. (Essay) delivered on June 8 at a meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature // Dostoevsky F.M. Complete works: In 30 volumes / Ans USSR. Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House). - L.: Science, 1984. - vol. 26, pp. 136-149. Also available on the Internet, for example, at http://www.upm.orthodoxy.ru/library/D/Dostoevskij_Puskin.htm or http://www.philosophy.ru/library/dostoevsky/push.htm
3. Koni A.F. From memories. Turgenev. - Dostoevsky. - Nekrasov. - Apukhtin. - Pisemsky. - Languages. – In the book: On life path: In 2v. T.2.- M., 1916. - P.99.
4. Dostoevsky F.M. Complete works: In 30 volumes. - L.: Nauka, 1988. - volume 30, book. 1, p.188.
5. Volgin I.L. The Last Year of Dostoevsky: History. zap. - M.: Sov.pisatel, 1986. P.215.
7. Strakhov N.N. Pushkin holiday (From "Memoirs of F. M. Dostoevsky"). – In the book: F. M. Dostoevsky in the memoirs of his contemporaries: Sat.: in 2 vols. T.2. - M.: Khudozh.lit., 1964 - P.349.
8. Turgenev I.S. Complete collection of works and letters: In 30 volumes - M.: Nauka, 1986. T.12. -C.341-350.
9. Marcus C. Levitt. Literature and politics: Pushkin holiday 1880 [Trans. from English] - St. Petersburg: Humanit. Agency "Academic Project", 1994. P. 120, 124.
10. Kovalevsky M. M. Memories of I. S. Turgenev // Past Years, 1908, No. 8. P.13.
11. Koni A.F. From memories. Turgenev. - Dostoevsky. - Nekrasov. - Apukhtin. - Pisemsky. - Yazykov. – In the book: On the path of life: In 2 vols. T.2.- M., 1916. – P. 98.
12. Lyubimov D.N. From memoirs // Questions of literature, 1961, No. 7, p. 162.
13. Uspensky G.I. Pushkin's holiday: (letters from Moscow - June 1880) // Uspensky G.I. Full composition of writings. -T.6. -M., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953 - P.422.
14. Marcus C. Levitt. Right there. P.144.
15. Dostoevsky F.M. Letter 872. A.G. Dostoevsky June 8, 1880. Moscow // Dostoevsky F.M. Complete works: In 30 volumes / Ans USSR. Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House). - L.: Science, 1988. - vol. 30, book. 1, p.184.
16. Ibid.
17. Turgenev I.S. Full collection Op. and letters. Letters, vol. 12, book. 2, p. 272.
18. Stasov V.V. Twenty letters from Turgenev and my acquaintance with him // Northern Bulletin, 1888 No. 10, P.161.
19. Dostoevsky F.M. Letter 872. A.G. Dostoevsky June 8, 1880. Moscow // Dostoevsky F.M. Complete works: In 30 volumes / Ans USSR. Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House). - L.: Science, 1988. - vol. 30, book. 1, p.184.
20. Volgin I.L. The Last Year of Dostoevsky: History. zap. - M.: Sov.pisatel, 1986. – P.267.
21. Ibid. P.265.
22. Uspensky G.I. Pushkin's holiday: (letters from Moscow - June 1880) // Uspensky G.I. Full composition of writings. T.6. -M., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953 - P.429.
23. Leontyev K.I. Our new Christians. F.M. Dostoevsky and c. Leo Tolstoy: (Regarding Dostoevsky’s speech at Pushkin’s celebration and Count Tolstoy’s story “How do people live?”). - M.: type. E.I. Pogodina, 1882 – P.14.