Moscow collection

Contents Church and State I II III IV V VI New Democracy I The Great Lie of Our Time I II III IV Trial by Jury Print I II III Public Education I II Herbert Spencer on Public Education Law Diseases of Our Time I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI Knowledge and Deeds Faith I II III IV V VI VII Ideals of Unbelief I II III New Faith and New Marriages New Christianity without Christ Spiritual Life I II III. Old Leaves (from Sallet) IV V VI VII Church I II III IV V Characters I II III IV V VI Ancient Classical Languages ​​in School Power and Principality From Carlyle I. Childhood II. A simple rule of life III. Education IV. Case V. Religion VI. Unconscious Gladstone on the foundations of faith and unbelief Affairs and days A significant phenomenon of our time is the struggle between church and state principles. When a struggle begins over spiritual and religious principles, it is impossible to calculate to what limits it will be limited and what elements it will involve; what will it come to and where will the sea of ​​passions, agitated by the dispute over convictions and beliefs, subside? In matters of people's beliefs, state power must state its demands and establish its rules with special caution so as not to touch upon such feelings and spiritual needs that the self-consciousness of the masses of the people does not allow them to touch. No matter how enormous the state power may be, it is established on nothing other than the unity of spiritual self-consciousness between the people and the government, on the people’s faith: power is undermined from the minute the splitting of this faith-based consciousness begins. The people, in unity with the state, can suffer a lot of hardships, they can give in and give up a lot to the state power. There is only one thing that state power does not have the right to demand; one thing they will not give up is that in which each believing soul individually and collectively lays the foundation of their spiritual existence and connects themselves with eternity. There are depths to which state power cannot and should not touch, so as not to disturb the root sources of belief in the soul of each and every one. The main source of misunderstandings that have arisen and are threatening to intensify between the people and governments is the artificially created theory of relations between the state and the church. In the historical course of events in Western Europe, inextricably linked with the development of the Roman Catholic Church, the concept of the church as a spiritual and political institution, with power, which, having entered into opposition with the state, undertook a political struggle against it, was formed and entered into the system of government; The events of this struggle occupy the entire field of history in Western Europe. Because of this political significance of the church, the simple, true, natural concept of the church as a collection of Christians, organically united by the unity of belief in a union established by God, faded into the background and faded in the consciousness of the state. This concept, however, lurks in the depths of the people's consciousness, corresponding to the most fundamental and deepest need of the human soul - the need for belief and unity in faith. In this sense, the church as a society of believers does not and cannot separate itself from the state, as a society united in a civil union. No matter how perfect the logical construction of relations based on separation between the state and the church reaches in the mind, the simple consciousness of the mass of the believing people will not be satisfied with it. The political mind can be satisfied as the best form of transaction, as the most perfect philosophical construction of concepts; but in the depths of the spirit, which inspires the living need for faith and the unity of faith with life, this artificial construction does not respond to the truth. Spiritual life seeks and demands above all spiritual unity, and in it posits the ideal of its existence; and when the soul is shown this ideal in duality, it does not accept such an ideal and is disgusted. Belief, which is unconditional in its nature, does not tolerate anything conditional in its ideal construction. It is true that in reality the life of each and every one is a continuous story of fall and division - a sad division between idea and deed, between faith and life; but in this continuous struggle, the human spirit is kept in balance by nothing other than faith in ideal, finite unity, and values ​​such faith as the first and primordial treasure of its existence. Bring a person to the consciousness of this duality: he is humbled and humbled by thought. Show him the end of the division towards which the spirit strives; he raises his head, recognizes himself as living and strives forward with faith. But when you tell him that life is in itself, and faith is in itself, and you begin to elevate this concept into a theory of life, the soul does not accept such a concept with the same disgust with which it greets the thought of the final and decisive annihilation of existence. It may be objected that this is a matter of personal belief. But personal belief does not separate itself from church belief, since its essential need is unity in faith, and it finds satisfaction of this need in the church. In Western Europe, the struggle between church and state and state against church has long continued. The last word in this struggle has not yet been said and what it will be is not yet known. So the other side measures their strength and calls together their squads. The state relies on the strength of the intelligentsia, the church relies on the beliefs of the masses and on the consciousness of spiritual authority. There is no doubt that in the final result victory will be on the side on which there will be a real unification of deep, vital beliefs. In any case, the state intelligentsia faces a difficult task - to win over and firmly unite with itself the popular belief. But in order to attract belief and merge with it, you need to show living faith in yourself; The intelligentsia alone is not enough for this. Si vis me flere, dolendum est primum ipsi tibi 1 . Popular belief is sensitive, and it is hardly possible to seduce it with the appearance of belief or to entice it into a transaction of beliefs; living faith does not allow transactions, does not recognize the absolute dominance of rational logic. Although the concept of conviction is usually applied to belief, the conviction of reason cannot be confused with the conviction of faith, and mental strength, the strength of the intelligentsia and thinking, is very mistaken if it assumes in itself everything necessary for spiritual strength, regardless of belief, which constitutes the very essence of spiritual strength. In this confusion of concepts lies a great danger for the state in the fight against the church. When, during the era of the Reformation, the state power in Germany became the head of the movement against the old church power and developed a new organization of the church, it possessed the real spiritual power of belief. The movement that she joined arose among the masses of the people, imbued with deep, concentrated faith: its first leaders, representing the highest intelligentsia of the then society, at the same time burned with the fire of a deep faith that united them with the people. Thus, in this movement an enormous spiritual force was concentrated, to which the force of the old law, established for centuries, had to give way after a long struggle. Now the circumstances are completely different. On the part of the state, there was a disconnect between popular belief and the political construction of church worship in the state consciousness. On the part of the intelligentsia, the separation is even more striking between belief and the scientific construction of belief. Theological science, not limiting itself to its initial task of bringing into consciousness and embracing church beliefs with a general view, threatens to absorb every belief, subordinating it to a merciless critical analysis of reason, as a fact, as an external object of study. Political science has built a strictly developed doctrine of the decisive separation of church and state, a doctrine as a result of which, according to the law that does not allow a dual separation of central forces, the church certainly turns out to be an institution subordinate to the state. At the same time, the state as an institution in its political idea is detached from any belief and indifferent to belief. Naturally, from this point of view, the church appears to be nothing more than an institution that satisfies one of the needs of the population recognized by the state - religious needs, and the newest state turns to it with the right of its authorization, its supervision and control, without caring about belief. For the state, as the supreme political institution, such a theory is attractive because it promises it complete autonomy, the decisive elimination of any, even spiritual, opposition and the simplification of all operations of its church policy. But such promises are deceptive. This theory, composed in the office of a minister and scientist, will not be accepted by the people. In everything that relates to belief, the consciousness of the people calms down only on a simple and integral idea that embraces the soul, and turns away from artificially composed concepts when it senses in them a lie or discord with the truth. Thus, for example, political theory can conveniently tolerate the retention in office and in the church pulpit of a pastor, or a professor in the theological chair, who (a phenomenon, unfortunately, has already become common in Germany) publicly declared that he does not believe in the Divinity of the Savior; but the people's conscience will never understand such a construction of the concept of a church pastor and will call it a lie with disgust. The position of state power will be sad and precarious when the people's conscience gets used to judging its orders and actions on matters related to faith as lies and lamenting unbelief. The separation of church and state is well discussed by the former Father Hyacinth, who gave public lectures on this subject in Geneva in the spring of 1873. A war to the death with the church is the dream of the revolutionary party, at least those of its extreme representatives who in politics consider themselves Jacobins, and in the field of religious ideas they spread godlessness and materialism. They use sophistry and violence as weapons. Everyone has already lost confidence in them everywhere; they are blind and unable to fight, because they confuse everything about their enemy, distinguishing nothing, and exaggerate his significance beyond measure. The French Revolution set itself the goal of renewing society; but it could only be renewed by applying Christian principles to civil society. A struggle arose between the revolution and the Roman theocracy, and the revolution mixed the Roman theocracy with the Catholic Church, with the universe, which embraces all Christian believers, mixed with the Gospel and the face of Christ the Savior. So, war was declared not so much on Rome as on the kingdom of Christ on earth. In Christianity, these people began to persecute the most religious feeling, which for 2000 years has merged inseparably with Christianity. This is the kind of enemy they challenged to battle, armed against him with two low, disgraced weapons: the executioner’s ax and the living word of the sophist. The Catholic religion in France was not in good repute thanks to the freethinking abbots who filled the palace reception rooms due to the well-known ease of morals of the then society. Suddenly they wake her up, lift her up, and drag her into the dungeons. In her name, priests, virgins, villagers, along with nobles, poets, and statesmen ascend to the scaffold - as was the case in the era of the first Caesars. On her vestments one could see the blood from St. Bartholomew's Night, traces of parental and orphan tears were visible after the lifting of the Edict of Nantes; all these traces suddenly smoothed out; nothing became visible behind her own blood, beyond the traces of her own tears. That is why, when she stood up after that, she stood up in a full blaze of glory, without any stains. This radiance was prepared for her by her executioners. Sophist-philosophers acted in exactly the same way. They began to unearth questions that modern science declares inaccessible to solution; They began to search for the mystery of death, saw in it only a dream and an invention; They began to delve into the origins of humanity, and at the cradle they recognized him, instead of the biblical Adam, created from the earth, as some unknown creature, slowly emerging from animal life, degenerating first into a monkey, then into a man. And so, having placed this man both at the beginning and at the end in the continuous environment of animal life, humiliating him beyond the limits of decay, they began to greet his greatness: “How great you are, man, in atheism and in materialism, and in the freedom of an arbitrary morality that does not submit to anything!” But in the midst of all this strange greatness, this man found himself overwhelmed by sadness. He lost God, but retained the need for religion. This need is so palpable that, we see, religion is possible even without God; This is Buddhism - a religion that animates millions of followers. And in fact, even if it were true that the first man degenerated from an animal environment, what does it matter to me? The book of Genesis indicates even more coarsely the matter from which man is created - dirt and dust, the dust of the earth. Whatever that matter may be, is the whole person in it, is it in the shell? He received from his Creator a living soul, that breath of religious and moral life, which he cannot get rid of, even if he wants to. This is what will not allow anyone to renounce the Christian religion. The separation of church and state is preached. There are only words, but there is no single idea, because under one word of separation many things can be understood. Let them first determine what it is. If the point is a more precise distinction between civil society and religious, ecclesiastical, spiritual and secular society, a direct and sincere demarcation, without tricks and without violence, then everyone will stand for such a separation. If, on a practical basis, they want the state to renounce the right to supply pastors to the church and the obligation to support them, this will be an ideal state to which it is desirable to move, which must be prepared for implementation under favorable circumstances and in a legal form. When this issue matures, the state, if it wants to resolve it in this way, is obliged to return to whomever it should the right to choose shepherds and bishops; in this case, it will no longer be possible to give to the pope what belongs to the clergy and people by historical and apostolic right. The state, in essence, only retains this right, but it does not belong to it. But they say that separation must be understood in a different, broader sense. Smart, learned people define it this way: the state should not care about the church and the church should not care about the state, so humanity should revolve in two vast spheres, so that in one sphere the body will reside, and in the other the spirit of humanity, and between both spheres there will be a space the same as between heaven and earth. But is this possible? The body cannot be separated from the spirit; both spirit and body live one life. Can we expect that the church - not to mention the Catholic one, but any kind of church - will agree to eliminate from its consciousness civil society, family society, human society - everything that is understood in the word “state”? Since when is it supposed that the church exists in order to form ascetics, fill monasteries and display the poetry of its rites and processions in churches? No, all this is just a small part of the activities that the church sets itself as a goal. She was given a different title: teach all languages. That's her business. She will have to educate people on earth so that people in the midst of an earthly city and an earthly family will not become completely unworthy to enter the heavenly city and heavenly communion. At birth, at marriage, at death - at the most important moments of human existence, the church appears with three solemn sacraments, but they say that it does not care about the family! She is entrusted with instilling in the people respect for the law and the authorities, instilling in the authorities respect for human freedom, but they say that she does not care about society! No, the moral principle is one. It cannot be twofold, so that one moral teaching is private, the other public; one is secular, the other is spiritual. A single moral principle embraces all relationships - private, domestic, political, and the church, preserving the consciousness of its dignity, will never give up its legitimate influence in matters relating to both the family and civil society. So, by demanding from the church that it should not care about civil society, it is only given new strength. They say: the state does not care about the church. Under the original family system a civil society was formed and every head of the family was made a citizen; At that time, the community of believers was no different from a family, from an entire nation. Over time, the structure of civil society was improved and universal Christianity was founded, embracing both families and peoples. How can I now tell my father, a citizen: you are on your own, and the church is on your own? Unfortunately, both the father and the citizen said this to themselves long ago. The father became indifferent to religious consciousness and direction in his family environment. He has no answer when his wife turns to him with her doubts, when his child asks in childish simplicity: what is God? And why don’t you pray to Him? And what is death, which comes to everyone and takes away children? When the father has no answer to these questions, how does the child himself answer them in his own mind? And if the father finds an answer, the child hears some kind of fairy tale in it, but does not hear the voice of living faith, that faith for which a person is ready to die. And so the child emerges as a skeptic, like the father, or a superstition, like the mother or her confessor-pater. This is how the separation of state and church is reflected in the family, and in the place of the father, a priest is brought into the house, who came from outside as a spiritual leader, the ruler of conscience under the guise of a teacher. The priests are also to blame, no doubt, but the fathers themselves are even more guilty, because they allowed the priest to take their place at the hearth. When this is so, let not the citizens and civil authorities be surprised if some day the building they have erected collapses and they are crushed under the rubble. This is where the separation of the state from the consciousness of the church leads! When in the early 40s it was reported to the Prussian king that some Berlin residents had left the Christian church, he was surprised and asked with a smile: “What church do they want to join?” This question has now lost all meaning in Western Europe. At that time, it seemed that whoever left the Christian church seemed to leave solid ground and hang somewhere in the air. Nowadays it is no longer air, but solid ground - to be without any religion. When someone in the Middle Ages declared that he renounced all faith, he would have been considered a madman and, moreover, so disgusting and dangerous that he would have been burned. At that time there was no place for an unbeliever citizen, but there could be believers deprived of the rights of citizenship - vagabonds, people without rights, to whom the state refused legal protection, so that they had to put themselves under the protection of the feudal owner, one of those powerful vassals who, not submitting to state authority, could enter into a fight with their feudal lord. In our time, whoever decided to declare himself free from state power, not to pay taxes, not to carry out military service, not to listen to anyone and not to obey anyone, to be his own state, such a person would be declared a madman, as an unbeliever was considered in the Middle Ages, but they would not put him to death, but would force him to either submit to the state or leave the state. He would have gone to another state, where they would have either brought him into obedience or kicked him out. Therefore: now we can freely evade religion and the church, but we cannot evade the state. The state provides us with the fullness of social life, and the church no longer dominates public life as it once did. Our time is distinguished by the desire to involve all relations in state power; and when the church even half attempted to attract public relations to itself, it would encounter obstacles and opposition from all sides. Despite all the freedoms that are proclaimed everywhere, we strive in everything to be under the authority of the state. We demand laws, government measures for every significant manifestation of our social life; many formally demand concentration and uniform organization of individual life through the state. As soon as someone’s boot presses on their foot, you hear a cry - the state must intervene; where two or three people complain about the hardship, a complaint is sent, a request to the government. In the past, they would have turned, perhaps, to the church. The idea that all private life should be absorbed into public life, and all public life should be concentrated in the state and be controlled by the state, is the main driving idea of ​​socialism, and as this idea, in a clear or unclear idea, has taken root even in the strongest minds, then even the simplest, ordinary person unconsciously becomes involved in some way with the socialists. It is impossible not to admit that the very attitude of the church towards the society of believers, which makes up the church union, has changed. Nowadays, even they could not come to terms with the restoration of the ancient relations of the church to its children, with its interference in private and family life, in public life and in politics and the economy of society. The state now issues law after law: the church now does not have to not only declare new dogmas, but also insist as formally and strictly as before on the interpretation and application of its teachings. So, apparently, the church has become powerless in comparison with the growing power of the state. However, in reality this is not the case, for the church relies on the spiritual forces of the people (Riehl). The oldest and best known system of relations between church and state is that of the established or state church. The state recognizes one religion among all as the true religion and exclusively supports and patronizes one church, to the prejudice of all other churches and faiths. This condemnation generally means that all other churches are not recognized as true or completely true; but in practice it is expressed in different forms, with many different shades, and sometimes goes from non-recognition and alienation to persecution. In any case, under the operation of this system, other people's confessions are subject to some more or less significant derogation in honor, right and advantage, in comparison with their own, with the dominant confession. The state cannot be a representative of the material interests of society alone; in this case, it would deprive itself of spiritual strength and would renounce spiritual unity with the people. The stronger the state and the more important it is, the more clearly spiritual representation is indicated in it. Only under this condition is the sense of legality, respect for the law and trust in state power maintained and strengthened among the people and in civil life. Neither the beginning of the integrity of the state or state good, state benefit, nor even the moral beginning are in themselves sufficient to establish a strong connection between the people and state power; and the moral principle is unstable, fragile, devoid of a fundamental root, when it is renounced from religious sanction. This central, collective power will undoubtedly be deprived of a state that, in the name of an impartial attitude towards all beliefs, itself renounces any belief - whatever it may be. The trust of the mass of the people in the rulers is based on faith, that is, not only on the common faith of the people with the government, but also on the simple confidence that the government has faith and acts by faith. Therefore, even pagans and Mohammedans have more trust and respect for a government that stands on the firm principles of belief - whatever it may be - than for a government that does not recognize its faith and treats all beliefs equally. This is the undeniable advantage of this system. But over the course of centuries, the circumstances under which this system originated changed, and new circumstances arose under which its operation became more difficult than before. At that time, when the first foundations of European civilization and politics were laid, the Christian state was firmly integral and inextricably united with a single Christian church. Then, among the Christian church itself, the original unity was divided into diverse interpretations and dissents, each of which began to assign to itself the meaning of the one true teaching and the one true church. Thus, the state had to have before itself several teachings of different faiths, among which the mass of the people were distributed over time. With the violation of unity and integrity in belief, a time may come when the dominant church, supported by the state, turns out to be the church of an insignificant minority, and itself weakens in sympathy or is completely deprived of the sympathy of the mass of the people. Then important difficulties may arise in determining the relationship between the state with its church and the churches to which the popular majority belongs. From the end of the 18th century, a turn began in the West of Europe from the old system to a system of equalization of Christian confessions in the state, with the elimination, however, of this equality of sectarians and Jews. The state recognizes Christianity as an essential basis for its existence and social well-being, and membership in one or another church, one or another belief is obligatory for every citizen. Since 1848, this relationship between the state and the church has changed significantly: the surging waves of liberalism are breaking through the old dam and threatening to overthrow the ancient foundations of Christian statehood. The liberation of the state from the church is proclaimed - he does not care about the church. The separation of the church from the state is also proclaimed: everyone is free to believe as they please or not to believe in anything. The symbol of this doctrine is the fundamental principles proclaimed by the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848/49. Although they soon ceased to be considered valid legislation, they served and still serve as an ideal for introducing liberal principles into the latest legislation of Western Europe. In accordance with them, it is now being formed everywhere. Political and civil rights are renounced from belief and from belonging to a particular church or sect. The state does not ask anyone about their faith. Both marriage and civil registration are renounced from the church. Complete freedom of mixed marriages is proclaimed, and the ecclesiastical principle of the indissolubility of marriage is violated by facilitating divorce, removed from the ecclesiastical courts. In view of all these changes, which in today's official France reach the point of denial of faith and violence against church belief, it is permissible to ask: can the new state be recognized as a Christian state? But here we see the same inconsistency that we see in an individual, when he, having renounced Christianity, at the same time leads a life in which all Christian principles are reflected. Likewise, we see that the newest state, renouncing the organic union with the Christian Church, cannot do without forms and rituals that presuppose Christian belief. Churches with their ministers receive support from the state budget, public institutions, military regiments are supplied with spiritual mentors, Christian holidays retain the significance of civil holidays; in the public service and in the courts, the oath retains its binding force. In Germany there is no longer a state church, but the head of state power has supremacy in the Evangelical church, and the state in parliament and in all public affairs has to reckon with parties of one or another religion. In England, with the equalization of religions on liberal principles, not only the king, but also the most important state dignitaries must necessarily belong to the Church of England. The North American Union is a country of religious equality. The state treats every individual church, every religious society as a private corporation. In schools run by the state, teaching the Law of God and compulsory reading of the Bible are not allowed. And with all this, the congress opens its meetings with prayer, with the participation of a clergyman. Clergy are supported by the state in the army and navy. The President announces from time to time established days of thanksgiving and repentance. The sanctity of Sunday is protected by strict law. Some states have strict penalties for theft and blasphemy. Doesn’t it follow from this that a faithless state is nothing more than a utopia impossible to realize, for lack of faith is a direct negation of the state. Religion, and namely Christianity, is the spiritual basis of all rights in state and civil life and of all true culture. That is why we see that political parties, the most hostile to the social order, parties radically denying the state, proclaim ahead of everything that religion is only a personal, private matter, only personal and private interest. The system of a “free church in a free state” is still based on abstract principles, theoretically; it is based not on the beginning of faith, but on the beginning of religious indifference, or indifference to faith, and it is placed in a necessary connection with teachings that often preach intolerance and respect for faith, but an explicit or implied disdain for faith, as a passed moment of mental development in personal and national life. In the abstract construction of this system, which constitutes the fruit of modern rationalism, the church also appears to be an abstractly constructed political institution with a certain purpose or a private society, for a certain purpose organized, like other corporations recognized in the state. The consciousness of this very goal also seems abstract, for it reflects the diverse shades of ideas about faith associated with one or another teaching, from abstract respect for faith as the highest moment of mental life to fanatical contempt for belief as the lowest moment and the beginning of harm and decay. Thus, in the very construction of this system, at first glance, there appears to be duality and ambiguity of the underlying principles and ideas. What can come out of this system in practice will be revealed by the experience of centuries and generations. For now, the experience we have before us is almost insignificant if we compare it with the experience of many centuries, during which the first system operated and continues to operate. But it is not difficult to foresee in advance that the action of the new system cannot be consistent, since it does not agree with the first needs and conditions of human nature, no matter how categorically the rule is derived by abstract teaching: “all churches and all beliefs are equal; it’s the same as one faith as another,” - with this position, in fact, for himself personally, not a single soul can unconditionally agree, keeping in its depths and experiencing the need for faith. Such a soul will certainly answer to himself: “Yes, all faiths are equal, but my faith is the best for me.” Let us assume that today the most strict and precise equation of all churches and beliefs before the law will be proclaimed in the state. Tomorrow there will be signs from which it will be possible to conclude that the relative strength of beliefs is not at all equal; 30, 50 years will pass from the time of the legal equalization of the churches and then it will actually be discovered, perhaps too unexpectedly for an abstract idea, that among the churches there is one that essentially enjoys a predominant influence and dominates minds and decisions, either because it is closer to church truth, or because its teaching or rituals are more consistent with the national character, or because its organization and discipline are more perfect and gives it more ways to systematically act, or because more living and strong-minded figures arose among her. There are already many examples of this. British legislation establishes the equalization of churches in Ireland. But does this mean that churches are equal? In essence, the Roman Catholic Church, precisely from the moment of legal equality, received the full opportunity to extend and assert throughout the country its predominant influence, not only on individual minds, but on all political institutions in the country - on the courts, on the administration, on the schools. The North American Union made it a fundamental condition of its structure that it should have nothing to do with faith. The consequence of this legal state is that, little by little, Roman Catholicism becomes the predominant church in the United States. In North America it enjoys such freedom of predominance that it does not have in any European state. Uninhibited by any relationship to the state, without being subject to any control, the pope distributes dioceses in North America, appoints bishops, founds numerous spiritual orders and monasteries, and little by little covers the entire territory with a dense network of church agents and institutions. Capturing under its influence the masses of Catholics, which increase annually with the arrival of new emigrants, the papacy now considers as its own a whole quarter of the entire population, in view of separate three-quarters, divided into many sects and denominations. The Catholic Church, using every means to circumvent the law, has increased its real estate to enormous proportions. In many states, entire administrations of a political nature are already in her hands and under her influence. In other large cities, the entire city government depends exclusively on Catholics. The Catholic Church has millions of votes in a state where the entire direction of foreign and domestic policy depends on the count of votes. The state is still indifferent to all these phenomena, from the height of its principle of equalizing churches and religious indifference. But subsequent events will show how long the new, favorite theory can survive in the North American Union. Its defenders are still saying: what does the state care about inequalities that arise not due to privileges or legal restrictions, but as a result of the internal strength or internal impotence of each corporation? The law cannot prevent such inequality. But this means avoiding the difficulty by solving it only in theory. On paper it is possible to reconcile everything, to bring everything into a coherent system. On paper, one can distinguish by a certain feature and delimit the area of ​​political activity from spiritual and moral activity. Not really. People cannot be considered only mental machines, disposing of them in the same way as a commander disposes of masses of soldiers when he draws up a battle plan. Every person contains within himself the world of spiritual and moral life; From this world come the motivations that determine his activity in all spheres of life, and most importantly, the central motivation stems from faith, from conviction in the truth. Only a theory detached from life, or not wanting to know it, can be content with the ironic question: what is truth? For each and everyone, this question stands in the soul as the main, most serious question of their entire life, requiring not a negative, but a positive answer. So a free state can assume that it does not care about a free church; only a free church, if it is truly based on belief, will not accept this position and will not become indifferent to a free state. The Church cannot renounce its influence on civil and public life; and the more active she is, the more she feels the inner, effective strength within herself, the less possible it is for her to be indifferent to the state. The church will not accept such an attitude if at the same time it does not renounce its divine calling, if it maintains faith in it and the consciousness of the duty associated with it. The church has the duty of teaching and instruction; the church has the responsibility to perform sacraments and rituals, some of which are connected with the most important acts of civil life. In this activity, the church, of necessity, constantly comes into contact with public and civil life (not to mention other cases, it is enough to point to issues of marriage and education). So, to the extent that the state, separating itself from the church, gives its jurisdiction exclusively to the civil part of all such affairs and removes from itself the jurisdiction of the spiritual and moral part of them, the church will necessarily enter into a function abandoned by the state, and, in separation from it, little by little, completely and exclusively take possession of that spiritual and moral influence, which for the state constitutes a necessary, effective force. The state will only have material and, perhaps, rational power, but both are not enough when the power of faith is not combined with them. So, little by little, instead of the imaginary equation of the functions of the state and the church in the political union, there will be inequality and opposition. The condition, in any case, is abnormal, which should lead either to the actual predominance of the church over the apparently predominant state or to revolution. These are the real dangers that the system of decisive separation of church and state, glorified by liberal theorists, hides. The system of the established or established church has many disadvantages, is associated with many inconveniences and difficulties, and does not exclude the possibility of clashes and struggles. But it is in vain to believe that it has already outlived its time, and that Cavour’s formula alone provides the key to resolving all the difficulties of the most difficult of questions. Cavour's formula is the fruit of political doctrinaire, to whom questions of faith appear to be only political questions about the balancing of rights. There is no depth of spiritual knowledge in it, just as there was none in another famous political formula: freedom, equality and fraternity, which to this day weighs a fatal burden on gullible minds. And here, as there, the passionate heralds of freedom are mistaken in believing that freedom lies in equality. Or have there not yet been enough bitter experiences to confirm that freedom does not depend on equality, and that equality is not freedom at all? It would be the same mistake to assume that freedom of belief itself lies in the equation of churches and beliefs before the state, and that freedom of belief itself depends on the equation. The entire history of recent times proves that here, too, freedom and equality are not the same thing, and that freedom does not depend at all on equality. What is freedom, because of which minds are so agitated in our time, so many crazy things are done, so many crazy speeches are said, and the people are so poor? Freedom in the democratic sense is the right to political power, or, in other words, the right to participate in the government of the state. This desire of everyone to participate in government has not yet found a true outcome and firm boundaries, but is constantly expanding, and one can say about it what the ancient poet said about water disease: “Crescit indulgens sibi.” 2 Expanding its foundation, modern democracy sets as its immediate goal universal voting - this is a fatal delusion, one of the most amazing in the history of mankind. Political power, which democracy so passionately seeks, is fragmented in this form into many particles, and an infinitesimal share of this right becomes the property of each citizen. What will he do with it, where will he use it? The result undoubtedly appears that in achieving this goal, democracy has deceived its sacred formula of freedom, inseparably united with equality. It turns out that with this apparently balanced distribution of freedom between everyone and everyone is connected a complete violation of equality, or real inequality. Each voice, representing an insignificant fragment of power, in itself means nothing: only a certain number or group of voices can have relative significance. A phenomenon occurs similar to what happens in a meeting of nameless or joint stock companies. Units by themselves are powerless; but the one who manages to take to himself the largest number of these fragments of power becomes the master of power, therefore, the master of government and the decider of will. What, one might ask, is the real advantage of democracy over other forms of government? Everywhere, whoever turns out to be stronger becomes the master of government: in one case - a happy and decisive general, in another - a monarch or administrator with skill, dexterity, with a clear plan of action, with an unyielding will. In a democratic form of government, the rulers are dexterous vote-getters, with their supporters, mechanics who skillfully wield the behind-the-scenes springs that set the puppets in motion in the arena of democratic elections. People of this kind make loud speeches about equality, but in essence any despot or military dictator has the same relationship of dominance as they do with the citizens who make up the people. Democracy considers expanding the rights to participate in elections as progress, the achievement of freedom; according to democratic theory, it turns out that the greater the number of people called to participate in political law, the more likely it is that everyone will use this right in the interest of the common good of all, and for the establishment of universal freedom. Experience proves the opposite. History testifies that the most significant, fruitful and lasting measures and transformations for the people came from the central will of statesmen or from a minority enlightened by a high idea and deep knowledge; on the contrary, with the expansion of the elective principle, there was a devaluation of state thought and a vulgarization of opinion among the mass of voters; that this expansion in large states was either introduced for the secret purpose of concentrating power, or of itself led to dictatorship. In France, universal suffrage was abolished at the end of the last century with the end of the Terror; and after that it was restored twice in order to establish the autocracy of the two Napoleons on it. In Germany, the introduction of general voting had the undoubted purpose of establishing the central power of the famous ruler, who had acquired great popularity for himself through the enormous successes of his policies... What will happen after him, only God knows. The game of gathering votes under the banner of democracy is a common phenomenon in our time in almost all European states, and it seems that its lies have been revealed to everyone; however, no one dares to openly rebel against this lie. The unfortunate people bear a burden; and the newspapers - the heralds of imaginary public opinion - drown out the cry of the people with their cry: “Great is Artemis of Ephesus!” But to an unprejudiced mind it is clear that this whole game is nothing more than a struggle and a clash of parties and juggling of numbers and names. Voices, in themselves insignificant units, receive a price in the hands of clever agents. Their value is realized in different ways and, above all, by bribery in a wide variety of forms - from petty handouts of money and things to the distribution of lucrative positions in the excise tax, financial management and administration. Little by little, a whole contingent of voters is being formed, accustomed to living by selling their votes or their agents. It comes to the point, as in France, for example, that serious citizens, prudent and hardworking, in huge numbers avoid elections altogether, feeling it is completely impossible to fight a gang of political agents. Along with bribery, violence and threats are used, election terror is organized, through which the gang forces its candidate through: stormy pictures of election rallies are known, at which weapons are used and the dead and wounded are left on the battlefield. Party organization and bribery are two powerful means that are used with such success to wield the masses of voters who have a voice in political life. These are not new tools. Thucydides 3 also describes in sharp terms the action of these remedies in the ancient Greek republics. The history of the Roman Republic presents truly monstrous examples of bribery, which is a common weapon of parties in elections. But in our time, a new means has been invented to shuffle the masses for political purposes and unite many people into random alliances, arousing between them an imaginary agreement of opinions. This means, which can be equated to political distortion, consists in the art of quickly and deftly generalizing ideas, composing phrases and formulas, thrown at the public with extreme self-confidence of ardent conviction, as the last word of science, as a dogma of political teaching, as a characteristic of events, persons and institutions. It was once believed that the ability to analyze facts and deduce from them a general principle is characteristic of a few enlightened minds and high thinkers: now it is considered a common property, and general phrases of political content, under the name of convictions, have become, as it were, a walking coin, which newspapers and political speakers fabricate. The ability to quickly grasp and accept on faith general conclusions under the name of convictions has spread among the masses and has become contagious, especially among people who are insufficiently or superficially educated, who make up the majority everywhere. This inclination of the masses is successfully used by politicians who are making their way to power: the art of making generalizations serves as their most accessible tool. Any generalization occurs through abstraction: from a multitude of facts, some that do not go to the point are eliminated altogether, while others that are suitable are grouped and from them a general formula is derived. It is obvious that all the dignity, that is, the truthfulness and fidelity of this formula, depends on how decisively important the facts from which it is extracted are, and how insignificant those facts are, which, moreover, are eliminated as inappropriate. The speed and ease with which general conclusions are drawn in our time are explained by the extreme unceremoniousness in this process of selecting suitable facts and their generalization. Hence the enormous success of political speakers and the amazing effect on the mass of general phrases thrown at them. The crowd quickly gets carried away by commonplaces, clothed in loud phrases, general conclusions and provisions, without thinking about verifying them, which is inaccessible to them: this is how unanimity of opinions is formed, an imaginary, illusory unanimity, but nevertheless giving decisive results. This is called the voice of the people, plus the voice of God. A sad and pathetic delusion! The ease of being carried away by commonplaces leads everywhere to the extreme demoralization of public thought, to the weakening of the political meaning of an entire nation. Today's France provides a clear example of this weakening, but England is already becoming infected with the same disease... On the threshold of the twentieth century, one sees a sphinx like a sphinx, offering sophisticated riddles to new generations. How to resolve them is the great question. How will the states of the old world resolve the issue of the structure of their governments? The further we enter the area of ​​so-called progress, the more complicated this task becomes - today we live in completely different conditions of social life in which we lived a hundred years ago. Our political traditions are from the ancient world, from Greece and Rome. But the democracy of that time was completely different from the present one, based on equality. In the ancient world, the structure of government flowed directly from custom, local circumstances and religion. In each of the Greek republics, during the existence of slavery, only citizens participated in the government, i.e., a minority, propertied and free people, and in the history of each of them we see the constantly changing predominance and leadership of the authority figure, the legislator, the ruler, and the head of state affairs. In Rome, the family was a cell of the social and political structure: from it degenerated the first organized body of government - the Senate, according to the original structure, a collection of old people, senior people: there was no question of choosing the best people - only the elders were required, and they really were the best, most capable of managing the affairs of the state. In the new European states forms of government were formed from custom, without construction according to any plan, without striving for symmetry, applying in the course of time to ideals borrowed from the ancient world; but the predominant importance in the government belonged to the aristocratic element, the higher service, owning and wealthy classes. All this was swept away by the revolution, 4 and in the end, with the hand of Napoleon 5, it shook the foundations of the previous political system in the West of Europe. Now, peering into the modern economy of society, we notice how the old, passed down from generation to generation, concept of nobility, which was once the key arch of the political edifice, is being depleted. And before, little by little, it was undermined by the disproportionate development of wealth, luxury and associated depravity in the courtly and aristocratic sphere. But in our time, various methods of enrichment, that is, acquiring money, have multiplied and become so easier that everyone has been seized by the desire for this acquisition, and the demoralization it generates is the most formidable sign of decline in the public consciousness. In comparison with this lust, all the old concepts of family honor and the honor of title paled. But where, apparently, the democratic principle with the denial of aristocracy dominates, a different kind of depraved aristocracy is installed: from all conditions, people strive to enter some special class of society, with other needs that distinguish them from the masses, with a claim to honor associated with wealth, which others do not have, which constitutes the property of wealth; and this new aristocracy, instead of the old one, acquires the significance of a powerful element in the government. The main principle of democracy is the equality of citizens. But this word alone does not explain anything. It is good if this is an equal right to serve one’s country: everyone, according to his ability and means, is obliged to this service, and participates in government activities to the extent necessary. This is how this concept was understood in ancient democracies, especially in small states, where people could know each other, and public affairs were discussed in the square. For the sake of self-preservation in the midst of continuous wars with neighbors, it was necessary to call the best people to the government, and the best were the most capable. Rome, having become a republic of conquest from the very beginning, had to follow the same path, and its Senate became an assembly of the best people who held the fate of the state in their hands. But in modern democracies, equality means the right of each and every one to govern the affairs of his country—the right of the entire population of a vast country to take part in the business of government. The existing system of elections by universal suffrage is based on this: in large states this leads to the predominance of the masses belonging to the least educated class and having no clear consciousness of either the affairs of state or the people capable of managing them. It is obvious that with such an order the dignity and ability of the elected person loses its meaning: this is what significantly distinguishes the new democracy from the ancient one and this is what threatens its destruction. But at the same time, it is also necessary to take into account that this mechanism of democracy is called upon to operate in an era of extraordinary and previously unheard-of complexity of human affairs and relationships. Even a hundred years ago people did not dream of the current development of trade, industry, mechanics, the current development of literature, the press with its enormous significance, the current speed of messages, news and rumors of all kinds. One can imagine how complicated all the functions of government and financial power become, and the conditions under which they must operate, and with what countless facts and new ideas the legislative power must now take into account. In this state of society, democracy faces a terrible task that it cannot cope with. By interceding the supreme power, she must take upon herself the work of the supreme power, and her main business is to elect people to places and positions: this is everything; if it is untenable, then every law, whatever it may be, becomes untenable and loses its meaning, and the basic structure of the entire state institution loses faith and wavers. The government appears to the people as an abstract idea, since it is not embodied in agents of power who are in direct contact with the people and their righteous needs: if these agents are recruited by chance or for false motives, then all their activities become a hot topic of speculation that excites the people's opinion, and a weapon of all opponents of any kind of solid power. And so we see that since in democracy the historical concepts of persons, according to their class and social status, called to serve the state, have lost all meaning, official appointments become an instrument of political parties that strengthen themselves by distributing positions, and at the same time the number of positions increases exorbitantly, not for the benefit, but to burden the people, to serve not so much the general as their own interests, while among the people, with general discontent, the passionate desire to obtain paid and profitable positions. A clear picture of this decline is presented by the new democracies in France, Italy and the United States. This decline is reflected especially in the highest and elected positions of political importance, such as governors and members of legislative assemblies. Elected positions have the value of representation; On the contrary, administrative positions in their essence should be alien to such significance. But since the French Revolution, the idea of ​​this difference in the new democracy has become completely obscured, and on the contrary, the idea has come into use that administrative positions serve as a reward for persons who have served one or another party in power, or who, in the sense of a party, of one or another political and social species and opinions - and it is not asked whether a person is capable of the special work of his position or is incapable. In former times, everyone thought and believed that a ruler must be superior to those whom he rules, and the experience of history confirms that all the successes of civilization were achieved by the desires of the most capable people, despite the opposition of the environment in which they had to act. But in the new democracy, contrary to this indisputable truth, the opinion is taking root that even a vast state can be successfully governed by all sorts of people of the lowest dignity. All this leads to demoralization, thanks to which the private interest of a party or company of individuals receives predominant importance in society at the expense of public interest. The natural consequence of all this is the utter decline of legislative assemblies or democratic parliaments. According to democratic theory, the elected representative of the people is called upon to cast his vote not for what he recognizes as useful for the people or as reasonable and fair, but for what the people of the party that elected him and sent him recognize as best and necessary, even if this does not agree with his personal opinion. Thus, the choice of representatives turns into a game of parties, as passionate as any gambling competition - a game governed by intrigue, deceitful baits and bribery. So legislation falls into the hands of unenlightened, unreasonable people, often selfish, or indifferent to everything that is not connected with the interests of the party. Little by little, all people of direct thought, honest spirit and higher culture are excluded from participating in this game, especially when each of them has a matter of his own special recognition in his hands. Parliament turns into a machine that emits a mass of laws that are ill-conceived, undeveloped, not agreed upon among themselves and completely unnecessary, rewarding freedom, but restricting it in the interests of one party or one company. Everyone more or less feels and realizes that the current democratic system of legislation is completely untenable and based on lies; and when such an institution is based on a lie, what can society expect except destruction? Democracy itself has, one might say, put faith in its parliament, but is forced to put up with it, because there is nothing to replace it, and what stood before is all destroyed, and democracy rejects any idea of ​​dictatorship on principle. The falsely constructed building is obviously faltering for everyone, has already been shaken, but when and how it will fall and what will emerge from its ruins is the task of the sphinx standing on the threshold of the 20th century. What to do next? Everywhere people who still preserve conscience, a sense of truth and love for the fatherland see and feel that the prevailing system of establishing the government of the country does not ensure freedom and does not lead to order, but by spreading and strengthening the autocracy of the random majority, it leads directly to anarchy. Smart and learned people, professors of political studies are beginning to come up with ways to correct the problem. They are inventing new combinations of powers, new election systems, new forms in which a true representation of the people's mind and people's needs, a true government both sufficiently empowered and sufficiently limited from abuses of power, could be developed and established. Ordinary people, not removed from life, ask: what should we do? We fled from autocratic violence - and now we have come to the bitter violence of the impersonal power of the random majority and self-interested parties. They wanted the best people, the true representatives of the country, who knew their people, to be at the helm of the government, but instead the people of the party, the doctrinaires and industrialists cut off from the land, looking for their own interest and profit, people chosen not by free choice, but by the crafty game of parties and violence, stood at the helm. They hoped to raise their children, the growing generation, in the spirit of the people, in the power of good tradition, in the principles of faith, honor and truth; They hoped, though over time, with their help, to organize locally healthy communities in the spirit of peace, which could send out their best people as representatives of the people's mind. Instead, our rulers corrupt our communities, recruiting party supporters into them by temptation, restrict the freedom of local life with arbitrary laws in the spirit of changing parties, and instead of a school that educates people in the spirit of simplicity and good morals, they impose on us a school estranged from life, a school without faith that corrupts youth. In view of the general dissatisfaction, in view of the obvious imperfections of the existing order revealed by criticism, the voices of people are heard who are dissatisfied with mere denial and demand a positive indication of a means to heal evil. So the patient, unable to tolerate his illness, intensively seeks and demands a cure. Doesn't this remind you of a parable about a man who spent his whole life cheerfully, giving free rein to every desire and every lust, ate, drank, debauched immoderately, and finally, having upset his entire body, having lost the very ability to enjoy, demands from the doctor such a medicine that would put him back on his feet and return to him the ability to enjoy, i.e., the opportunity, as before, to eat, drink and debauch immoderately. But a reasonable doctor tells him: there is no such medicine. If you want to be healthy, go into yourself, turn to nature, which you have deceived in yourself and for yourself, put yourself on a simple standard of life, leave unnatural habits and desires. There is no other way to get well. Published from the book: Moscow collection. Edition by K. P. Pobedonostsev, fifth, expanded. M.: Synodal Printing House. 1901. 366 p. The Great Lie of Our Time What is based on lies cannot be right. An institution based on a false principle cannot be anything other than false. This is the truth, which is justified by the bitter experience of centuries and generations. One of the most deceitful political principles is the beginning of democracy, that unfortunately established idea since the French Revolution that all power comes from the people and has its basis in the will of the people. This is where the theory of parliamentarism comes from, which still misleads the masses of the so-called intelligentsia - and, unfortunately, has penetrated into the Russian crazy heads. It continues to persist in people's minds with the tenacity of narrow fanaticism, although its lies are exposed more and more clearly every day to the whole world. What is the theory of parliamentarism? It is assumed that the entire people in national assemblies create laws for themselves, elect officials, and therefore directly express their will and put it into action. This is the perfect performance. Its direct implementation is impossible: the historical development of society leads to the fact that local unions multiply and become more complex, individual tribes merge into a whole people or are grouped in different languages ​​under one state banner, and finally the state territory grows endlessly: direct rule of the people under such conditions is unthinkable. So, the people must transfer their right of power to a certain number of elected people and invest them with governmental autonomy. These elected people, in turn, cannot rule directly, but are forced to choose an even smaller number of proxies - ministers, who are entrusted with the preparation and application of laws, the distribution and collection of taxes, the appointment of subordinate officials, and the disposal of military force. The mechanism is harmonious in its concept; but in order for it to operate, certain essential conditions are necessary. Machine production is based on the calculation of continuously operating and completely equal, therefore, impersonal forces. And this mechanism could operate successfully if the people trusted by the people completely removed themselves from their personality; whenever the mechanical executors of the order given to them sat on the parliamentary benches; when would ministers also appear as impersonal, mechanical executors of the will of the majority; whenever, moreover, the representatives of the people were always elected persons who were able to comprehend exactly and carry out in good faith the program of action given to them and mathematically precisely expressed. Now, under such conditions, the machine would actually work properly and achieve its goal. The law would truly express the will of the people; control would actually come from parliament; the fulcrum of the edifice of government would actually lie in the assemblies of the electors, and every citizen would clearly and consciously participate in the management of public affairs. That's the theory. But let's look at practice. In the most classical countries of parliamentarism it does not satisfy any of the above conditions. Elections in no way express the will of the voters. Representatives of the people are not at all embarrassed by the views and opinions of voters, but are guided by their own arbitrary discretion or calculation, consistent with the tactics of the opposing party. Ministers are in reality autocratic; and they rape parliament rather than parliament rape them. They come into power and leave power not because of the will of the people, but because they are put into power or removed from it - powerful personal influence or the influence of a strong party. They dispose of all the forces and wealth of the nation at their own discretion, distribute benefits and favors, support many idle people at the expense of the people - and, moreover, are not afraid of any censure if they have a majority in parliament, and the majority is supported by the distribution of all good things from the abundant meal that the state has put at their disposal. In reality, ministers are as irresponsible as the people's representatives. Errors, abuses, arbitrary actions are a daily occurrence in ministerial administration, but how often do we hear about the serious responsibility of a minister? Perhaps once every fifty years you hear that a minister is on trial, and most often the result of the trial is insignificant compared to the noise of the ceremonial proceedings. If a true definition of parliament were required, it would have to be said that parliament is an institution serving to satisfy the personal ambition and vanity and personal interests of the representatives. This institution is not the last proof of the self-delusion of the human mind. Having experienced for centuries the oppression of autocracy in individual and oligarchic rule and not noticing that the vices of autocracy are the vices of the society itself that lives under it, people of reason and science placed all the blame for the disaster on their rulers and on the form of government and imagined that with the change of this form to the form of democracy or representative government, society would get rid of its disasters and from tolerable violence. What happened as a result? What happened was that, mutato nomine (only the name was changed (Latin)), everything remained essentially the same, and people, remaining with the weaknesses and vices of their nature, transferred all their previous habits and inclinations to the new form. As before, they are ruled by the personal will and interest of privileged persons; only this personal will is no longer exercised in the person of the monarch, but in the person of the leader of the party, and the privileged position belongs not to the family aristocrats, but to the dominant majority in parliament and government. On the pediment of this building there is an inscription: “Everything for the public good.” But this is nothing more than the most deceitful formula; Parliamentarism is the triumph of egoism, its highest expression. Everything here is designed to serve the self. According to the meaning of parliamentary fiction, the representative renounces his personality in his title and must serve as an expression of the will and thoughts of his constituents; but in reality, voters - in the very act of election - renounce all their rights in favor of the elected representative. Before the elections, the candidate, in his program and in his speeches, constantly refers to the above-mentioned fiction: he talks all about the public good, he is nothing more than a servant and mourner of the people, he does not think about himself and will forget himself and his interests for the sake of the public interest. And all these are words, words, just words, temporary steps of the ladder that he builds in order to climb where he needs to and then throw off unnecessary steps. Here he will no longer work for society, but society will become an instrument for his goals. Voters are for him a herd for collecting votes, and the owners of these herds are truly likened to rich nomads, for whom the herd constitutes capital, the basis of power and nobility in society. This is how the whole art of playing with the instincts and passions of the masses develops and improves in order to achieve personal goals of ambition and power. Then this mass loses all significance for the representative it has chosen until it is necessary to act on it again: then flattering and deceitful phrases are put into use again - to please some, to threaten others: a long, endless chain of homogeneous maneuvers that form the mechanics of parliamentarism. And such and such a comedy of elections continues to deceive humanity and is considered an institution crowning the state building... Pathetic humanity! Truly one can say: mundus vult decipi – decipiatur (the world wants to be deceived. Let it be deceived (lat.)). This is how elective commencement is practiced. The ambitious seeker himself appears before his fellow citizens and tries in every possible way to assure them that he, more than anyone else, is worthy of their trust. From what motives does he embark on this quest? It's hard to believe that out of selfless zeal for the public good. In general, in our time, people are rare who are imbued with a sense of solidarity with the people, ready to work and sacrifice for the common good; These are ideal natures; and such natures are not inclined to come into contact with the vulgarity of everyday life. He who is by nature capable of disinterested service to the public good in the consciousness of duty will not go to curry favor with votes, will not sing his own praises at elected meetings, stringing together loud and vulgar phrases. Such a person reveals himself and his strengths in his work corner or in a close circle of like-minded people, but will not seek popularity in a noisy market. Such people, if they go into the crowd of people, do not do so in order to flatter them and cater to their vulgar desires and instincts, but perhaps in order to expose the vices of human life and the lies of human customs. The best people, people of duty and honor, are disgusted by the electoral procedure: only selfish, egoistic natures who want to achieve their personal goals do not turn away from it. Such a person does not have to put on the mask of striving for the public good just to gain popularity. He cannot and should not be modest, because with modesty they will not notice him, they will not talk about him. By his position and the role that he takes upon himself, he is forced to be a hypocrite and lie: with people who are disgusting to him, he must inevitably get along, fraternize, be courteous in order to gain their favor, he must make promises, knowing that he will not fulfill them later, he must accommodate the most vulgar inclinations and prejudices of the masses in order to have a majority for himself. What honest person would dare to take on such a role? Depict her in a novel: the reader will become disgusted; but the same reader will cast his vote in the election for a living artist in the same role. Elections are a matter of art, which, like the art of war, has its own strategy and tactics. The candidate has no direct relationship with his voters. Between him and the voters there is a committee, an arbitrary institution whose main force is impudence. The seeker of representation, if he does not yet have a well-known name in himself, begins by selecting a circle of friends and associates; then everyone together makes a catch around them, that is, they look for rich and weak-minded inhabitants in the local aristocracy, and manage to assure them that it is their business, their right and advantage to become the leaders of public opinion. There are always enough stupid or naive people who fall for this bait - and so, with their signature, an advertisement appears in newspapers and is pasted on poles, attracting the masses, always greedy for following names, titles and capital. This is how a committee is formed that directs and controls the elections - this is a kind of company on shares, brought to life by the founders. The composition of the committee is selected with deliberate art: in it, some serve as the active force - energetic people, pursuing a material or tendentious goal at all costs; others - naive and frivolous extras - constitute ballast. Meetings are organized, speeches are made: here the one who has a strong voice and knows how to quickly and deftly string together phrases always makes an impression on the masses, gains fame, is awarded a candidate for future elections, or, under favorable conditions, becomes a candidate himself, pushing aside the one for whom he first came to work with his tongue. The phrase—and nothing more than the phrase—holds sway in these gatherings. The crowd listens only to the one who shouts louder and more skillfully imitates with vulgarity and flattery the concepts and inclinations current among the masses. On the day of the final choice, only a few cast their votes consciously: these are individual influential voters who had to be persuaded one by one. The majority, i.e. the mass of voters gives their vote, according to herd custom, for one of the candidates nominated by the committee. The name that is written most loudly and has been ringing in everyone’s ears lately is written on the tickets. Almost no one knows the person, has no idea about his character, abilities, or direction: they choose him because they have heard a lot about his name. It would be in vain to fight this herd impulse. Let us suppose that some conscientious voter would wish to act conscientiously in such an important matter, would not want to submit to the violent pressure of the committee. He can either avoid voting altogether on the day of election, or vote for his candidate according to his own understanding. No matter how he acts, the one who was proclaimed by the mass of frivolous, indifferent or persuaded voters will still be chosen. According to theory, the chosen one should be the favorite person of the majority, but in fact the favorite of a minority, sometimes a very meager one, is elected, only this minority represents an organized force, while the majority, like sand, is not bound by anything, and therefore powerless before a circle or party. The choice should fall on the intelligent and capable, but in reality it falls on the one who pushes forward more impudently. It would seem that a candidate essentially requires education, experience, and conscientiousness in work: but in reality, all these qualities may or may not exist: they are not required in the electoral struggle, the most important thing here is courage, self-confidence combined with oratory, but also even with some vulgarity, which often affects the masses. Modesty combined with subtlety of feeling and thought is no good for this. This is how a people's representative is born, this is how his authority is acquired. How does he use it, how does he use it? If he has an energetic nature, he will want to act and begins to form a party; if he is of an ordinary nature, then he himself joins one party or another. The leader of a party requires, above all, a strong will. This property is organic, like physical strength, and therefore does not necessarily imply moral qualities. With extreme limitations of the mind, with the limitless development of selfishness and malice itself, with baseness and dishonesty of motives, a person with a strong will can become the leader of a party and then becomes the leading, dominant, head of a circle or meeting, even if it includes people who far surpass him in mental and moral qualities. This is the nature of the guiding force in parliament. It is joined by another decisive force - eloquence. This is also a natural ability that does not imply either moral character or high spiritual development. You can be a deep thinker, a poet, a skilled commander, a subtle lawyer, an experienced legislator - and at the same time be deprived of an effective word; and vice versa: it is possible, with the most ordinary mental abilities and knowledge, to possess a special gift of eloquence. The combination of this gift with the fullness of spiritual powers is a rare and exceptional phenomenon in parliamentary life. The most brilliant improvisations, which have made orators famous and connected with important decisions, seem pale and pathetic when read, like the descriptions of scenes enacted in former times by famous actors and singers. Experience indisputably shows that in large meetings the decisive action belongs not to rational, but to lively and brilliant speech, that what is most effective for the masses is not clear, harmonious arguments, deeply rooted in the essence of the matter, but loud words and phrases, skillfully selected, strongly asserted and calculated on the instincts of smooth vulgarity, always lurking in the masses. The masses are easily carried away by the empty inspiration of declamation and, under the influence of an impulse, often unconscious, are capable of coming to sudden decisions, which they have to regret during a cool-blooded discussion of the matter. So, when the leader of a party with a strong will also combines the gift of eloquence, he appears in his first role on the open stage in front of the whole world. If he does not have this gift, he stands, like a director, behind the scenes and from there directs the entire course of the parliamentary performance, distributing roles, releasing speakers who speak for him, using at his discretion the more subtle but indecisive minds of his party: they think for him. What is a parliamentary party? According to the theory, this is a union of people who think alike and combine their forces to jointly implement their views in legislation and in the direction of public life. But only small circles are like this: a large, significant party in parliament is formed only under the influence of personal ambition, grouping around one dominant person. People, by nature, are divided into two categories: some do not tolerate any power over themselves, and therefore necessarily strive to dominate themselves; others, by their nature, fearing to bear the responsibility associated with any decisive action, shy away from any decisive act of will: these latter are, as it were, born for subordination and constitute a herd, following the people of will and decision, who make up the minority. Thus, the most talented people obey willingly, happily placing the direction of their actions and moral responsibility in the hands of others. They seem to instinctively “look for the leader” and become obedient to his tools, maintaining the confidence that he is leading them to victory and often to prey. So, all the essential actions of parliamentarism are carried out by the leaders of the parties: they make decisions, they fight and celebrate the victory. Public meetings are nothing more than a performance for the public. Speeches are made in order to support the fiction of parliamentarism: a rare speech causes, in itself, a parliamentary decision on an important matter. Speeches serve to glorify speakers, to increase popularity, to build a career, but in rare cases they decide the selection of votes. What the majority should be is usually decided outside the meeting. This is the complex mechanism of parliamentary hypocrisy, this is the image of the great political lie that dominates our time. According to the theory of parliamentarism, a reasonable majority should reign; in practice, five or six party leaders dominate; They, taking turns, seize power. According to the theory, belief is established by clear arguments during parliamentary debates; in practice, it does not depend at all on debates, but is directed by the will of the leaders and considerations of personal interest. According to the theory, the people's representatives have in mind the only public good; in practice, under the pretext of the people's good and at the expense of it, they mean primarily the personal good of themselves and their friends. According to theory, they should be from the best, beloved citizens; in practice, these are the most ambitious and impudent citizens. According to the theory, a voter votes for his candidate because he knows him and trusts him; in practice, the voter gives a vote for a person whom, for the most part, he does not know at all, but about whom he was told by the speeches and cries of the interested party. According to the theory, affairs in parliament are controlled and moved by experienced reason and disinterested feeling; in practice, the main driving forces here are decisive will, egoism and eloquence. This is, in essence, what this institution is, which is presented as the goal and crown of the state structure. It is painful and bitter to think that in the Russian land there were and are people who dream of introducing this lie to us; that our professors still preach to their young listeners about representative government as the ideal of a state institution; that our newspapers and magazines talk about him in editorials and feuilletons, under the banner of the legal order; they repeat, without taking the trouble to look more closely, without prejudice, at the operation of the parliamentary machine. But even where it has been operating for a long time, faith in it is weakening; The liberal intelligentsia praises it, but the people groan under the yoke of this machine and recognize the lies hidden in it. We are unlikely to wait, but our children and grandchildren will undoubtedly wait for the overthrow of this idol, which the modern mind continues to worship in self-delusion... The philosophers of the school of J.-J. did a lot of evil to humanity. Rousseau. This philosophy has captured the minds, and yet it is all built on one false idea of ​​the perfection of human nature, and of the complete ability of everyone to understand and implement those principles of social order that this philosophy preached. The currently dominant doctrine of the perfections of democracy and democratic government stands on the same false basis. These perfections presuppose the perfect ability of the masses to comprehend the subtle features of political teaching, clearly and separately inherent in the consciousness of its preachers. This clarity of consciousness is available only to a few minds who make up the aristocracy of the intelligentsia; and the mass, as always and everywhere, consisted and consists of a crowd - “vulgus”, and its ideas will necessarily be “vulgar”. The democratic form of government is the most complex and most difficult of all known in the history of mankind. This is the reason why this form was a transitory phenomenon everywhere and, with a few exceptions, did not last long anywhere, giving way to other forms. And no wonder. State power is called upon to act and command; its actions are manifestations of a single will - without this, no government is conceivable. But in what sense can a multitude of people or a national assembly manifest a single will? Democratic phraseology does not stop at solving this question, answering it with well-known phrases and sayings like the following, for example: “the will of the people”, “public opinion”, “the supreme decision of the nation”, “the voice of the people is the voice of God”, etc. All these phrases, of course, must mean that a great many people, on a great variety of issues, can come to the same conclusion and make the same decision in accordance with it. Perhaps this is possible, but only for the simplest issues. But when even the slightest complication is connected with a question, its solution in a large assembly is possible only with the help of people capable of discussing it in all its complexity, and then convincing the masses to make a decision. Among the most difficult are, for example, political issues that require extreme mental effort from the most capable and experienced statesmen: in such matters, obviously, there is not the slightest possibility of counting on the unification of thought and will in a populous people's assembly: decisions of the masses in such matters can only be disastrous for the state. Enthusiasts of democracy convince themselves that the people can exercise their will in public affairs: this is an empty theory, but in reality we see that the national assembly is only capable of accepting, out of enthusiasm, the opinion expressed by one person or a certain number of people; for example, the opinion of a well-known leader of a party, a well-known local figure, or an organized association, or, finally, the indifferent opinion of one or another influential organ of the press, thus the decision procedure turns into a game taking place in the vast arena of many heads and voices; the more of them are taken into account, the more this game becomes confused, the more it depends on random and disordered impulses. To avoid and bypass all these difficulties, a means of ruling through representation was invented, a means that was organized primarily and justified by success in England. From here, according to established fashion, it spread to other European countries, but it took root with success, according to direct tradition and right, only in the United States of America. However, even in their homeland, in England, representative institutions are entering a critical era in their history. The very essence of the idea of ​​this representation has already undergone a change here, distorting its original meaning. The fact is that from the very beginning, the assembly of voters, closely limited, sent from itself to parliament a certain number of persons who were supposed to represent the opinion of the country in the assembly, but were not bound by any specific instructions from the mass of their voters. It was assumed that people were elected who understood the true needs of their country and were able to give the right direction to public policy. The problem was solved simply and clearly: it was necessary to reduce the difficulty of popular government to the possible limit, limiting the assembly called upon to resolve state issues to a small number of capable people. These people appeared as free representatives of the people, and not of this or that opinion, of this or that party, not bound by any instructions. But, over time, little by little this system changed, under the influence of the same fatal prejudice about the great importance of public opinion, supposedly enlightened by the periodical press and giving the mass of the people the ability to have direct participation in resolving political issues. The concept of representation has completely changed its appearance, turning into the concept of a mandate, or a specific assignment. In this sense, everyone elected in this or that locality is already considered a representative of the dominant opinion in that locality, or of the party that won the elections under the banner of this opinion - this is no longer a representative of the country or people, but a delegate bound by instructions from his party. This change in the very essence of the idea of ​​representation was the beginning of an ulcer that corroded the entire system of representative government. The elections, with the fragmentation of parties, took on the character of a personal struggle of local interests and opinions, detached from the main idea of ​​​​the benefit of the state. With an extreme increase in the number of members of the assembly, the majority of them, in addition to the interest of the struggle and the party, become infected with indifference to public affairs and lose the habit of being present at all meetings and participating directly in the discussion of all matters. Thus, the matter of legislation and the general direction of policy, the most important thing for the state, turns into a game consisting of conventional formalities, transactions and fictions. The system of representation has deceived itself in practice. These deplorable results are most clearly revealed where the population of the state territory does not have an integral composition, but contains heterogeneous nationalities. Nationalism in our time can be called a touchstone on which the falsity and impracticality of parliamentary government is revealed. It is noteworthy that the principle of nationality came forward and became a driving and irritating force in the course of events precisely from the time it came into contact with the newest forms of democracy. It is quite difficult to determine the essence of this new force and the goals to which it strives; but there is no doubt that it contains the source of a great and complex struggle that lies ahead in the history of mankind and who knows what outcome it will lead to. We now see that each individual tribe belonging to a multi-tribal state is possessed by a passionate feeling of intolerance towards the state institution that unites it into a common system with other tribes, and by the desire to have its own independent government, with its own, often imaginary, culture. And this happens not only to those tribes that had their own history and, in the past, a separate political life and culture, but also to those that never lived a special political life. An unlimited monarchy managed to eliminate or reconcile all such demands and impulses, not only by force, but also by equalizing rights and relations under one authority. But democracy cannot cope with them, and the instincts of nationalism serve as a corrosive element for it: each tribe sends representatives from its area - not of the state and people's ideas, but representatives of tribal instincts, tribal irritation, tribal hatred towards the ruling tribe, and towards other tribes, and towards the institution connecting all parts of the state. What a disorganized appearance such a composition gives to popular representation and parliamentary government - an obvious example of this is the Austrian parliament today. Providence saved our Russia from such a disaster, given its diverse composition. It’s scary to think what would happen to us if fate sent us a fatal gift - an All-Russian parliament! It won't happen. They point to England, but it seems that the proverb “They heard the ringing, but did not know where it was” could be applied to these indications. Social science has recently begun to reveal the historical and economic keys from which the special institutions of the Anglo-Saxon and partly Scandinavian race flow, in comparison with the institutions of other European peoples. The Anglo-Saxon tribe, from the time it declared itself in history, to this day is distinguished by the strong development of an independent personality: both in the political and economic spheres, the Anglo-Saxon tribe owes to this property both the stability of its ancient institutions, and the strong organization of family life and local government, and the incomparable successes that it achieved with its energetic activity and its influence in both hemispheres. With this energy of personality, at the beginning of its history, it managed to overcome the alien Norman customs of its victors and establish its way of life on its own principles, which have been preserved to this day. A significant difference in this way of life is the attitude of each citizen to the state. Everyone gets used to being on his own from his youth, to arrange his own destiny and earn his own daily bread. Parents are not burdened with worrying about the fate of their children and leaving them an inheritance. Landowners hold on to their estates and strive to conduct farming and fishing on them themselves. Local government is maintained by the personal, duty-conscious participation of local people in public affairs. Administrative institutions do without hordes of officials who are paid by the state and expect security and advancement from it. This is the root on which the representative institutions of free England historically grew by themselves, and this is why its parliament consists of real representatives of local interests closely connected with the land; that is why their voice can be considered, to a sufficient extent, the voice of the land and an organ of national interests. The other peoples of Europe were formed and grew up on a completely different basis, on the basis of communal life. Its property is that a person is supported not so much by himself as by his solidarity with one or another social union to which he belongs. Hence, with the course of social and state development, a person becomes especially dependent on one or another family or social union, and, ultimately, on the state. These unions - being at the beginning strong institutions - family, political, religious, social, firmly held a person in his life and activities, and they, in turn, made the entire social and state structure. But these unions, over time, either disintegrated or lost some of their dominant significance, but people continue to look for support and structure for their destiny and well-being - in their family, in their corporation, and finally in state power (no matter, monarchical or republican), placing the blame for their misfortunes on it when they do not find this support of their own accord. In a word, a person strives to align himself and his destiny with one of these authorities. Hence, in this state of society, there is an impoverishment of independent and independent people, people who stand on their own feet and know where they are going, constituting a force in the state that serves as its support, and, on the contrary, an extreme increase in people who seek support for themselves in the state, feeding on its juices, and not so much giving it strength as demanding from it. – Hence the extreme development in such societies, on the one hand, of bureaucracy, on the other, of the so-called liberal professions. Hence, with the weakening of the morals of independent activity, there is an extreme complication of the administration of state and legislative power, which takes care of many things that everyone should take care of for themselves. In such a state, society little by little prepares favorable soil for the development of socialism, and the habit of entrusting the state with concern for the well-being of everyone finally turns into an insane theory of state socialism. In such conditions of their social development, all continental states, following the Anglo-Saxon model, established representative government, others even with universal voting. It is obvious that with the described composition of society, and with its light attitude towards public affairs, it cannot identify from itself the true, faithful representatives of the land and its direct interests. Hence, the sad fate of such representative assemblies and the difficult, hopeless situation of the government, which is inextricably linked with them, and the people, whose fate depends on them. What can we say about the peoples of the Slavic tribe, distinguished by their special development of communal life, despite the extreme youth of their culture, about Romania and about unfortunate Greece? Here, in truth, representative institutions immediately introduced the corrupting principle of people’s life, representing in other cases a pitiful caricature of the West, reminiscent of Krylov’s fable “The Monkey and the Glasses.” The greatest evil of the constitutional order is the formation of a ministry on parliamentary or party principles. Every political party is obsessed with the desire to seize government power, and is making its way to it. The head of state is inferior to the political party that constitutes the majority in parliament; in this case, the ministry is formed from members of this party and, in order to retain power, begins to fight the opposition, which is intensifying to overthrow him and take his place. But if the head of state leans not towards the majority, but towards the minority, and elects his ministry from it, then the new government dissolves parliament and makes every effort to form a majority for itself in new elections and, with its help, fight the opposition. Supporters of the ministerial party always vote for the government; in any case, they have to stand for it - not for the sake of maintaining power, not because of internal agreement in opinions, but because this government itself keeps the members of its party in power and in all the advantages, benefits and profits associated with power. In general, the essential motive of each party is to stand for its own at all costs, either because of mutual interest, or simply because of that herd instinct that encourages people to divide into squads and fight wall to wall. It is obvious that agreement in opinions has very little meaning in this case, and concern for the public good serves as a cover for motives and instincts that are completely alien to it. And this is called the ideal of parliamentary government. People deceive themselves into thinking that it serves to ensure freedom. Instead of the unlimited power of the monarch, we get the unlimited power of parliament, with the difference that in the person of the monarch we can imagine the unity of rational will; but in parliament there is none, for here everything depends on chance, since the will of parliament is determined by the majority; but as soon as the majority, formed under the influence of the game of the party, is a minority, the will of the majority is no longer the will of the whole parliament: even less can it be recognized as the will of the people, the healthy mass of which does not take any part in the game of parties and even evades it. On the contrary, it is precisely the unhealthy part of the population that is little by little introduced into this game and corrupted by it; for the main motive of this game is the desire for power and profit. Political freedom becomes a fiction, supported on paper, by paragraphs and phrases of the constitution; the beginning of monarchical power completely disappears; Liberal democracy triumphs, introducing disorder and violence into society, along with the principles of unbelief and materialism, proclaiming freedom, equality and brotherhood - where there is no longer a place for either freedom or equality. This state leads irresistibly to anarchy, from which society is saved only by dictatorship, i.e. restoration of a single will and a single power in the government. England presented the first example of popular, representative government to modern Europe. Since the middle of the last century, French philosophers began to glorify English institutions and set them up as an example for everyone to follow. But at that time, it was not so much political freedom that attracted the French minds as it was the principles of religious tolerance, or better to say, the principles of unbelief, which were then in vogue in England and put into circulation by English philosophers of that time. Following France, which set the tone for both morals and literature throughout the Western intelligentsia, the fashion for English institutions spread throughout the European continent. Meanwhile, two great events occurred, one of which confirmed this faith, and the other almost completely shook it. The republic of the American United States arose, and its institutions, copied from the English (except for royalty and the aristocracy), took root firmly and fruitfully on new soil. This created delight in the minds, and above all in France. On the other side, the French Republic appeared, and soon revealed to the world all the infamy, disorder and violence of the revolutionary government. Everywhere there was an explosion of indignation and disgust against French and, therefore, against democratic institutions in general. Hatred of the revolution was reflected even in the internal policies of the British government itself. This feeling began to weaken by 1815, under the influence of political events of that time - a desire arose in the minds, with fresh hope, to combine political freedom with civil order in forms suitable to the English constitution: political Anglomania again came into fashion. Then followed a series of attempts to realize the British ideal, first in France, then in Spain and Portugal, then in Holland and Belgium, and finally, most recently, in Germany, Italy and Austria. A faint echo of this movement was reflected here in 1825, in the insane attempt of aristocratic dreamers who did not know either their people or their history. It is interesting to trace the history of new democratic institutions: whether they turned out to be durable, each on its own soil, in comparison with monarchical institutions, which history considers continued for a number of centuries. In France, since the introduction of political freedom, the government, in all its state power, was overthrown three times by a Parisian street crowd: in 1792, in 1830 and in 1848. Three roses were overthrown by the army, or military force: in 1797, on September 4 (18 Fructidor), when the majority of the members of the directory, with the assistance of military force, destroyed the elections held in 48 departments, and sent 56 members of the legislative assemblies into exile. Another time, in 1799, on November 9 (18 Brumaire), the government was overthrown by Bonaparte, and finally, in 1851, on December 2, by another Bonaparte, the younger. Three times the government was overthrown by external enemy invasion: in 1814, in 1815 and in 1870. In general, from the beginning of its political experiments to 1870, France had 44 years of freedom and 37 years of harsh dictatorship. Moreover, it is also worth noticing a strange phenomenon: the monarchs of the older Bourbon line, leaving a lot of room for the action of political freedom, never relied on the pure beginning of modern democracy; on the contrary, both Napoleons, having unconditionally proclaimed these principles, ruled France despotically. In Spain, popular rule was proclaimed during the era of the final fall of Napoleon. An extraordinary meeting of the Cortes approved the constitution in Cadiz, declaring in its first article that the supremacy of power belongs to the nation. Ferdinand VII, having entered Spain through France, abolished this constitution and began to rule autocratically. Six years later, General Riego, at the head of a military uprising, forced the king to restore the constitution. In 1823, the French army, under the inspiration of the Holy Alliance, entered Spain and restored Ferdinand to autocracy. His widow, as regent to protect the rights of her daughter Isabella against Don Charles, again adopted a constitution. Then a successive series of revolts and uprisings began for Spain, occasionally interrupted by short periods of relative calm. It is enough to point out that from 1816 before Alfonso’s accession to the throne, there were up to 40 serious military uprisings in Spain, with the participation of the popular crowd. Speaking of Spain, one cannot fail to mention the monstrous and instructive spectacle presented by the numerous republics of South America, republics of Spanish origin and Spanish morals. Their whole history represents a constant succession of fierce massacres between the people and the troops, interrupted by the rule of despots reminiscent of Commodus or Caligula. It is enough to cite Bolivia as an example, where out of the 14 presidents of the republic, thirteen ended their reign by violent death or exile. The beginning of popular or representative government in Germany and Austria was no earlier than 1848. True, starting from 1815, a dull murmur arose from the young intelligentsia against the German ruling princes for failure to fulfill the promises given to the people during the era of the great war of liberation. With a few minor exceptions, there were no representative institutions in Germany until 1847, when the Prussian king established his own special form of constitutional government; however, it did not last even one year. But as soon as the pressure of the Parisian street crowd broke the French charter and overthrew the constitutional king, a street movement arose in Germany, with the participation of troops. In Berlin, Vienna, and Frankfurt, national assemblies were held according to the French template. Barely a year had passed when the government dispersed them by military force. The newest German and Austrian constitutions all come from monarchical power and are still awaiting their judgment from history. The article is based on the essay of the Jewish writer and public figure Max Nordau (real name Max-Shimon Südfeld (1849 - 1923)) “The Conventional Lie of Cultural Humanity” (1883). An authorized translation of fragments of Nordau’s book without attribution was published by K.P. Pobedonostsev in 1884 in the weekly magazine “Citizen”. Here is what the famous English writer, a deep connoisseur of history (S. C. Man) says about the jury trial of his homeland: “People's government at first was identical with people's court. The ancient democracies were more concerned with the courts in civil and criminal cases than with the affairs of political administration, and in fact the historical development of popular justice is incomparably more continuous and consistent than the development of forms of popular government... We here in England have a living monument and trace of the people's court in the administration of the jury. Trial by jury is nothing more than the ancient, court-creating democracy, but only put within limits, in modified and improved forms, in accordance with the principles developed by the experience of entire centuries, - consistent with the new idea of ​​​​the judicial process. And the changes to which the establishment of the people’s court has undergone are extremely instructive. Instead of a national assembly, there are twelve jurors. Their whole job is to answer “yes” or “no” to questions, which, of course, are very important, but related to everyday objects. In order for these people to come to a conclusion, there is a whole system of devices and rules to help them, developed to the point of subtlety and reaching the highest artificiality. In the investigation of the case, they are not left to their own devices, but carry it out under the chairmanship of an experienced person - a judge, a representative of the royal justice; A whole huge literature of guiding rules has formed, under the condition of which they are offered evidence of controversial facts that are subject to their condemnation. With unwavering severity, any testimony that exposes the intention to sway them in one direction or another is removed from them. They are also addressed now, as happened in the old days, in a people's court by the parties or representatives of the parties, but in order to protect impartiality, a new action has been established, completely unknown in the previous people's court, namely, the entire study consists of the most thorough presentation of the facts, which is pronounced by a skillful and experienced judge, owing his title to the strictest impartiality. If he himself falls into error or the jury's answer reveals an error, the entire procedure can be destroyed by a higher court of knowledgeable people. This is the real type of people's court, developed over centuries of caring culture. Let us now see what the people's court appears to be like in its original form, as the ancient Greek poet describes it, of course, from life. The meeting opens; The question is asked: guilty or not guilty. The elders give their opinions one by one; and the democratic assembly standing around and judging declares with applause its sympathy for this or that opinion, and the decision is determined by an outburst of applause. This is the character of popular justice in the ancient republics. The democracy that carried out the trial simply accepted, so to speak, by battle, the opinion that had the strongest effect on it in the speech of the litigant, the defendant and the lawyer. And there is not the slightest doubt that, were it not for the strict regulating and restraining power of the Chief Justice, the English juries of our time would seem to favor with their verdict the side of one or another lawyer who could influence them.” This is what the Englishman, a deep connoisseur of his history and a deep thinker, says. The thought involuntarily moves to the unfortunate institution of the jury in those countries where there are no historical and cultural conditions under which it was formed in England. Obviously, many, when introducing this institution, only “heard the ringing, but did not know where it was.” It was unreasonable and frivolous to entrust the verdict of the defendant’s guilt to popular justice, without considering practical measures and ways of putting him under proper discipline, and without first taking the trouble to examine a foreign institution in the history of his homeland, and with its complex situation. And now, after many years of experience, wherever the jury trial has been introduced, following the example of England, questions arise about how to replace it in order to eliminate the randomness of verdicts, which is increasing from year to year. These questions arise and become aggravated in those states where there is a strong judicial class, educated for centuries, having undergone a strict school of science and practical discipline. One can imagine what this popular justice turns into where in a young state there is no even this strong guiding force, but instead there is a quickly formed crowd of lawyers, for whom the interest of pride and self-interest itself helps to soon achieve significant development in the art of sophistry and logomachiy, in order to act on the masses; where there is a motley, mixed herd of jurors, assembled either by chance or by artificial selection from a mass in which neither the consciousness of the duty of a judge nor the ability to master the mass of facts that require analysis and logical analysis are available; finally, a mixed crowd of the public coming to the trial as a spectacle in the midst of an idle and poor content life; and this public in the minds of idealists must mean the people. Is it any wonder that in such a situation the same sad result appears, which is indicated by the above words of Charles Maine: “The jury blindly pulls its verdict on the side of one or another lawyer who can influence them.” Published from the book: Moscow collection. Edition by K. P. Pobedonostsev, fifth, expanded. M.: Synodal Printing House. 1901. 366 p. Since the fall of humanity, lies have settled in the world, in human words, in deeds, in relationships and institutions. But never before, it seems, has the father of lies invented such a web of lies of all kinds as in our troubled times, when so many false speeches about the truth are heard from everywhere. As the forms of social life become more complex, new deceitful relationships and entire institutions arise, thoroughly saturated with lies. At every step you come across a magnificent building, on the front of which is written: “Here is the truth.” You walk in and see nothing but lies. You go out, and when you try to talk about the lies that your soul was outraged by, people are indignant and tell you to believe and preach that this is the truth beyond any doubt. So we are told to believe that the voice of magazines and newspapers, or the so-called press, is the expression of public opinion... Alas! This is a great lie, and the press is one of the most deceitful institutions of our time. Who would argue against the strength of the opinion that people have about a person or an institution? Such is human nature that each of us, no matter what we say, what we do, looks around at how it seems and what people think. There was and is no person who could consider himself free from the action of this force. This force in our time takes on an organized form and is called public opinion. Its organ and representative is the press. And truly, the significance of printing is enormous and serves as the most characteristic sign of our time, more characteristic than all the amazing discoveries and inventions in the field of technology. There is no government, no law, no custom that could withstand the destructive effect of the press in a state when all its newspaper pages repeat and disseminate to the masses the same idea directed against one or another institution every day for years. What gives the seal such power? It is not at all the interest in news, news and information with which the sheets are filled, but the well-known tendency of the magazine, that political or philosophical thought that is expressed in its articles, in the selection and arrangement of news and rumors, and in the coverage of selected facts and rumors. The press places itself in the position of a judging observer of daily phenomena; she discusses not only the actions and words of people, but even tests unexpressed thoughts, intentions and assumptions, arbitrarily brands them or praises them, excites some, threatens others, exposes some to shame, makes others an object of admiration and an example of imitation. In the name of public opinion, she distributes awards to some, and prepares execution for others, similar to medieval excommunication... The question naturally arises: who are the representatives of this terrible power that calls itself public opinion? Who gave them the right and authority to rule in the name of the whole society, to overthrow existing institutions, to set forth new ideals of moral and positive law? No one wants to think about this completely legitimate question and find out the truth about it; but everyone is shouting about the so-called freedom of the press as the first and most important basis for social improvement. Who doesn’t cry out about this in our unfortunate Russia, slandered and deceived by foreign lies? The so-called Slavophiles also cry out in amazing inconsistency, imagining to restore and establish the historical truth of institutions in the Russian land. And they, joining the chorus of liberals, united with the champions of the beginnings of revolutions, say in a completely Western way: “Public opinion, that is, thought combined with the feeling and legal consciousness of each and every one, serves as the final decision in matters of public life; So, any restriction on freedom of speech should not be allowed, for this restriction expresses the violence of the minority over the general will.” This is the current position of modern liberalism. It is accepted on faith by many, and few people, thinking about it, notice how much lies and frivolous self-delusion there is in it. It contradicts the first principles of logic, for it is based on a completely false assumption that public opinion is identical with the press. To be convinced of this falsity, one only has to imagine what a newspaper is, how it comes into being and who makes it. Any street rogue, any chatterbox of unrecognized geniuses, any seeker of gesheft can, having his own or having obtained other people’s money for profit and speculation, found a newspaper, at least a large one, gather around him at the first cry a crowd of scribblers, feuilletonists ready to rant about anything, reporters supplying illiterate gossip and rumors - and his headquarters is ready, and he can Tomorrow we will be in the position of power, judging everyone, acting on ministers and rulers, on art and literature, on the stock exchange and industry. This is a special type of foundation and development, and, moreover, of the cheapest kind. Of course, a new newspaper only gains power when it has been used in the market, that is, has been distributed to the public. This requires talent, it requires content that is attractive and sympathetic to readers. It would seem that there is some guarantee of the moral solidity of the enterprise: will talented people go to work for an insignificant or despicable publisher and editor? Will readers begin to buy a newspaper that is not a true echo of public opinion? But this guarantee is only imaginary and abstract. Daily experience shows that the same market attracts any talents for money, if they are on the market - and the talents write whatever they want to the editor. Experience shows that the most insignificant people - some former moneylender, a Jewish factor, a newspaper peddler, a member of a gang of jacks of hearts, a bankrupt roulette owner - can found a newspaper, attract talented employees and put their publication on the market as an organ of public opinion. You can’t rely on the common sense of the public either. Among the mass of readers - mostly idle - along with some good ones, pathetic and base instincts of idle entertainment dominate, and any publisher can attract the masses by counting on satisfying precisely such instincts, on the hunt for scandals and spices of all kinds. We see daily examples of this in our capital, and in our capital it’s not far to look for them: you just have to take a closer look at the supply and demand of newspaper peddlers near crowded places and at railway stations. Everyone knows the lack of seriousness in our public conversation: in the county town, in the province, in the capital, it is known what it is supplemented with - maps and gossip of all kinds, and anecdote in all its possible forms. The conversation itself about so-called social and political issues is mostly in the form of gossip and fragmentary phrases sprinkled with the same gossip and anecdote. This is unusually rich and rewarding soil for a literary industrialist, and on it will be born, like poisonous mushrooms, both ephemeral and established organs of public gossip, impudently posing as organs of public opinion. The same vile role that nameless letters and libels, unfortunately so common among us, play in the midst of the idle life of some provincial town, is the same role played in such a newspaper by correspondence sent from different corners and composed by the editorial office. Not to mention the mass of rumors and news written by ignorant reporters, not to mention the vile business of blackmail, of which such a newspaper often becomes an instrument. And it can flourish, can be considered an organ of public opinion and bring enormous profits to its publisher... And no publication based on solid moral principles and designed for the sound instincts of the masses will be able to compete with it. It is worth taking a closer look at this phenomenon: we recognize in it one of the ugliest logical contradictions of modern culture, and it is most uglier precisely where the beginnings of modern liberalism were established - precisely where each institution requires the sanction of choice, the authority of the people's will, where government is concentrated in the hands of persons relying on the opinion of the majority in the assembly of representatives of the people. No sanction is required from the journalist alone, whose power extends over almost everything. No one chooses it and no one approves it. The newspaper becomes the authority in the state, and for this sole authority no recognition is required. Anyone who wants, the first person they meet, can become an organ of this power, a representative of this authority, and, moreover, completely irresponsible like no other power in the world. This is true, without exaggeration: there are living examples. You never know how many frivolous and unscrupulous journalists were, by whose grace the revolutions were being prepared, irritation boiled to the point of hatred between classes and peoples, turning into a devastating war. Another monarch would have lost his throne for actions of this kind; the minister would be subject to disgrace, prosecution and trial; but the journalist emerges dry from all the turmoil he has caused, from every pogrom and public disaster that he was the cause of, emerges triumphantly, smiling and cheerfully taking up his destructive work again. Let's go lower. A judge, having the right to punish our honor, deprive us of property and freedom, accepts it from the state and must prepare for his title through long labor and testing. He is bound by strict law; all his mistakes and hobbies are subject to the control of a higher authority, and his sentence can be changed and corrected. And the journalist has every opportunity to tarnish, disgrace my honor, affect my property rights; may even restrict my freedom, making it difficult with his attacks or making it impossible for me to stay in a certain place. But he himself appropriated this judicial power over me: he did not accept this title from any higher authority, did not prove by any test that he was prepared for it, did not in any way confirm the personal qualities of trustworthiness and impartiality, in his trial over me he is not bound by any forms of process, and is not subject to any appeal in his verdict. True, defenders of the press claim that it itself heals the wounds it inflicts; but every reasonable person understands that this is just an idle word. Press attacks on a private person can cause him irreparable harm. All possible refutations and explanations cannot give him complete satisfaction. Not every reader who comes across the first defamatory article will read another acquittal or explanatory article, and given the frivolity of the mass of readers, a disgraceful suggestion or outrage in any case leaves poison in the opinion and disposal of the masses. Prosecution for libel, as we know, provides a poor defense, and libel proceedings almost always serve as a means not of exposing the offender, but of further insults to the offended; and besides, a journalist always has a thousand ways to injure and disturb a private person, without giving him direct reasons for initiating prosecution. So, is it possible to imagine a despotism more violent, more irresponsible, than the despotism of the printed word? And isn’t it strange, isn’t it wild and crazy that the ever more fierce advocates of freedom are busy trying to maintain and protect precisely this despotism, crying out with bitterness against any violence, against any legal restrictions, against any constraining order of the established authority? One involuntarily comes to mind of the age-old word about wise men who have gone completely mad because they imagine themselves to be wise. In our century of the spread of inventions, what is most surprising is the rapid spread of newspaper literature, which in a short time has become a terribly real social force. The importance of the newspaper increased for the first time after the July Revolution of 1830, worsened even after the revolution of 1848, and then began to increase not only in years, but in days. Nowadays, governments reckon with this force, and it has become even impossible to imagine not only public, but also private life without a newspaper, and the cessation of the publication of newspapers, if it were possible to imagine it, would be unambiguous with the cessation of all operation of the railways. The newspaper undoubtedly serves as the most important cultural tool for humanity. But, recognizing all the conveniences and benefits from the dissemination of a mass of information and from the exchange of thoughts and opinions through a newspaper, one cannot help but see the harm that occurs for society from the unlimited distribution of a newspaper, one cannot help but admit with a feeling of some fear that some fatal, mysterious, corrupting force is accumulating in the daily press, hanging over humanity. Every day in the morning the newspaper brings us a bunch of different news. How much of this multitude is suitable for our life and for our educational development? How much can sustain in our soul the sacred fire of inspiration for good? And on the contrary, there is so much here that flatters our basest inclinations and motives! They can say that we are given what the tastes of readers require, which meets demand. But this objection can be turned around: the demand would not be the same if the supply were not so zealous. But let only news be offered: no, they are offered in a special form, colored by a special opinion, combined with a nameless, but very decisive judgment. There are, of course, serious minds running the newspaper; there are not many of them; and there are a great many newspapers, and every morning someone completely unknown to me, and perhaps someone I wouldn’t even want to know, imposes his opinion on me, passing it off authoritatively as the voice of public opinion. But the most important thing is that this newspaper, appealing every day not even to a certain circle of people, but to all people who only know how to read printed matter, offers everyone ready-made judgments about everything, and thus, little by little, by force of habit, weans its readers from the desire and from any effort to have their own opinion; others do not have the opportunity to compose it themselves and perceive mechanically the opinion of their newspaper; Some people could have judged it thoroughly for themselves, but he has no time to think in the midst of the daily bustle and worries, and it is convenient for him that the newspaper thinks for him. It is obvious what harm comes from this, precisely in our time, when strong currents of tendentious thought are active everywhere and strive to equalize all angles and differences of individual thinking and reduce them to a uniform level of so-called public opinion: under these conditions, the newspaper serves as the strongest instrument of such an equalization, weakening any independent development of thought, will and character. And besides, for how many people the newspaper serves as almost the only source of education, a pitiful, imaginary education, when the mass of different information and news brought by the newspaper is accepted by the reader as real knowledge, with which he arms himself with self-confidence. This is one of the reasons why our time is so poor in whole people, in characterful figures. The newest seal is similar to a fairy-tale hero who, having written mysterious letters on his forehead - a symbol of divine truth, struck all his opponents until a fearless fighter appeared who erased his mysterious letters from his forehead. On the forehead of our seal are written the banners of public opinion that are irresistible. In the present state of society and with its current structure, the press has become an institution that must be taken into account and firmly taken into account among other institutions associated with state power and subject to control and responsibility, for there is no institution that could consider itself uncontrolled and irresponsible. But the further this press establishment grows, the more obvious become, along with the obvious benefits of reasonable and conscientious publicity, the social ills that it gives rise to. One of these ulcers of the press is that it produces and multiplies to the limit an entire class of journalists, entrepreneurs and writers, “who feed and grow rich with their pens.” The most serious figures in the serious press never cease to complain bitterly about the increase in the number of these brethren, which are shameful, but have to be reckoned with as part of one institution. In all large states, in all large markets, from this rabble of the writing brethren a class was formed, which it would not be in vain to call parasites of society. In fact, these are people who stand on some special basis in relation to the public good, which should bind and animate all institutions. These people are not directly interested in maintaining public order, in pacifying restless minds and warring parties. And naturally. Every newspaper lives and feeds on daily events, news of all kinds. Its consumption intensifies precisely in times of troubles, and here all efforts are aimed at spreading news and rumors that irritate and confuse the minds; on the contrary, during quiet times, newspaper consumption decreases significantly. As soon as trouble arises, new newspapers immediately appear on the market to feed on it until the quiet time when they shrink and disappear. But even in quiet times it is necessary to feed, and for this it is necessary to arouse new excitement in the minds, to develop new interests: sensational news is invented, painted, exaggerated. The food for magazines that pretend to be serious is politics, and the discussion of political issues, churned with polemics, occurs daily. Any journalist is ready to immediately talk about any political issue, but by his position he is obliged to judge and solve it immediately, now, for he must be a scribbler, a servant not of thought, not of reason, but of the present day. As soon as a thought jumps into his head, it is already flying onto paper, onto the printing press: there is no time to wait, no time to let the emerging thought ripen. Ask these people if they are ashamed? Not at all. Will they laugh to your face at such a question: they are convinced that they are performing a great public service. Are those who are smarter among themselves, like the ancient augurs, 8 making fun of themselves and the public. Moreover, a magazine writer, in order to be heard, to be paid attention to, must strain his voice in every possible way; if possible, shout. His craft requires this: exaggeration, capable of turning into pathos, becomes second nature for him. That is why, when embarking on a polemic with an opposing opinion, he is ready to call his opponent a fool, a scoundrel, an ignoramus, and to charge him with all sorts of vices: this does not cost him anything - this is required by magazine acoustics. This is the art of shouting, like the shout of a merchant in the market when he lures a buyer. These are the habits and qualities that, unfortunately, the press develops in its figures. And all this would be funny if it weren’t so harmful. It is harmful because the press has now become an arena in which the most important issues of both the domestic and foreign policy of the state, issues of economy and administration related to the most vital national interests are not only discussed, but also resolved. For all this, enthusiasm alone is not enough; you need wise prudence, maturity of thought, you need common sense, you need knowledge of your history and your people, knowledge of practical life. Meanwhile, now in Europe it has already reached the point that state orators emerge from the ranks of magazine speakers and form the predominant force in parliaments, together with lawyers, who share with them the art of using words in every direction. So now in the French chamber there are only 22 representatives of large and 50 small landed property, but all the speaking power lies with journalists, of whom there are 59, and with lawyers, of whom there are 107. And these people are considered representatives of their country and judges of the people's life and its needs. And the people groan from the legislative confusion of voices that govern the destinies of the state, but cannot free themselves from it. When reasoning is separated from life, it becomes artificial, formal and, as a result, dead. The subject is approached and questions are resolved from the point of view of general provisions and principles, accepted on faith: they slide along the surface, without delving into the subject and without peering into the phenomena of real life, even refusing to peer into them. A lot of such general principles and positions have proliferated among us, especially since the end of the last century - they have filled our lives, have completely alienated our legislation from life, and science itself is often placed in opposition to life and its phenomena. Following the doctrinaires of science, who reach the point of fanaticism in their doctrinaire, and the school adherents of established teachings, a crowd of intellectuals follows as a herd. General provisions acquire the meaning of an indisputable axiom, the struggle with which becomes extremely painful, sometimes completely impossible. It is difficult to calculate and weigh how much disruption these axioms caused in legislation, how they entangled the living organism of the people's life with artificial, force-imposed forms! France went ahead of this movement: it brought into fashion the leveling of folk life through general principles derived from abstract theory. Everyone followed her - even states, combining an endless variety of living conditions, tribal composition, space and climate. You can’t count how much our fatherland suffered from this. Here, for example, are the words that have been repeated to the point of satiety here and everywhere: free education, compulsory education, limiting the work of minors to compulsory school age... There is no dispute that learning is light, and ignorance is darkness; but in applying this rule it is necessary to know when to stop and be guided by common sense, and most importantly, not to violate the very freedom that is talked about so much and which our legislators so decisively violate. Repeating in every possible way the vulgar saying that the school teacher won at Sadovaya, we are molding the school and the school teacher according to the official pattern, bending the needs of the everyday life of children and parents, and nature and climate itself, to it. We don’t want to know that school (as experience shows) becomes one deceptive form if it has not grown with its very roots into the people, does not correspond to their needs, and does not coincide with the economy of their way of life. Only that school is strong among the people, which they love, the educational significance of which they see and feel; He is disgusted by the school into which he is forced by force, under the threat of punishment, arranging the school itself not according to popular taste and needs, but according to the imagination of the doctrinaires of the schools. Then things become mechanical: the school becomes like an office, with all the burden of office production. The legislator is pleased when a certain number of monotonous premises with the inscription: school are established and located at the designated points. And they are collecting money for these establishments - and they are already threatening to drive them into them under pain of a fine; and observers are established at great expense to ensure that parents, both poor and working people, send their children to school from school age... But, it seems, all states have already gone far beyond the line beyond which schooling shows its reverse side in people's life. The formal school is already developing everywhere at the expense of that real, educational school, which life itself should serve for everyone in the environment of family, professional and social life. How much harm has been done by confusing the concept of knowledge with the concept of skill! Carried away by the dreamy task of universal education, we called a certain amount of knowledge enlightenment, suggesting that it is acquired by completing a school curriculum artificially compiled by desk teachers. Having established the school in this way, we cut it off from life and decided to forcibly drive children into it in order to subject them to the process of mental development, according to our program. But we forgot or did not want to realize that the mass of children whom we educate must live on their daily bread, the acquisition of which requires not the amount of bare knowledge with which our programs are stuffed, but the ability to do a certain thing, and that from this ability we can discourage them artificially, on the imaginary knowledge built by the school. These are the consequences of a school that is cleverly designed, and this is the reason why people do not like such a school, not seeing the point in it. The “folk” concept of school is a true concept, but, unfortunately, it has been overdone everywhere in the organization of the new school. According to the popular concept, school teaches you to read, write and count, but in inseparable connection with this, it teaches you to know God and love Him and fear Him, love the Fatherland, and honor your parents. This is the sum of knowledge, skills and sensations that, taken together, form a conscience in a person and give him the moral strength necessary to maintain balance in life and withstand the fight against the bad impulses of nature, with bad suggestions and temptations of thought. It’s a bad thing when school separates a child from his environment, in which he gets used to the work of his title - through exercise from a young age and example, unconsciously acquiring art and taste in work. Whoever is preparing to become a candidate or master must begin his studies at a certain time and go through a successively known series of sciences; but the mass of children is preparing for manual and craft work. For such work, physical preparation is necessary from an early age. To close the way to this preparation, so as not to lose time for school purposes, means to complicate the means of living for the mass of people struggling in life for their daily bread, and to hinder in the family the natural development of its economic forces, which together constitute the capital of social well-being. A sailor is brought up for seamanship, growing up on the water from childhood; a miner gets used to his work and accustoms his lungs to it - no other way than by descending from a young age into underground mines. Moreover, a farmer gets used to his work and receives a love for it when, from childhood, he lives, without breaking away from nature, near livestock, near the plow and plow, near fields and meadows. And we are all arguing about the course for the public school, about the compulsory course, with which complete development is supposedly connected. Another wants to include in it an encyclopedia of knowledge under the wild name “Homeland Studies”; another insists on the need for the villager to know physics, chemistry, agriculture, medicine; others require an encyclopedia of political science and jurisprudence... But few people think that by tearing children away from home to school for such sophisticated purposes, we are depriving parents and families of the labor force that is necessary to maintain the household, and we are corrupting children, giving them the mirage of imaginary or false knowledge detached from life, exposing them to the temptation of images of vanity and vanity flashing before their eyes. The newest school of popular educators offers one remedy, one recipe for the good of humanity: a war against the prejudices and ignorance of the masses of the people. All the disasters of mankind, in the opinion of the writers of this school, stemmed from the fact that the mass of the people too stubbornly held on for centuries to some unaccountable feelings and opinions, which must be destroyed at all costs, uprooted. They include as such harmful sensations and opinions everything that cannot be proven, that is not justified by logic. When, so these philosophers reason, all men could set their mental power in motion, develop their thinking and be guided by it instead of thinking, feeling and living according to opinions taken on faith, then a golden age for mankind would begin. In one generation, humanity would have advanced in a way that it has not advanced in several centuries. If the level of thinking power among the masses were to rise even one degree, incalculable consequences would result. Almost everyone has one syllogism that is formed in their head based on direct impressions from the first years of their youth. If everyone were to add another syllogism to this stock, and everyone’s thought became capable of connecting both into one chain of thinking, the appearance of the universe would change from this alone, the fate of all mankind would be transformed. This is the goal to which they want to lead us, this is the task of enlightenment and progress that the new philosophers set for the 19th century. It seems like how to argue against this? Meanwhile, the proposed task has another side, a reverse and dark one, which is usually overlooked. There is a natural, earthly force of inertia in humanity that is of great importance. With it, like a ship with ballast, humanity holds on to the destinies of its history - and this strength is so necessary that without it, forward movement becomes impossible. This power, which the short-sighted thinkers of the new school indifferently conflate with ignorance and stupidity, is absolutely necessary for the well-being of society. To destroy it would mean to deprive society of that stability, without which there is nowhere to find a foothold for further movement. Neglecting or forgetting this power is the main flaw of modern progress. What is prejudice? Prejudice, they say, is an opinion that has no rational basis and does not admit of logical argumentation; all such opinions are intended to be eradicated; in what way? – arousing mental activity in every person and making each person’s opinion dependent on logical conclusion. Beautiful, but beautiful only in abstract theory. In real life we ​​see that in most cases it is impossible to trust the action of the ability of logical thinking in a person alone; that in every matter of real life we ​​rely more on a person who holds on stubbornly and unconsciously of opinions directly accepted and satisfying the instincts and needs of nature, rather than on one who is capable of changing his opinions according to the conclusions of his logic, which at a given moment seem to him to be the indisputable voice of reason. In such a disposition, it is easy for a person to become an obedient slave to any reasoning to which he does not know how to respond at the moment, to surrender unconditionally, with his entire worldview, to any new method of logical argumentation on any subject. He becomes defenseless against any theory, against any conclusion, if he himself does not possess such an arsenal of logical weapons as his opponent currently has. One has only to recognize the syllogism as the highest, unconditional standard of truth, and real life will fall into slavery to the abstract formula of rational thinking, the mind with common sense will have to submit to the emptiness and stupidity that owns the tool of the formula, and art, tested by life, will have to fall silent before the reasoning of the first young man who comes across, familiar with the ABC of formal reasoning. One can imagine what would have happened to the masses if our reformers had finally succeeded in instilling in the masses a belief in the unconditional, guiding significance of the logical formula of thinking. The masses would lose that precious property of stability, with the help of which society has until now managed to stay on a solid foundation. Moreover, is it fair to admit that persistence in an opinion accepted on faith is necessarily and always in contradiction with logic, that the so-called prejudice always means dullness or inactivity of thinking? No, it's unfair. If a person is inclined to surrender his opinion and belief to the demonstrative argumentation of logic, this does not at all mean that he is more logical, more consistent than someone who, without yielding to argumentation, stubbornly holds on to his opinion. On the contrary, the adherence of a simple person to an opinion taken on faith occurs, although for the most part unconsciously to himself, from an instinctive, but highly logical impulse. A simple person instinctively feels that with a change in one opinion about one subject, which they want to produce in him through an apparently irresistible argument, is connected a change in the whole chain of his views on the world and on life, of which he is not aware, but which are inextricably linked with all his thinking and life, and constitute his spiritual life. It is this goal that the crafty dialectic of modern enlighteners seeks to tear apart, and, unfortunately, sometimes easily succeeds. But a simple person with common sense feels that if he succumbed defenselessly in one area to the first attack of logical argumentation, he would be sacrificing everything, and he cannot sacrifice the whole world of his spiritual ideas simply because he is not able to logically refute the argument directed against one of the facts of this world. In vain would a crafty questioner begin to shame such a simple person and convict him of stupidity: in this, a simple person is not stupid at all, but is more intelligent than his opponent: he still does not know how to comprehend in the entirety of the phenomena and facts of his spiritual world, and does not have the dialectical art of his opponent, but, resting on his own, thereby shows that he values ​​his opinion, protects it and appreciates the truth of conviction - not in the form of rational expression, but in all its integrity. And now they want to educate the common man. One can say about all such methods of enlightenment that they are from the evil one. At night, when people are asleep or powerless in their sleep, the evil one comes and slowly, under the guise of a kind and well-intentioned person, sows his weeds. And for this you don’t need to be either a smart or learned person - you just need to be crafty. Does it take a lot of intelligence, for example, to approach an ordinary person at a convenient moment and throw confusion into him: “Why are you praying to your Nikola? Have you ever seen Nikola help someone who prays to him?” Or flatter a girl in a simple family with the following speech: “Who will prove to you that your lot is to always depend on others and be a man’s slave? Reason tells you that you are equal to him in everything and have absolutely the same right to everything as him.” Or sneak between the parents and the young son with the following speech: “By what logic are you obliged to obey your parents? Who told you to respect them when, in your opinion, they are not worth it? What, if not an accidental phenomenon of nature, is your connection with them and aren’t you a free person, first of all equal to everyone and everyone?” With such speeches and many similar ones, the evil one wanders among the simple and small in the near and far places of our land, separates the sheep from the flock and orders them to call themselves a teacher, leads them away and drives them out into the desert... Herbert Spencer 9 on public education The Study of Sociology. XV Correct legislation must not deviate from psychological truth. There is no doubt about the following truth, which is so often overlooked. Human actions depend directly on sensation, and not on knowledge. Leading, in itself, does not produce action. When I accidentally prick myself on a pin or get my finger into boiling water, I involuntarily shudder. From a strong sensation, movement occurs directly, without any thought. On the contrary, the mere consciousness that a pin pricks, that boiling water burns, does not produce any movement in me. Without a doubt, if the thought of imminent danger from a pin or boiling water is combined with this consciousness, then a more or less decisive urge to recoil arises. But imaginary pain prompts me to do this. The bare consciousness that there is pain from an injection or a burn does not produce any effect; the action begins from the minute when pain, verbally affirmed, or ideally conscious, becomes truly conscious or threatening pain, when a living representation of pain arises in consciousness as a vague image of pain already experienced before. Therefore, the cause of action in this case, as well as in others, is not knowledge, but sensation. The same thing that is visible in this simple action also appears in the most complex actions. The engine of activity is not knowledge in itself, but only in conjunction with the sensation that excites it. The drunkard knows very well that after today's debauchery, tomorrow morning a severe headache will appear; but the consciousness of this truth does not frighten him until a living representation of the burden that threatens him arises in him, until the sensation counteracting drunken lust reaches such a force that could balance this lust. The same should generally be applied to all carelessness. When the threatening evil is clearly presented to the imagination, and the threatening suffering is quite palpable in the spirit, then a real check is placed on the desire for the immediate gratification of present desire; but when there is no clear consciousness of threatening suffering, real desire does not meet with sufficient counteraction. The truth is fully recognized mentally that carelessness leads to distress, to deprivation; but this consciousness remains inactive until the disaster is presented in the imagination as a living picture. There is a crowd of people on the shore. A boat capsized into the water and a man drowned. Everyone sees clearly, like two and two make four, that he will drown if he doesn’t get help. Everyone knows that he can be saved if some swimmer rushes into the water and swims to him. It has been confirmed to everyone from birth that everyone has a duty to help their neighbor in danger; everyone realizes that risking oneself in order to save a person from death is an honest and glorious deed. Many people know how to swim, but why doesn’t anyone rush into the water, and everyone just calls: help! or shouting advice to a drowning man? But then one comes out, throws off his outer dress, rushes and swims to the rescue. How is this one different from the others? Is it really leading? Not at all. His consciousness is the same as everyone else’s; and he, just like everyone else, knows that a person’s life is in danger, he knows how to help him. But along with this consciousness, some correlative sensations are excited in him, and they are more excited than in others. Several correlative sensations are aroused in everyone; but for others, disgusting sensations of fear, etc., predominate, while for him the excess of sensation is produced by sympathy in combination, perhaps, with other sensations of a lower category. In both cases, the action was determined not by knowledge, but by sensation. How, then, can one effect a change in the inactive attitude of the spectators towards the disastrous event? Obviously, not by clarifying the knowledge in them, but by strengthening the higher sensations in them. This, apparently, is the basic psychological truth with which any rational system of human discipline should be consistent. Is it not clear that when the legislator ignores this truth, but adheres to an idea that is contrary to it, he inevitably falls into error. And current legislation mostly does just that; deceived along with public opinion, it eagerly strives to take measures based on the assumption that human activity is determined not by sensation, but by knowledge. Isn’t it this very assumption that underlies all the measures so urgently introduced for the organization of schooling? Both of the two parties bickering on this issue have the same basic concept - that for the improvement of morals and activities, the only means is the spread of knowledge. Everyone is deceived by various deceptive statistical figures and stubbornly insists that the reduction of crimes and the improvement of public morality directly depends on public school education. Everyone finds in the newspapers comparative conclusions about the number of illiterate criminals with the number of literate ones, sees that the former is much larger than the latter number, and concludes from this without reasoning that the source of crimes is ignorance. It doesn’t occur to them that they can take any numbers from statistics and prove with them, with exactly the same reliability, that the number of crimes depends, for example, on how many times a day people wash, how often they change their linen, what kind of ventilation they have in their apartment, whether they have a special bedroom, etc. It’s worth going to prison and finding out how many of the criminals who were in the habit of taking a bath in the morning wash so many times a day. day; the idea will immediately appear that the criminal disposition is due to the condition of the skin - dirty or neat. Count all those who owned more than one pair of dresses, and a comparison of the numbers will now show you that a very small percentage of criminals fit the habit of changing clothes. Find out where they lived, on the main streets or in the back streets, and you will see that city crimes almost all emanate from corners and basements. In the same way, a fanatical member of a temperance society, an advocate of sanitary measures of every kind, will find in statistical figures any amount of strong evidence for his doctrine. But whoever does not take on faith the position of the accepted doctrine offered to him, that ignorance is the cause, and crime is the consequence, and wants to make sure whether there are various other causes on which crime equally depends, he will see clearly that crime actually depends on our way of life, combined for the most part with the lower properties of innate nature. Then it will be necessary to admit that ignorance is only one of the many and varied circumstances with which crime is usually accompanied. It would seem how one can reject this critical verification of existing opinion and the following conclusion from it. But existing opinion does not want to know this conclusion and stubbornly rejects it; The accepted concept has become so ingrained in our minds. It can only be changed and deceived in the minds by reality when it shows what the consequences were. When the wave of accepted opinion has reached a certain height, it cannot be repelled by any conviction, any evidence; it is necessary for it to exhaust its strength in the gradual course of human affairs: only from that time, not before, does a turn in opinion arise. That's true. Otherwise, it would be completely incomprehensible how this confidence in the healing power of schooling, into which people have sank, having listened without reasoning to everything that political doctrinaires interpret to them every day, how this confidence could resist the obvious evidence of daily everyday experience. Any mother, any governess is embarrassed every day because her speeches have no effect, although she constantly repeats about what is good and what is bad. Constant complaints are heard from everywhere that persuasion, interpretation, explanation of obvious consequences have absolutely no effect on some natures; that if it acts on other natures, it is only due to the receptivity of sensation; and where it, having at first been fruitless, begins to have an effect, there the cause turns out to be not so much a clarification of the concept as a change in sensation. In every household you will hear that all kinds of remarks have no effect on the servants; No matter how much you try to explain to them, they stubbornly adhere to their old habits, even the most absurd ones; It is possible to correct a servant not through instructions, but through fear of fines and penalties, that is, by exciting sensations. Let us turn to the sphere of completely different relationships and we will see the same thing. Malicious bankrupts, founders of fake companies, manufacturers of counterfeit goods, manufacturers using other people's brands, traders with counterfeit scales, insurers of counterfeit property, hunters cheating each other, players playing a big game - aren't all these well-mannered people? Let us take extreme cases: all poisoners known to our memory belong, for the most part, to the educated class. Belief in the unconditional moral action of mental education, refuted by facts, is nothing more than a preconceived position (a priori), stretched to the point of absurdity. A person has learned that this or that sign placed on paper means this or that word: what connection can one imagine between this knowledge and the highest consciousness of duty? Does the ability to signify words and sounds on paper really have the power to affirm in a person the will directed towards goodness and truth? Does the multiplication table, the ability to add and subtract, strengthen the power of empathy in a person and keep him from offending his neighbor? Is the sense of truth enhanced in any way by literacy, or by knowledge of geography, even the most detailed one? To prove that one comes from the other is not the same as arguing that the legs are strengthened by exercising the fingers, that whoever learns Latin learns geometry, etc.? Is it really less unreasonable to assert that the discipline of mental faculties in itself leads to a mood in a person of sensations for good and truth? Belief in the omnipotence of school, in book lessons and readings is one of the main superstitions of our time. The book, even as an instrument of mental education, is given too much importance. Direct, first-hand knowledge is more important than second-hand knowledge; the latter should serve only as a replacement for the first, where the first is impossible; and with us the latter is given preference over the former. The situation is put in such a way that everything perceived from the printed page is included in the course of education, and what is borrowed from direct observation in life and in nature is admitted into this course with difficulty. To read means to see through someone else's eyes, it means to learn through someone else's abilities instead of learning directly through one's own ability; but the existing prejudice has become so strong that the indirect method of teaching is preferred to the direct method and is called education. It’s funny for us to hear that wild people consider writing a magical letter; we are amused by the story of that black man who, carrying a basket of fruit while writing, ate the fruit and hid the letter under a stone so that it would not get to him. But not far from this anecdote is the misconception that lurks in the current concepts of teaching through print; ideas acquired through artificial instruments are attributed a kind of magical power in comparison with ideas acquired in other ways. This delusion is very harmful even to mental education; but it has an even more detrimental effect on moral education, arousing the assumption that moral education can be achieved by reading and repeating lessons. So, I repeat, human actions are determined not by knowledge, but by feeling. Hence this should be the final conclusion: the inclination towards one or another action is strengthened only by experience, that is, by an often repeated transition from feeling to action. When two ideas are often repeated in a certain order, they are finally connected with each other in this order: the mechanical movements of muscles in a certain combination are at first very difficult, but as practice progresses they become easy and are finally performed unconsciously; in the same way, with the repetition of actions excited by certain sensations, a certain course of action becomes natural in a person, not requiring special efforts. A moral habit is not formed through instruction, even if it were repeated every day, or even through example (if the example does not inspire imitation); but only through action, repeatedly aroused by a corresponding feeling. This is a truth obvious from psychology and justified by the experience of daily life; nevertheless, this truth is denied by the fanatics of the current theory of education. Hardly anyone would consciously assert that mental knowledge is more important for a person than the formation of character. Everyone has had to make the observation in life that a worker, although illiterate, is sober, honest and diligent in his work, has incomparably more value both for himself and for others than a trained and knowledgeable worker who is faulty, disorderly, drunk, and does not think about his family. In the upper classes, a spendthrift and a gambler, no matter how educated and mentally developed, is not worth a man who, although he has not taken a patented course, does his job conscientiously and provides for his children himself, without leaving them in poverty in the care of his relatives. Therefore, if we take the matter as it really is, everyone will have to agree that for the well-being of society, character is incomparably more important than much knowledge. They do not argue against this, and they do not accept the conclusion that follows from this. They do not even raise the question of how all the artificial means used to disseminate knowledge will affect the character. Of all the goals that a legislator can have in mind, the very first and most important is the formation of characters among the people and the establishment of a consciousness of the personal responsibility of each; and this is precisely the goal that is left unattended. Let us consider that the entire future of a nation depends on the properties of the units from which the nation is composed; that these properties are inevitably subject to change in accordance with the conditions in which they are placed; that the sensations excited by these conditions must inevitably increase; and the sensations that these conditions do not cause should weaken and die out. Then we will be convinced that improvement of public morality can be achieved not by repeating rules and instructions, and even less by simply caring about the spread of mental education, but by daily exercise of the highest sensations of the spirit and the fight against lower sensations. There is only one way to do this: to keep people in strict subordination to the order of social life, so that any violation of it inevitably results in evil, and observance of it is good for every person. This, and this alone, is what national education consists of. How many ancient concepts have become darkened and confused in our time! How many ancient names have changed or are changing their meaning before our eyes! The concept of law is changing—and not changing for good. The law, on the one hand, is a rule, on the other hand, it is a commandment, and on this concept of a commandment, moral consciousness about the law is established. The main type of law remains the ten-word: “Honor your father... do not kill... do not steal... do not envy.” Regardless of what is called a sanction in the new language, regardless of the punishment for violation, the commandment has the power that it awakens conscience in a person; establishing from above an imperious division between light and darkness, between truth and untruth. And this is where, and not in material punishment for violation, the main, indisputable sanction of the law is that the violation of the commandment is immediately convicted in the soul of the violator by his conscience. You can avoid material punishment, material punishment can sometimes fall without measure or beyond measure, on an innocent person, due to the imperfection of human justice, but no one is spared from this internal punishment. The new teaching and the new legislative policy completely forget about this high and deep meaning of the law. Only the meaning of the law is put in plain sight, as a rule for external activity, as a mechanical equalizer of all the various functions of human activity in legal terms. All attention is paid to analysis and technique in the creation of legal rules. It is undeniable that technique and analysis are of great importance in this matter; but in perfecting both, is it reasonable to forget the basic meaning of the legal rule? And it is not only forgotten, but has already reached the point of denying it. And so we pile up an immense edifice of legislation without number and without measure, constantly practicing inventing rules, forms and formulas of all kinds. We are building all this in the name of freedom and the rights of mankind, but it has already reached such a point that a person has nowhere to move from the interweaving of all these rules and forms, connecting from everywhere, threatening from everywhere in the name of guarantees of freedom. We are trying to define everything, measure and weigh everything humanly - therefore, alas! incomplete, imperfect and often misleading formulas. We want to free a person, we set traps for him everywhere, into which the right one more often falls than the wrong one. In the midst of the endless multitude of decrees and rules, in which the thoughts of both the drafters and the implementers are confused, the well-known fiction that no one can make an excuse based on ignorance of the law takes on monstrous significance. It becomes impossible for a simple person to know the law, or to ask for the protection of his rights, or to defend himself from attack and accusation: he fatally falls into the hands of attorneys, sworn mechanics in the machine of justice, and must pay for every step of his, every movement of his case in the arena of trial and reprisal... Meanwhile, the huge network of the law continues to weave and weave itself into a web, compressing and improving its cells. It is not for nothing that back in the 16th century the famous Bacon 10 applied an ancient prophetic word to this network: “Nets will fall on them, says the prophet, and there are no nets more destructive than the nets of laws: when their number has multiplied, and the passage of time has made them useless, the law ceases to be a lamp that illuminates our path, but becomes a net in which our feet are entangled.” Since the 16th century, in Bacon’s homeland, this network, which at that time already seemed impossible to him, continued to be woven daily and reached monstrous proportions. The mass of parliamentary acts, resolutions, decisions represents something chaotically huge and chaotically discordant. There is no mind that could understand it and put it in order, separating the accidental from the constant, the lost from the effective, the essential from the inessential. The mass of laws seems to be all piled up in a huge barn, in which people, accustomed to entering it and understanding it, look for anything as needed. However, justice is based on this state of the law, and all the activities of public and state institutions are based. If the concept of law has not died out in the people’s consciousness, this can only be explained by the power of tradition, custom, knowledge and the art of ruling and judging, continuously preserved in the action of ancient, centuries-old authorities and institutions. Therefore, in addition to the law, although in connection with it, there is a rational force and a rational will, which acts authoritatively in the application of the law, and which everyone consciously obeys. So, when talking about respect for the law in England, the word law does not explain anything: the power of the law (which people do not know) is supported in essence by respect for the power that wields the law, and trust in its reason, art and knowledge. In England, the main, necessary condition for maintaining legal order is not neglected, but strictly preserved: the determination of the authorities assigned for this purpose and the circle belonging to each of them, so that none of them can doubt the firmness and hesitate in the awareness of the limits of their state powers. On this basis, the government does not use just the letter of the law, slavishly obeying it in fear of responsibility, but uses the law in its entire and reasonable meaning as a moral force emanating from the state. And where this essential force does not exist, where there are no ancient institutions that from generation to generation serve as a repository of reason and art in the application of the law, there the multiplication and complication of laws produces a truly labyrinth in which the roads of all people under the law become entangled, and there is no way out of the network that is thrown over them. Laws become a net not only for citizens, but, most importantly, for the very authorities called upon to apply the law, constraining for them with a multitude of restrictive and contradictory regulations the freedom of reasoning and decision that is necessary for the rational action of power. When evil and violence are revealed, when it is necessary to protect the offended, establish order and give everyone their due, an imperious action of the will is necessary, directed by the desire for truth and the public good. But if, at the same time, the person obliged to act, at every step, is encountered in the law itself with restrictive instructions and artificial formulas, if at every step he is in danger of crossing one or another line, from the many outlined in the law, if, moreover, the limits of the authorities and departments that come into contact in their action are confused in the law itself with many fractional definitions, then all power is lost in bewilderment, weakened by the very thing that should arm it by force, that is, by law, and is suppressed by the fear of responsibility at a moment when it is not fear, but the consciousness of duty and right that should serve as the only motivation and guidance. The moral significance of the law is weakened and lost in the mass of legal articles and definitions piled up in the continuous activity of the legislative machine, and finally the law itself in the people’s consciousness receives the meaning of some external force, for no apparent reason, descending and from everywhere connecting and constraining the functions of people’s life... The exorbitant proliferation of laws becomes all the more dangerous for society because the method of preparing and discussing them has recently been completely distorted by the beginnings of modern democracy. All implementation of the law becomes the work of the party, and the law itself is an instrument of the party. A lot of intelligent, careful work is required to prepare a law in a large, especially multi-tribal state: in order for the law to come out effective, it is necessary that it meets the real needs of the people in the area to which it relates, so that it is in full compliance with the economy of everyday life and with the truth of the people’s soul. Is it possible to observe all these conditions where the discussion of the law turns only into a competition of parties, into a struggle of abstract principles, and where everything is decided not by a reasonable assessment of opinions, but only by the mechanical counting of the votes of a crowded meeting. The majority decides, artificially constituted by selection, the engines of which are indifference or herd motivation in some, in others passion or fanaticism of the doctrine, in others personal interest. So, the basis of the decision is one formula or conditional fiction, in which there is no place for anything real, reasonable, stable. The second half of the last century was everywhere an era of transformations, which in many places were combined with the revolutionary movement, or with the predominance of doctrinaire among the leaders of the transformation. As a result, in many places the transformational movement was reflected by a confusion of concepts in the minds and a weakening of mental and moral energy in society. There is a deep meaning hidden in the legends and customs of the people, which is reflected in the entire movement of phenomena and events of its previous history. With the destruction of these customs and legends, both the fundamental unity of the national spirit and the unity of the authorities that serve as its exponent are broken. Each citizen is a representative of his own personal taste and personal aspirations: some are adherents of the forms of the old order, which have already lost their meaning; others are fans of all kinds of theories and chimerical dreams about the social order. In this confusion of opinions and aspirations, in order to establish some kind of order, they take up legislation - they draw up new codes, write new laws. Thus, everywhere custom, a living force, free and capable of independent development, is replaced by the letter of the written law - a force that is essentially soulless, negative, punitive and constrains private activity. And this letter of the laws, accumulating like a mountain over the people, becomes, in the name of freedom, an instrument of one or another party, in the interest of one or another favorite principle of politics. When necessary, this letter punishes and suppresses; when it is not necessary, a lot of laws, triumphantly carried out, are left without effect, and in the midst of all lawlessness the name of the law is proclaimed as the supreme force that governs life and supposedly establishes truth! Moreover, in the midst of continuous legislative work, it can be difficult to maintain unity and integrity in the mass of individual resolutions that acquire the significance of law. Hence - a mass of laws that arise for individual reasons, are not agreed upon among themselves and are not organically adjacent to the general system of legislation and to the entire system of government. This creates a network of legal rules that are subject to mandatory execution, which in many cases turns out to be either impossible or combined with a violation of other rules that also have the force of law. And the law little by little loses the significance of the norm that guides and directs the action of the will and the order of the authorities put in place to satisfy the essential needs and requirements of the population, for the government necessary to protect the rights of everyone. At every step, the one who is called to act and give orders must fearfully look around in all directions, lest he violate this or that rule, this or that formality prescribed in this or that law. As a result, with the multiplication of laws, the energy of the authorities often necessary for governance is weakened, the consciousness of duty is confused when it is difficult to determine its limits in individual cases, and the law, which should contribute to the correct administration of positions, places constraint and obstacles on it at every step. Everyone is dissatisfied these days, and from constant, chronic dissatisfaction, many turn into a state of chronic irritation. What are they angry about? - against your fate, against the government, against social order, against other people, against everyone and everything except yourself. We are all dissatisfied when we are deceived in our expectations: this dissatisfaction and disappointment, brought by life at turns, is usually smoothed out at other turns by the same life. This is a temporary, passing disease, not like the current discontent - a general, epidemic disease, which has infected the entire new generation. People grow up with excessive expectations that stem from excessive pride and excessive, artificially formed needs. Previously, there were more contented and calm people, because people did not expect so much from life, were content with small, average measures, and were in no hurry to expand their destiny and its horizons. They were restrained by their place, their business and the consciousness of duty connected with place and business. Looking at others living freely for their own pleasure, the little people thought: where are we? and they calmed down on this impossibility. Now this impossibility has become a possibility accessible to everyone’s imagination. Every private person dreams of becoming one of the generals of fortune, not through work, service, performance or actual distinction, but through chance and sudden gain. Every success in life began to seem like a matter of chance and luck, and with this thought everyone was more or less excited, as if by gambling and the hope of winning. In the economic sphere, the credit system prevails. Credit in our time has become a powerful tool for creating new values; but this means has become available to everyone, and despite the relative ease of its use, not all created values ​​receive real meaning and serve for productive purposes: for the most part, imaginary, inflated values ​​are created to satisfy random and temporary interests, with the expectation of sudden enrichment. As a result, the success of each enterprise does not depend to the same extent as it used to before on the personal activity, on the ability, energy and knowledge of the entrepreneur: in the social and economic environment around the business, a great many invisible currents have formed, elusive accidents that cannot be foreseen and circumvented. Each activist has to enter into a struggle not with one or another specific difficulty, but with a whole network of difficulties with which the matter is surrounded on all sides. Calculations get confused because the data that needs to be taken into account eludes the calculation. Hence the state of uncertainty, anxiety and languor from which everyone more or less suffers. Any activity is paralyzed by such a state of mind in which the actor feels that he is unable to cope with the circumstances, that his will and mind are powerless in the face of the obstacles surrounding him. Energy weakens, a man of action becomes a fatalist and gets used to counting for success not on the power of command and foresight, but on blind chance, on luck. This is one of the reasons for the pessimism that infects so many in our time, and partly the reason for another, common disease - practical materialism - the need for sensual pleasures. Sensual instincts are aroused with particular force in a life based on the inaccurate and random, in anxious and feverish activity. The same phenomena are noticeable in other spheres of social activity. Everywhere the same credit becomes its instrument, everywhere imaginary, exaggerated values ​​are created with amazing speed and ease, which for some, under favorable circumstances, bring fortune, for others - crumble into dust from a collision with the reality of life. It is remarkable with what ease reputations are now created, the educational discipline of school is passed, or better said, bypassed, important public positions associated with power are obtained, and notable awards are given out. An ignorant magazine scribbler suddenly becomes a famous writer and publicist; a mediocre lawyer takes on the role of a notorious orator; the charlatan of science is a learned professor; a half-educated, inexperienced young man becomes a prosecutor, a judge, a ruler, and a draftsman of legislative projects; a blade of grass that just rose from the ground yesterday takes the place of a strong tree... All these are imaginary, inflated values, and they arise in abundance every day in the everyday market, and their owners rush around with them exactly like stockbrokers with their inflated shares. Many will live their entire life with these values, remaining essentially empty, petty, powerless, unproductive people. But for many, these values ​​soon crumble into dust, and the owners find themselves insolvent. Meanwhile, pride has managed to inflate to unnatural proportions, claims and needs have grown beyond measure, desires are irritated, and in decisive moments, when it is necessary to act, there is no strength, no reason, no character, no knowledge. Hence a lot of moral bankruptcies, which occur in their way from the same reasons as bankruptcies in the economic sphere. It is difficult to calculate how many forces are perishing in our time from their incorrect, ugly, random distribution, from improper circulation of all kinds of capital in our market. The result is young people, but already broken, crippled, broken by life. Others cannot bear their burden and, like a vessel heated unevenly, burst: in impatience they commit suicide, which, apparently, does not cost a person much when he is accustomed to making himself alone the center of his being, measuring it by a material measure, and feels that this measure eludes him, and his calculations are confused. Others wander around the world, multiplying the number of dissatisfied, irritated, indignant against life and society: it will be a disaster if too many of them accumulate, and opportunities will open up for them to vent their anger and satisfy their lust... The ancients, they say, placed a skeleton or a death's head in the middle of their luxurious feasts to remind the feasters of death. We do not have this custom: while we are having fun and feasting, we wish to cast the thought of death far from ourselves. Nevertheless, she herself, death, is behind everyone’s shoulders, and her menacing image is ready to rise before their eyes every minute. Every day brought us news of suicides that happened here and there, inexplicable, unsolved, threatening to turn into some kind of ordinary, familiar phenomenon of our social life... It’s scary to think, are we really already accustomed to this phenomenon? When has anything like this ever happened to us, when the human soul was valued so cheaply, and when there was such public indifference to the fate of the living soul, created in the image of God, redeemed by the blood of Christ? Rich and poor, learned and illiterate, decrepit and old, and a young man barely beginning to live, and a child barely standing on his feet - all take their own lives with incomprehensible, insane ease - one simply, the other draping themselves and their suicide at the last hour. Why is this? Because our life has become incredibly ugly, insane and deceitful; because all order has disappeared, all consistency in our development has disappeared; because all discipline of thought, feeling and morality has relaxed among us. In social and family life, all simple organic relationships have deteriorated and been upset; in their place, institutions or abstract principles have taken their place, mostly false or falsely applied to life and reality. Simple needs of spiritual and physical nature gave way to many artificial needs, and simple sensations were replaced by complex, artificial ones that seduce and irritate the soul. Self-love, which had previously grown with an even growth in accordance with the situation and conditions of life, began to arise at once, to rise at once to the full insane magnitude of the human “I”, not restrained by any discipline, at once to enter into the immense claim of the individual “I” to life, to freedom, to happiness, to mastery over fate and circumstances. Minds strong and weak, high and low, big and small - all the same, having lost the ability to recognize their ignorance, the ability to learn, that is, to obey the laws of life, at once rose to an imaginary height from which everyone big and small considers himself a judge of life and the universe. Thus, an immense mass of lies has accumulated in our society, penetrating all relationships, infecting the very atmosphere we breathe, the environment in which we move and act, the thought with which we direct our will, and the word with which we express our thoughts. In the midst of this lie, what can there be but feeble growth, feeble existence and feeble action? The very ideas about life and its goals become false, relationships become confused, and life is deprived of the uniformity that is necessary for calm development and normal activity. Is it any wonder that many cannot stand such a life and finally lose the balance of moral and mental forces necessary for life? The crystal vessel, evenly heated, can withstand a high degree of heat; heated unevenly and suddenly, it bursts. Isn’t the same thing happening here with those unfortunate suicides we hear about every day? Some perish from the inner lies of their ideas about life, when, upon meeting reality, these ideas and dreams crumble into dust: an unhappy person, not knowing except his “I” any other support in life, not having any moral principle outside his “I” to fight life, runs away from the struggle and breaks himself. Others perish because they are unable to reconcile their, perhaps lofty, ideal of life and activity with the lies of their environment, with the lies of people and institutions; losing faith in what they deceptively believed in, and not having any other true faith in themselves, they lose their balance and cowardly flee from life... And how many of them were destroyed by a sudden and uneven rise, destroyed by the power to which they frivolously aspired, which they took upon themselves - beyond their strength? Our time is a time of imaginary, fictitious, artificial quantities and values ​​with which people mutually seduce each other; they have reached the point where it sometimes becomes difficult for real dignity to manifest itself and justify itself, because in the market of human vanity only an inflated, shiny coin has currency. In such an era, people easily take on everything, imagining themselves capable of coping with everything, and with some skill they manage to penetrate into a position of power without much effort. The title of authority is tempting to human vanity; connected with it is the idea of ​​honor, a preferential position, the right to distribute honor and create other powers out of nothing. But no matter what people’s ideas may be, the moral principle of power is one, immutable: “Whoever wants to be first must be the servant of all.” 11 If everyone thought this, who would be willing to take on an unbearable burden? However, everyone is ready to willingly go into power, and this burden of power has destroyed and crushed many, for in our time the task of power has become extremely complicated and confused, especially in our country. And there are so many people before whom power, frivolously taken, frivolously assigned, becomes a fatal sphinx and poses its own riddle. Whoever fails to solve it dies. In order to understand, it is necessary to approach the subject and take the correct point of view: everything depends on this, and all human errors arise from the fact that the point of view is incorrect. We are accustomed to trusting our impressions, and we receive impressions by moving across the surface of an object, which we can do with dexterity and speed. Satisfied with the impression, we hasten to reveal it to everyone, due to our characteristic impatience; Having spoken, we unite our pride with it. Then laziness, combined with pride, does not allow us to take a closer look at the essence of the subject and believe our point of view. So, through the transfer of impressions between receptive natures, a delusion is formed, develops and grows, embracing entire masses and often accepted in the sense of public opinion. This is true in both small and large. Entire worldview systems dominated for centuries, forming an undeniable belief, until it was finally discovered that they were false, because they came from the wrong point of view. This was the Ptolemaic astronomical system. 12 For centuries, people stubbornly looked at the universe from the side, sideways, because they established their central point of view on earth, because the earth seemed to them so absolutely vast: they could not imagine any other center. The system was full of confusion and contradictions, for the agreement of which science invented artificial cycles, epicycles, etc. Centuries passed like this until Copernicus 13 appeared and removed the false center from this system. Everything became clear as soon as it was discovered that the universe does not revolve around the earth, that the earth has no dominant significance at all, that it is nothing more than one of many planets and depends on forces that infinitely exceed its power and significance. The Ptolemaic system has long since outlived its usefulness; But how can we understand that in our time its dominance is being restored in a different circle of ideas and concepts? Doesn’t modern philosophy fall into a similar confusion, again from the same gross mistake that it takes man as the center of the universe and forces all life to revolve around him, just as at that time science forced the sun to revolve around the earth. Apparently, there is nothing new under the sun. This old stuff is presented as news, as the last word of science, in which contradictions follow one another, renunciations of previous positions, new, categorically stated provisions, refutations of them, expressed with the same authority, amazing discoveries, about which it soon becomes clear that it is better not to mention them. All this is called progress, the movement of science forward. But, in truth, aren’t these the same cycles and epicycles of the Ptolemaic system? And when will a new Copernicus appear, who will remove the spell and show again that the center is not in man, but outside him, and infinitely higher than man, and the earth, and the whole universe? And don’t we see the same thing, for example, in the history of all sects, starting with the Gnostics or Arians, and ending with the Pashkovites, Syutyaevites, Tolstoyans and Nihilists? 14 The whole reason is that a person, following an impression, takes a false point of view; in his “I” he affirms this point, and it seems to him that the whole universe is moving around him, and he seeks the truth about everything and everywhere, is indignant at everything and everyone, denounces everything, excluding himself, with the same sins and passions... What a strange, what a fatal delusion! The persistence of dogmatic belief has always been and, it seems, will be the lot of poor, limited humanity, and people of broad, deep thought, broad outlook, will always be the exception to it. Some beliefs give way to others - dogmas change, objects of fanaticism change. In our time, the minds of the so-called intelligentsia are dominated by faith in general principles, in the logical construction of life and society according to general principles. These are the newest fetishes that have replaced the old idols for us, but, in essence, we, just like our great-great-grandfathers, create an idol for ourselves and worship it. Aren't our idols such concepts and words as, for example, freedom, equality, fraternity, with all their applications and ramifications? Aren’t our idols the general principles obtained by scientists and elevated to dogma, for example, the origin of species, the struggle for existence, etc.... Belief in general principles is the great delusion of our age. The misconception lies precisely in the fact that we believe in them dogmatically, unconditionally, forgetting about life with all its conditions and requirements, not distinguishing either time, place, individual characteristics, or features of history. Life is not a science or a philosophy; it lives on its own, as a living organism. Neither science nor philosophy dominates life as something external: they draw their content from life, collecting, decomposing and generalizing the phenomena of life; but it would be strange to think that they can embrace and exhaust life with all its endless variety, give it content, create a new structure for it. When applied to life, every position of science and philosophy has the meaning of a probable assumption, a hypothesis, which must be believed every time by common sense and skillful reason, according to those phenomena and facts to which it is required to be applied: any other application of the general principle would be violence and lies in life. One thing that should confuse us is that in science and philosophy there are very few indisputable propositions: almost all are the subject of wrangling between schools and parties, almost all are wavered by new experiments, new teachings. There is not a single science applied to life that would represent a complete garment: each one is sewn from scraps, more or less skillfully, with changes in cut according to fashion - and sometimes these pieces hang in shreds, torn by school polemics of various teachings. Meanwhile, representatives of each school in science believe in their positions dogmatically and demand their unconditional application to life. It is worth citing political economy as an example: economists have gained a reputation for themselves as the greatest pedants and dogmatists because they certainly want to invade life, legislation, and industry with unquestionable authority, with their general laws of production and distribution of forces and capital; but at the same time, everyone more or less forgets about living forces and phenomena, which in each given case constitute an element opposing the law, disturbing its operation. They derived a formula from a great variety of facts and phenomena, but could not exhaust their entire infinite variety, the entire series of combinations that are presented in each given case. And these formulas were a great blessing for science, which thanks to them became clear and moved forward, but not one of them constitutes a fixed, unconditional law for life: each serves only as an indication for research, each expresses only a certain movement, the direction of a force, which in a given case is certainly disturbed or balanced by other forces acting in opposite directions. It is impossible to calculate mathematically the action of these forces; they can only be recognized by a true sense of practical meaning, and therefore the general conclusions and conclusions of political economy, although drawn from indisputable facts, have only a conjectural, hypothetical significance, and not the significance of a decisive, unconditional law. This is how a true scientist, uninfected by the pedantry of book science, will always understand them. But not all scientists are like this. What can we say about the masses, about those superficial readers, legislators, lawyers, administrators, who for the most part have heard the ringing, but do not know where it is, who occasionally draw all their knowledge from a few pages of a manual, from a modern journal article, and love, without further research, to find a ready-made solution for each problem in a minute in an index article with a number and seal? For them, each general position serves as the indisputable “authority of science”, a cheap means for a ready solution to the most important issues of life and a convenient weapon with which all the arguments of common sense are reflected and all the facts of history and practice are refuted at once. Thanks to these general principles and principles, it has now become so easy for the most empty and superficial mind, the most idle and indifferent person to use a phrase to send for a deep philosopher, politician, administrator, and win a cheap victory over common sense and experience. Such a scientist can jump at once to “the heights of science and modern thought.” At this height, who can resist him? The mass cannot accept a general position in its true, conventional meaning: every rule, every phenomenon is accessible to the understanding of the masses, only in a living, concrete image and representation. The great mistake of our age is that we ourselves, perceiving from someone else’s voice a false belief in general abstract propositions, address them to the people. This is a new game of general concepts, launched by the idealists of public education in our time, a game that is too dangerous because it leads to the corruption of the people's consciousness. Unfortunately, our school plays this game too often with people; but first of all, people's governments began to play it, and many have already paid dearly for it - they paid with the truth of their moral attitude towards the people. One lie produces another; when a false idea, a false aspiration, a false belief is formed among the people, it is difficult for the government, which itself is infected with this lie, to tear it out of the people’s understanding; he has to reckon with it, play with it again and maintain his strength among the people artificially - with a new web of lies in institutions, in speeches, in actions, a web inevitably generated by the first lie. This can be seen most clearly in the example of France. In the last century, the imagination of idealist philosophers published a new Gospel for humanity, a Gospel that was all made up of idealization and abstract generalizations. Rousseau's school showed humanity in a rosy light the natural man and proclaimed universal contentment and happiness on earth - by nature; she revealed to everyone the newly unraveled secrets of social and state life and derived from it the imaginary law of contract between the people and the government. The famous scheme of national happiness appeared, a recipe for peace, harmony and contentment was published for peoples and governments. This recipe was built on a monstrous generalization, completely detached from life, and on the wildest, most inflated fantasy; nevertheless, this lie, which seemed destined to crumble at the slightest touch with reality, infected minds with a passionate desire to apply it to reality and create a new society, a new government based on the recipe. Another step, and the famous formula degenerates from Rousseau’s theory: freedom, equality, fraternity. These concepts contain the eternal truth of the moral, ideal law, in inseparable connection with the eternal idea of ​​duty and sacrifice, on which the entire organism of the moral worldview rests, like a living body on bones. But when they wanted to turn this formula into a mandatory law for social life, when they wanted to turn it into a formal law connecting the people among themselves and with the government in external relations, when they elevated it into some kind of new religion for peoples and rulers, it turned out to be a fatal lie, and the ideal law of love, peace and tolerance, reduced to the basis of external legality, became the law of violence, discord and fanaticism. These general provisions were thrown into the masses of the people not as an evangelical sermon of love, not as an appeal to duty, in the name of a moral ideal, but as a word of covenant between the government and the people, as a declaration of a new era of natural bliss, as a solemn promise of happiness. Otherwise, the people could neither accept nor understand this word. The masses are incapable of philosophizing; she accepted freedom, equality, and fraternity as her right, as a state assigned to her. How can she, after that, come to terms with everything that constitutes the misery of the pitiful human existence - with the idea of ​​poverty, low condition, deprivation, need, self-restraint, obedience? It is impossible to tolerate, the mass grumbles, is indignant, protests, worries, overthrows institutions and governments that did not keep their words, did not fulfill the expectations aroused by a fantastic performance, creates new institutions and again destroys them, rushes to new rulers from whom they heard the same flattering word, and overthrows them when they are not able to satisfy it. And it has become impossible to rule this mass by direct authority, without flattering words, without flattering institutions; the government has to play the game and twist the cards. A pitiful and terrible sight of chaos in a public institution: waves of passions rush noisily in all directions, calming down for a minute to the magical sounds of the words freedom, equality, publicity, people's supremacy... and whoever knows how to skillfully and timely play with these words becomes the ruler of the people... In ancient Rome, the earth once collapsed: a bottomless abyss opened up, threatening to swallow the entire city. No matter how hard they worked, no matter how hard they tried to correct the problem, nothing succeeded. Then they turned to the oracle; the oracle replied that the abyss would close when Rome sacrificed its first jewel to it. We know what followed next. Curtius, 15 the first citizen of Rome, the valiant of the valiant, threw himself into the abyss, and it closed. And here, in the new world, a terrible bottomless abyss opens up - the abyss of pauperism, separating the poor from the rich with an impenetrable abyss. What we don’t throw into it in order to fill it! whole cartloads of money and all kinds of capital, a mass of sermons and edifying books, streams of enthusiasm, hundreds and thousands of public institutions invented by us - and everything disappears in it, and the abyss yawns before us as before. Do we not have an oracle that would tell us the right remedy? The word of this oracle was spoken long ago and is familiar to all of us: “I give you a new commandment: love one another. Just as I have loved you, so do you love one another.” 16 If we could delve deeper into this word and rise to its heights, if we decided to throw into the abyss what is most precious to us - our theories, our prejudices, our habits associated with the exclusiveness of the everyday position in which everyone has established himself, we would sacrifice ourselves to the abyss, and it would close forever. The most right feeling in the human soul remains a true feeling only as long as it is kept in freedom and protected by simplicity: what is simple is only right. But the stumbling block for any simple feeling is reflection in a person’s self-consciousness - this is reflection. A feeling acquires special strength when it is strengthened in the soul by consciousness and united with an idea; but immediately it is in danger of experiencing itself in the idea, of being shaken in its simplicity. It happens that a feeling, based on an idea and generalized in it, resolves into the formula of consciousness and fizzles out in it. Form, like letters, can kill the life-giving spirit. The form deceives, because under the form hypocrisy, the self-delusion of the human self, develops imperceptibly. What is brighter, what is more precious, what is more fruitful than the simple feeling of love in the human soul! But from the moment it connects with the idea, it faces danger from the same reflection. And it can create a form for itself, break down into types, paths, categories, orders, teachings. So, finally, a moment comes when it is not a simple and whole feeling that fills the soul and enlivens it, but the poor human self begins to imagine that it owns a feeling, or the idea of ​​a feeling, serves as its bearer and doer. Here is the end of simplicity, here the decomposition of feelings begins and can easily turn into hypocrisy. Perhaps the number of acts of love will increase, orders will be established in them, but the simplicity of the feeling is no longer there - its fragrance has disappeared. These thoughts come to mind when you look at the activities of our organized charitable institutions and societies, with their charters, meetings, honorary members, honorary awards, etc. The whole institution, in theory, is dedicated to love and charity, but when you see the phenomena taking place in it, you often ask: where is the place for a simple feeling of compassionate and active love? You see a meeting at which speeches are made, you see men's and women's committees, where people who are completely unfamiliar with the matter gather with boredom and indifference to discuss some rules and paragraphs, you see papers drawn up by a secretary, to whom awards and benefits are asked for; you hear pompous arguments from self-proclaimed educators about school systems and teaching methods; you see - oh, the height of public hypocrisy! - charity bazaars, at which some lady saleswoman, who does not sacrifice anything of herself, wears a suit that sometimes costs no less than what is received from the entire sale. And this is called a work of Christian love!... This is love as a social institution. But here is also the truth, the truth on which the world stands and rests, the truth, without which life becomes some kind of haze of wild imagination, which it is in the latest, artificial, ironed and planed according to European fashion - the form of a judicial institution! We see a machine for artificially making truth, but the truth itself is not visible in the solemn bustle of machine production, not heard in the noise of the wheels of a huge mechanism. You are looking for moral strength - alas! Almost all the force that exists in the operation of the machine goes into the friction of the wheels, which perform continuous movement - almost all the moral efforts of the workers go into lubricating these wheels and the conductors to them. The judges sit in the majestic consciousness of their priestly dignity and, like the ancient augurs, listen as much as their attention can accommodate; lawyers speak, passing majestic words and loud phrases through narrow corridors and tubes of intricate thinking, and weighing in advance each of their long periods in cash; long, tedious hours of verbal torture drag on, and meanwhile the main victim of this torture, the unfortunate truth, must cross to the promised paradise along the thin hair of the Mohammed Bridge: 17 woe to him who relies on his own strength during this transition. Only he is right who, having first thoroughly studied the art of the acrobat, will be able not to stumble or fall on the road... All human life is a search for happiness. An unquenchable thirst for happiness instills in a person from the moment he begins to feel himself, and does not become exhausted, does not die, until his last breath. Hope for happiness has no end, knows no limit and measure: it is limitless, like the universe, and it has no final goal, because its beginning and end are in the infinite. One Mongolian fairy tale personifies this endless pursuit of happiness in the form of a mother who has lost her beloved daughter, her only child. The crude fantasy of a steppe inhabitant represents this mother in the form of an old woman with one eye on the very top of her head. She walks around the world screaming, looking for her lost child, and from time to time she approaches first this or that object - where she wonders if she has met her child. She grabs her find with her hands, carries it away and then raises it high above her head to make sure that she has truly found her treasure. But as soon as she peers at it with her only eye, she sees that she was mistaken, and in despair she throws it to the ground and breaks her find, and again goes around the world to search. The happiness that a person seeks determines his fate and echoes in him with misfortune. The misfortune of man, says Carlyle, 18, comes from his greatness: because he is unhappy because there is infinity in himself, and this infinity is something that man, with all his art, with all his efforts, is not able to completely enclose and bury in the finite. Therefore, happiness is impossible, because it is immense. But why, along with the consciousness of this immense goal, is the consciousness of the possibility of happiness so alive in the human soul? Why does a person, denying the present and turning away in despair from the future, turn to the past and find this opportunity there? It is a rare person who does not have such a time in the past about which his thoughts say: “but happiness was so possible, so close”! Happiness fled from man from the moment he wanted to master the infinite, make it his own, cognize it. “You will know good and evil, you will be like gods.” 19 He did not receive this knowledge, but a split occurred in him, and since then one half of him has been looking for the other in order to restore the unity and integrity of consciousness and life. If there is anything suitable to the title of happiness, it is only in others, a few, in that time of simple being and simple consciousness, when the soul feels life in itself and rests in the feeling of life, not striving to know, but reflecting the infinite in itself, just as a drop of pure water on a branch reflects a sunbeam. If anyone has such a time, God only grant that it lasts longer, so that the person himself, of his own free will, does not strive from his destiny to new limits. The door of such happiness does not open inward: pressing it from the inside will not keep it in place. It opens from the inside, and whoever wants it to hold on should not touch it. We have condemned our past, condemned it because we do not recognize in it those principles that constitute for us the measure of truth and well-being. According to the code of these principles, of which the main one is equality, we want to remake life, to divert its old keys that fed previous generations in another direction, to arrange it again according to the plan we have created - and we compose and re-compose this plan according to the rules of science, and often expose ourselves to deep ignorance of the very science according to which plans are drawn up. It doesn’t matter! – we say boldly: – life will correct the mistakes of our plan, and we contradict ourselves, referring to life, which we didn’t want to know when we started our plan. Life at every step exposes us with traces of untruth - instead of the truth that we promised to bring into it; phenomena of selfishness, greed, violence - instead of love and peace; the plagues of poverty and impoverishment - instead of wealth and increase in strength; complaints and cries of discontent - instead of the contentment that we prophesied. It doesn’t matter! – we repeat louder and louder, trying to drown out all questions, doubts and objections, so long as the principles of our century are preserved and supported. What is the need if the modern generation suffers; what a problem if instead of strong people there are crappy little people from everywhere; let it be bad today: tomorrow, the day after tomorrow it will be better. New generations will flourish on the ruins of the old - and our principles will justify themselves brilliantly in the new world, in posterity, in the future... The dreams that fill our lives and activities will come true someday after... Alas! Will they be realized in the same sense as happened with Swift: 20 in his youth he set up a madhouse, and in his old age he found shelter for himself in this very house. 21 How rarely are our social relations simple and direct! How rarely is it possible, when meeting people, to carry on and continue a conversation with them by a simple and natural exchange of thoughts! When you live in a so-called society, you have to enter into relationships every minute with people with whom you have nothing in common except humanity. There is no time to stop, no time to look out and wait in silence, in a calm state: if I wanted to do this, the other person who approached me, who was introduced to me, would not have allowed it to happen. It is necessary to initiate intercourse at that very moment, and decency demands that it seem natural. It is necessary to speak, and the conversation immediately enters the flabby soil of light vulgarity, an exchange of phrases about objects (as in the testimony of a madman) “concerning ordinary life.” People approach each other from the side of “vulgarity,” which everyone has enough of, and it often happens that in all further meetings their casual conversation does not leave this ground, which both immediately stepped on. But it can be even worse: people from the first step begin to grimace and break down in front of each other. This happens most often during unequal meetings, that is, when one, imagining something special or famous in the other, from his point of view, wants to put himself on an equal footing with him on social grounds, not to lose face, to show off. On the other hand, who doesn’t imagine some kind of peculiarity or celebrity in themselves? Thus begins a duel between two small, sometimes very small selves, and each person’s thoughts are directed towards showing off oneself, not giving in to the other, and arousing, if possible, a brilliant image of oneself in the other. To shine is usually supposed to be smart, and who doesn’t recognize in himself intelligence, or wit, or worldly experience, which replaces and sometimes surpasses intelligence? What a vast practice, what an endless field for the vulgarity of petty pride! It is also accompanied by the vulgarity of politeness. Every virtue of social life has a reverse side of vulgarity, and this side is shown where virtue takes the form of public decency of social custom, exchanged for small coins of a well-known mint. How many of these small change coins have been put into circulation in our country, and how they have all become worn out, how blind they have become, passing from hand to hand every minute - and through what hands! The best words have lost their original meaning, ceasing to be the right expression of thought; the deepest truths have become vulgar, appearing in the rags of the current word; the most precious feelings are worn out and frayed in public, exposed to those who come and go. We must be smart, we must be kind - these are the two main motives that stimulate our activity in a conversational meeting. And we are accustomed to justifying the obvious vulgarity of the first motive with the apparent respect of the latter. Conscience whispers: how much nonsense you talked! how you showed off! how much pretense he put on himself! how he played with words! We have a ready objection: I want to be kind; it was necessary to enliven the speech in the meeting, to help the housekeeper or to arrange for the housewife so that it would not be boring. However, conscience is right, and vulgarity would in vain begin to cover up and justify itself with courtesy. Because of mere courtesy, without the promptings of petty pride, a person who respects himself and his word would not play a vulgar game of phrases for whole hours, adjust himself as needed to the tone of love and indignation, walk on stilts, paint invented stories and invented feelings and give free rein to ridicule and witty slander where views of the weaknesses and sins of his neighbor were revealed. The nineteenth century rightly prides itself on being a century of transformation. But the transformational movement, beneficial in many respects, is also the plague of our time in other respects. The accelerated circulation of analyzing and transforming thought in our veins seems to have reached a feverish state, from which it is almost time for us to be treated with calm and diet; and while the paroxysms of excited thought continue, it is difficult to believe that its duration will be healthy and fruitful. Life has moved so quickly that many are asking in horror: where are we rushing and where will we calm down? If we fly upward, it will soon take our breath away; if down, then aren’t we falling into the abyss? The same thing happens with the idea of ​​transformation as with any new, essentially deep and true idea when it comes into play. In the beginning, it is the property of a few, deep minds, burning with the fire of thought, who have lived and deeply felt what they preach and strive for. Then, when, spreading further and further, the idea becomes the property of the masses and passes into that state in which the word is accepted on faith as soon as it is spoken, the idea goes to the market and in this market it becomes vulgarized and becomes smaller. In a moment of great excitement, the great champions of the movement raise the banner, and when they carry it, this banner truly serves as a symbol of a great cause, calling for service to the cause; but when this banner goes into the human market, and the boys begin to walk with it at the right time and at the wrong time, making up a game with meaningless shouts, then the banner loses its meaning, and serious people, people of action begin to stay away from where this banner is shown. There are eras when transformation is the ripe fruit of social development, the expression of a need felt by everyone, the unraveling of knots woven for centuries in social relations; the transformer is a prophet who speaks the word of public conscience and realizes the thought that everyone carries within themselves. His words and his deeds rule over everyone, because they testify to the truth, and all who are of the truth respond to this word. But when his work is completed, sometimes a horde of false prophets appears after him. Everyone wants to be prophets, from young to old, on everyone’s lips is a new word, unworn in the soul, unburnt in life, cheap and therefore rotten, seized on the human market and therefore vulgarized. Anyone who has not done any work and is too lazy to do the work to which he is assigned, composes a draft of a new law, or builds himself a small pulpit from which he preaches transformation, demanding that the work, which he has not done and therefore does not know, be put forward in a new form and on a new basis. Such are the small ones: what can we say about the great ones, who suffer along with the small ones from the fever of transformation? The common and dominant disease among all so-called statesmen is ambition or the desire to become famous. Life flows in our time with excessive speed, statesmen often change, and therefore everyone, as long as they are in place, is eager to become famous as soon as possible, while there is still time and while there is still time in their hands. It is boring to pick up a thread in the place where its predecessor left, it is boring to engage in the petty work of organizing and improving current affairs and existing institutions. And everyone wants to redo his entire work anew, put it on a new foundation, clear a level field for himself, tabula rasa, 22 and create on this field, for everyone assumes creative power within himself. What to create from, what materials are at hand - rarely does anyone give a clear account of this with a practical understanding of the matter. I like precisely the highest method of creativity - to create from nothing, and my excited imagination suggests well-known answers to all objections: “the institution will support itself, the institution will create people, people will appear,” etc. It is remarkable that this technique is the more seductive, the more captivating the thought of a statesman, the less prepared he is by knowledge and experience for his knowledge. This technique is also seductive because, while covering up real knowledge, it gives a wide field to political charlatanism and helps to become famous in the cheapest way. Where active management of a business is required, knowledge of the matter, direction and improvement of existing things, there it is not difficult to distinguish the experienced and knowledgeable from the ignoramus and windbag; but where they begin with condemnation and denial of what exists and where it is necessary to organize the matter again, according to the praised drawing, on the glorified principles - there the drawing and the beginning are in the foreground, there it is possible, without direct knowledge of the matter, to argue with general phrases, the external perfection of the design, pointing to models that exist somewhere beyond the sea and beyond the mountains; in this field it is not easy to distinguish a skillful person from an ignorant one and a charlatan from an efficient person; in this field, any great person can, without understanding anything about the matter and without giving himself much effort, defend any project of transformation drawn up in the subordinate offices by one of the small reformers, also incited by the desire to become famous cheaply... This amazing phenomenon should truly be considered one of the signs of our time, and it is noticeable everywhere, although not everywhere to the same extent and degree: in any board, in any deliberative meeting or committee. Of course, it is expressed most clearly where it is less embedded in the past history of solid institutions, where there is no ancient, centuries-established school and discipline, where social life in its historical development has not developed certain categories, walls and cells that pose an obstacle to the free structure of life and the impulse of thought and desire. Where the historical and economic field is wider and freer, there is room for any kind of transformative fantasies to run wild, there is sometimes no struggle, no difficult calculation with established ideas, interests and parties, but complete freedom for the wide swing of the arm, the pressure of the chest, the quick attack of the first rider... And along with this phenomenon occurring on the peaks, another similar movement takes place from the valleys, gorges and abysses of the earth. It is also transformative, but in a different, completely unconditional sense. Masses of people, dissatisfied with their position, dissatisfied with this or that social state, and blinded either by the wild instinct of animal nature, or by the ideal created by the fantasy of a narrow thought, denying the entire existing economy of social institutions developed by history, denying the church, the state, the family, and property, strives for the implementation of their wild ideal on earth. And these people demand that the transformation they preach begin from the beginning, that is, on a level field, a tabula rasa, which they want first of all to clear from the ruins of existing institutions. These are the enemies of civilization, statesmen cry throughout Europe, and in the name of civilization they are arming themselves against the mass of unrecognized reformers. But isn’t it time for them, the defenders of the existing order, to think that they themselves are the first to sometimes too frivolously try to lay a bold hand on the existing one, to destroy old buildings and build new ones in their place; they themselves are too carefree and self-confidently in a hurry to condemn the established order and destroy the legends and customs created by the national spirit and history; They themselves, constructing a vast array of new laws that have passed past life and with which life cannot cope, are essentially violating the very conditions of real life that the mass of notorious enemies of civilization resolutely deny. The fight against them can be successful only in the name of vital principles and on the basis of healthy reality... The word transformation is repeated so often in our time that it has become accustomed to being confused with the word improvement. So, in the current opinion, a champion of transformation is a champion of improvement, or, as they say, progress, and, conversely, whoever objects to the necessity and benefit of any transformation on a new basis is an enemy of progress, an enemy of improvement, almost an enemy of goodness, truth and civilization. In this opinion, put into circulation in the market of our publicity, lies a great misconception and seduction. Due to this opinion, it becomes difficult for common sense, a common view of the subject, to pave the way for itself and break through prejudice - and a concrete, real common view gives way to a view abstracted from life and fantastic; people of action and genuine knowledge are forced to shun the matter and lose credit in front of people of an abstract idea, shrouded in phrases. On the contrary, the one who presents himself as a representative of new beginnings, a champion of reforms, and walks around with drawings in his hands for the construction of new buildings, enjoys credit from the first word. The field of government activity is increasingly filled with architects, and anyone who wants to be a worker, or an owner, or a tenant must present himself as an architect. It is obvious that with such a direction of thought and taste, a limitless field opens up to all charlatanism, all cunning of hypocrisy and glibness of ignorance. On the other hand, reality is positive, practical, and becomes excessively difficult when it occurs in the midst of a general mood for analysis and criticism, for the verification of every matter by general principles, general phrases that prevail in the social environment. Anyone who should concentrate all his attention and all his strength on his work and on how to perform it better and more perfectly, has to constantly take into account the opinion of the work, think about how it will appear, what impression it will make both in society and in the authorities, if this authorities are trying everything on the same stone of a new idea, a new direction. Thus, a mass of great forces, which could accomplish great things, amuse themselves in vain with criticism and the struggle with criticism, but mostly empty; Doers spend so much time on this mechanical friction, on this fruitless struggle with excited thought, that little is left for actual, concentrated activity. A person is surrounded on all sides by ghosts and images of work that disturb him, but the true, real work disappears under his hands - and is not done. The best, truthful figures cannot endure such a situation. They feel strong when they deal with the realities of life, with facts and living forces; then they believe in the work, and this faith gives them the opportunity to create miracles in the world of realities. But they lose their spirit when they have to deal with images, ghosts, forms and phrases; they lose their spirit because they do not feel faith, and without faith all activity is dead. Is it any wonder that the best leaders move away, or, what is even worse and what happens too often, without leaving their place, they become indifferent to the matter and guard only its appearance and form, for the sake of their profit and well-being... These are sometimes the fruits of transformational fever, when it lasts beyond measure. What kind of doctor will cure modern society and modern figures from it? What kind of hero will direct our strength to real improvements, which we need so much from all sides and which real life craves. We are told: “Wait a little longer: the mysterious veils of transformation will rise - and from under them a new, virgin life will appear in the fullness of beauty and strength, and a new dawn will shine, and a country will open, flowing with honey and milk.” And we have been waiting for a long time, but the covers still do not move, the new world does not appear, our “stranger is sleeping in a deep sleep,” and only new ones are added to the previous covers. Meanwhile, one only has to walk along the streets of a big or small city, through a large or small village, to see at once and at every step what an abyss of improvements we need and what an ugly mass of abandoned cases, neglected institutions, scattered churches lies everywhere. Here are schools in which the teacher, having left the children, composes abstracts on teaching methods and phraseful speeches for public meetings; Here are educational institutions where, under the guise and form of teaching, learning is not carried out, and stupid teachers themselves do not know what to teach and what to demand in a mixture of concepts, orders and instructions; here is a hospital that people are afraid to go to because there is cold, hunger, disorder and the indifference of selfish management; here is a public economy in which more money is collected, and no one looks after anything except his own profit or vanity; Here is a library in which everything is scattered, confused and disorganized, and no sense can be found either in the use of sums or in the use of books; here is a street along which it is impossible to walk without horror and disgust from the uncleanness that infects the air, and from the accumulation of houses of debauchery and drunkenness; here is a public office called for the most important state function, in which chaos of disorder and untruth has settled, due to the inability of the officials appointed there; Here is a department to which, whenever you come for business, you do not find the people necessary for the business who are obliged to be there; Here are the churches - people's lamps, left in the middle of villages and hamlets locked, without service and singing, and here are others, from which, due to the extreme disorder of the service, the people endure nothing but chaos, ignorance and irritation... This scroll is great, and how much weeping and pity and grief are written in it. This is the harvest for which workers are needed, where it is necessary to direct the personal forces of thought, love and indignation, where what is needed is not legislative methods of transformation, which only divert power, but methods of the ruler and owner, gathering power to one place for cultivation and improvement. This is the true need of our time and our place, and it is this that our age neglects because of general questions, because of loud words ringing in the air. “Do not expand your destiny - was the broadcast of the ancient oracle: do not strive to take on more than you are entitled to.” What a wise word! All the wisdom of life is in the concentration of thought and strength, all evil is in its dispersion. To do means not to get lost in a multitude of general thoughts and aspirations, but to choose a task and a place to your own measure, and dig, and plant, and cultivate on it, to collect the streams of your life force in it, to ascend in it from work to knowledge, from knowledge to accomplishment and from strength to strength. Wealth sets in motion many base impulses of human nature. Wealth imposes heavy obligations on a person and binds his freedom in many ways. One of the most palpable misfortunes for a rich man is that he becomes the subject of exploitation, and a network of lies of all kinds forms around him. If his feelings had not dulled, he would have felt every minute that his attitude towards people had changed, that many - even those closest to him do not approach him easily; and that for the great multitude of people who enter into relationships with him, his personality completely disappears, and its place is taken by his external features, the features of the capital belonging to him. For a sensitive soul, such a situation is unbearable, and a rich man needs great simplicity of soul in order for him to be able to maintain a clear and benevolent attitude towards people and not to go mad, not to become vulgar from all the vulgarity that arises around him and is expressed under the influence of the idea of ​​​​his wealth. Other human power is subject to a similar fate. - the mind, especially the mind that comes out of the garden, is dominant. When an intelligent person gains authority and enters into glory among people, the vulgar impulses of human nature arise around him. Getting closer to him is considered an honor; people begin to approach him not simply, but with an ulterior motive - to appear smart to him and arouse his attention. When an intelligent person comes into fashion, there is no vulgarity that does not try to put on the mask of an intelligent person in front of him and grimace in front of him with all the affectation that vulgarity is capable of. This feeling of lies and affectation would be unbearable for an intelligent person and would force him to run away from people whenever he himself was not exposed to the same vulgarity. That is why we often meet smart people who, getting used to affectation, show themselves off in front of the vulgarity of small minds around them, and more willingly enter into communication with them than with their equals. Few minds are free from this weakness of vanity. Carlyle’s wife, in one of her witty letters to her husband, says: “Yesterday I visited Mrs. N. We talked with her for a long time, and our conversation would seem very interesting even to you, if you could immediately be invisible, but certainly invisible, in a magic cloak. Whoever is considered “the sage and deepest thinker of our century” has to live alone, in difficult, one might say, royal solitude. He is condemned not to hear from anyone a simple word spoken in simplicity - every speech comes to him decorated, in finery. This is why Arthur Gelps 23 (famous writer) and many others talk to me very simply, very intelligently and entertainingly, but they will start talking to you and lead you into agonizing melancholy. With me they are not afraid to stand on the humble ground of their own personality, such as it is. And with you they become Talioni 24 and begin to balance, rising on the toe of mental or moral greatness.” In the dark eras of history, there was a state of society in which a feeling of mutual distrust and suspicion weighed down on all citizens. Contemporaries speak with horror about their era or about their city, that people are afraid to look directly into each other’s eyes, they are afraid to say out loud to their loved ones a free, unhypocritical word, or to surrender to a free spiritual movement, so that it will not be picked up, reinterpreted, and not serve as a reason for cruel persecution, in the name of the state, a reason for cruel persecution, in the name of the state or the beginning of public safety. From the dark corners and from the last strata of society, the profitable profession of informers rises and spontaneously forms into a corporation - a secret force before which everyone bows, everyone is silent in fear, or, when it is impossible to remain silent, they dress their thoughts in false, flattering and hypocritical forms. Reading such stories from the times of our Bironovschina or from the era of French terror, we rejoice that we live in a different time and that the events of that era are a legend for us. But let us take a closer look at the phenomena taking place around us - and we will be forced to admit that our time is replete with signs of a similar state. Moreover, the mutual distrust between us has perhaps taken root even deeper into the internal life of society than at that time. What is most striking about the state of our society in recent years is the absence of that simplicity and sincerity in relationships, which constitutes the main interest of social life, enlivens it with a breath of freshness and serves as a sign of health. How rare it is to see people getting along simply; and how gratifying it would be to get along with a person simply, without a second thought, without an artificial background on which vague shadows are drawn that interfere with free communication! Countless numbers of such shadows have formed lately, like a multitude of dark spirits scattering confusion in the air. Where did they come from? It would be good if they were generated by a definite, conscious idea; then it would still be possible to eliminate them also through the idea. But no, they are generated, for the most part, by unconscious ideas and impressions, sucked in and grabbed by chance, from the air, just as atoms of spoiled matter are picked up and sucked in during the development of any epidemic. The air is now teeming with atoms of mental and moral epidemics of all kinds: their names are legion, and it is difficult to come up with another name for them. Look how people come together in our society - acquaintances and strangers, for business and for idleness. They barely looked into each other's eyes and barely had time to exchange a word when a shadow appeared between them. From the first word that he said, from the first speech technique that one used, the other already had a second thought: oh, that’s his opinion, that’s what his school is, that’s what his conviction is (a favorite of the newest terms and one of the most deceptive). He is a liberal, he is a cleric, he is a serf owner, he is a socialist, he is an anarchist, he is a free trader, he is a protectionist, he is a fan of the Moskovskiye Vedomosti, 25 he is a supporter of the Week, 26 of the Vestnik Evropy, 27 and so on and so on. Take a closer look, listen to how, following this first impression, mutual suspicion flares up more and more, how it then turns into irritation, how then any calm exchange of thoughts becomes impossible, how abrupt and sharp phrases are replaced in a forced conversation by equally sharp pauses, and how, finally, people disperse without recognizing each other and having already condemned each other from the first meeting. Each one immediately put each other in a certain category, in a certain box, with which, as he had long ago decided, he had nothing in common. What is all this pointless strife about? Because of beliefs? We can probably say in most cases that on either side there is no meaningful conviction, there is no organized party, but there is only something heard yesterday, read yesterday in the newspapers, yesterday inculcated from a conversation with the same exact citizen, who just ate exactly the same baby porridge... How much energy is wasted or lies in sterility because of this meaningless game of impressions and ghosts of beliefs? People, in essence, are honest, kind, capable, instead of doing as much as everyone can, the practical, urgent work of life assigned to them, fold their hands, lose energy, become exhausted in fruitless irritation and indignation, deciding that on such principles, with such a theory, with such views, activity is impossible. They have not yet put their hands to their work, but they are already disgusted with it, they have lost faith in it because it does not correspond to the imaginary theory of the matter. Everywhere you look, there is the same vice, meaningless. Teachers, in a bitter battle about the principles, systems and methods of teaching, have forgotten the school, in which unfortunate children are sacrificed to stupid, stupid or lazy teachers, and each of these teachers is ready at every moment to argue about the general principles of the very thing that he does not do and does not understand. Our courts are crying for lawyers, for experienced practitioners who are dedicated to the case because of the case itself; our universities are crying for lawyer-professors who fell in love with their work as their life’s work; and our lawyers - scientists and practitioners - barely get together, you see, they are soon ready to tear each other apart because of suspicions of retrogradeness, of clericalism, of radicalism, because of the idea of ​​punishment, because of the idea of ​​trial by jury, because of civil marriage, because of the prison structure of this or that system. Enter a meeting of one of the many commissions to consider this or that project; listen to the speeches with which members sent from different departments are picking each other off from the ends of the green table in such wild disorder; Look closely at the glances they cast at each other: what distrust, what suspicion! what affectation in speech techniques! what empty phrases! What is all this about? Because of a matter that rarely anyone actually did? No, all because of some idea that the speaker grabbed somewhere by chance and which he carried with him, or, better said, on which he carried himself - ad astra; 28 all because of some theory, and even because of a theory, in rare cases, well read from a good book! In any living room, as soon as the conversation gets out of the rut of ordinary phrases and news, the same phenomenon is repeated in a different form. There is a confusion of languages ​​with such a confusion of concepts, with sometimes such sharp, internal contradictions of thought that you stop in amazement and horror. It is not uncommon to meet people who, with their speeches and their manner of actions, seem to proudly protest against their own name, against the knowledge they bear, against the cause they outwardly serve and by which they live and support themselves. It happens to hear how a teacher who runs an institution speaks contemptuously about teachers who defend the severity of discipline in education; how a military officer indignantly smashes backward people who prove the need for discipline in the army; how a priest, from a higher point of view, discusses the custom of going to mass on holidays; how a judge and a learned lawyer call ignorant people who demand punishment for a thief, who claim that servants must obey their masters... Everyone went apart, it became difficult for everyone to unite for activity, because from the very first steps everyone disagreed in their thoughts about the matter, or, more accurately, in phrases that convey unclear thoughts. Why is all this happening? It seems that the main reason should be sought in the exorbitant, ugly development of pride in one and all. This is the same cheap, thin pride, due to which a young person who has never seen the world, entering a society unfamiliar to him, immediately treats him with hostility, loses his calm self-awareness, becomes harsh, abrupt and impudent. He brings into an unfamiliar environment the only capital - a high opinion of himself, and the mere thought that he is understood lower than he understands himself already irritates him, takes away his simplicity, puts him on stilts, clothes him in a protest that has no meaning... Let's imagine a whole company made up of such painfully, excessively proud people: this comparison is quite comical, taken in itself; It is, no matter how funny, it serves as an image of the state in which we so often find a company of people who have accidentally come together or united for a common activity... There are terms that have worn down to the point of vulgarity, because they are constantly used without a definitive thought, because you hear them in every corner from everyone, and, pronouncing them, a stupid person is ready to consider himself smart, an ignoramus imagines himself standing at the height of knowledge. A word current in the market can become so worn out that a serious person becomes ashamed to use it: he feels that this word, having sounded in the air, takes on the reflection of all the empty and vulgar ideas with which it is uttered every minute in the market of a current phrase. Then the time comes to hand over such a term to the storehouse of thought: it needs to rest in peace, it needs to be purified in the deep crucible of self-examining thought, until it can again come to light as its clear and definitive expression. Such a fate seems to threaten one of our favorite terms: develop, development. In books, in brochures, in guiding articles and feuilletons, in table speeches, in sermons, in salon conversations, in official papers, at lectures, in gymnasium and public school lessons - everywhere, everywhere this current word buzzed the ears, and melancholy already attacks the soul when it is uttered. It seems that it is time to begin a serious examination of the concept contained in this word; It’s time to remember that this term development does not have a specific meaning without connection with the other term concentration. It’s time to turn to our common mother and teacher – nature – for clarification of concepts. From her it is not difficult to learn that all development occurs from the center, and without a center it is unthinkable that not a single flower will bloom from the bud, and not a single flower will bear fruit if the center of the creative power of formation and circulation of juices dries up. But, as if unfortunately, we forgot about nature and, unable to cope with it, we compose our children’s recipes for development: in a flower bud we want to mechanically open and straighten the petals with a rough hand before the time has come for them to open by the internal action of natural force - and we rejoice and call this development: we only disfigure the bud, and the petals we open dry out, without healthy flowering, without hope of fruit healthy! Isn't this a crazy thing? and isn’t it similar to the fantasy of that child in the fable who thought of scooping up the sea with a cup? And how many such crazy guys, uncalled developers and teachers appear from everywhere! Their passion for development reaches the point of fanaticism, and there is no such fool or ignoramus who would not consider himself capable of developing someone. But let no one rush around with their unreasonable passion: the most amazing thing is that together with them, sometimes after them, people, apparently reasonable, people of serious thought, as if bewitched by a magic word, a walking coin of the market, begin to repeat it, assent to it, and on this word, and on the vague concept connected with it, they build entire systems of educational and pedagogical activity. And all these fantasies are played out, all these plans are invented in order to operate, as if in anima vili, on the mass of so-called dark people, on the mass of the people. A campaign is being prepared against it: but neither the generals, nor the warriors, no one takes the trouble to merge with it, to live in it, to explore its psychic nature, its soul, because the people have a soul, which must be joined in order to understand it! No, its transformers and enlighteners see in it only a certain quantity, a known given mental force, on which it is necessary to carry out experiments. And besides, what amazing courage and self-confidence! It is required, in the name of some higher and unconditional goal, to carry out these experiments without fail and forcibly!! How to produce them - the teachers themselves disagree on this: how many heads, so many systems and techniques. They agree on only one thing - the firm intention to act on the thought and develop, develop it! In vain do weak voices object to them that a simple person has more than one mind, that he has a soul, the same as anyone else, that in his heart is that fortress on which he must build his whole life, and on which his church building still stands... No, they all turn to thought and want to call it to essentially idle activity, on questions that have long been easily and cheaply solved by the enlighteners themselves. What a misconception! If they had worked, without self-confidence and without arrogant thoughts about their minds, to enter the dark mass and join it, they would have seen that the dark man himself seeks and asks for light and longs for enlightenment, but opens the entrance to him only from that side from which it can truly enlighten him, without confusing his soul, without ruining his life. He feels that his spiritual nature is dearest to him, and through his heart he wants to shed light into it. When the light of reason shines on him from this side, it will not blind him, will not ruin his life, will not exceed the center of gravity on which his foundation is established. But when the operation of development is aimed exclusively at his thoughts, when they want to fill him with so-called knowledge and facts from textbooks and general conclusions of theories, the same thing will happen to him as happens to a cone when they want to establish the cone on a sharp peak. Life is movement. It seems that there has never been such an intensified movement of life as now, but this movement is impetuous, feverish, painful; not a natural change of sensation, but some kind of pursuit of sensations, not a consistent striving for one goal, but a chain of diverse aspirations, shaken by winds from everywhere. Is this life? you ask yourself when you see a crowd of people absorbing life and being absorbed in life, thinking and yearning for life. “The highest thing,” says Goethe, 29 that we have received from God and from nature, “is life, the circling movement of the monad around itself, a movement that knows no stop or rest: everyone is given an innate urge to support and nurture this life, although its essence remains a mystery to each and everyone living.” Living, it would seem, is such a simple matter! Quel est mon mestier? 30 Montaigne asked himself, 31 - and answered: mon mestier c'est vivre. (My job is to live.) But what a not simple, what a complex thing people have created for themselves in life, especially the people of the new world, when they began to think more firmly and deeply about their life and the purpose of their life, and dwell on this thought with a restless thought. To live without thought would be to live like an animal; but this thought must be alive, a thought for life. And in our time it sometimes seems that people live for thought, and all life, the simple and precious gift of God, is absorbed in their thoughts. Life is the free movement of all the forces and aspirations invested in human nature; its goal is in itself, in this movement lies, and therefore setting the goal of life as the movement of one mind, one heart, one passionate attraction means narrowing life and disfiguring it. She is disfigured - artificially disfigured - by the thought of life. The same Goethe at one time already exclaimed with a painful feeling: “Poor, poor man of our time - everything has gone into his head!” (Armer Mensch, an dem der Kopf alles ist). Are we alive? - he continues - we have turned ourselves out of life by analyzing life (heraus-studirt aus dem Leben) and must make efforts to enter life again. Goethe says this, looking at the professors, scientists and young students of his time. But since then, what progress has life analysis made and how life has become corroded by it! At that time, in the 2nd half of the 18th century, the thinker-sage was struck by the growing discord in the minds between thought and life, and was surprised by the longing for life (Weltschmerz) that had become fashionable for the younger generation. Nowadays, such melancholy in this form has already gone out of fashion, but its place has been taken and is dominantly taking over the minds of the system brought into the system, a desperate, insatiable new theory of life - the theory of pessimism. This is no longer a simple melancholy from the contradiction between the reality of this world and the highest ideals of the spirit - this is a decisive denial of this entire world in which life moves; not a simple longing for life, excited by the fight against evil in humanity, but a destructive, evil, joyless denial of life itself in its essence, a denial that reaches the point that the only outcome from that abyss of despair is proposed to be “eradication in the soul of the very desire to live.” So, this is the perversion of life we ​​have lived to. We thought that thought serves to direct life, to organize its movements, that it helps to live, but it has come to the point that life is completely abolished by thought - and there is neither life nor thought left. This is the currently fashionable theory of life, greedily perceived by readers and admirers of its talented preacher, a theory that has managed to further seduce a life that is already quite seduced; for the very preachers and followers of this theory continue to live at the will of all their animal impulses, realizing in themselves to the point of shameless lies the contradiction between life and the artificially created theory of life, a theory in which there is no place for either faith, truth, or the energy of the will, striving to realize itself in activity. What remains? What remains is a blatant denial of faith, not taken from life, but from books, there remains a dead scheme of truth, also taken from books, a dead image of nature in the form of a chemical formula and a flabby will, inclined to deny a materially failed life... The word is a precious creation of the spirit, a precious instrument of human affairs. It is intended to serve the cause, but in a sense it itself is the cause. But how often does it become a matter of idle talk, a weapon of argument that leads to nothing except a confusion of concepts and a clash of personal egos. And sometimes it seems that our time is a time of idle talk. It was as if everyone was possessed by some kind of passion for speeches, some kind of lust for oratory. Everyone spoke, who has something to say and who has nothing to say; both those who understand and know, and those who have no idea what they are talking about. It has already reached such a point that people of action, people who have something to say and know how to say it, are silent in the midst of a general confusion of languages, in which everyone strives to say something. There is no meeting, no crowded dinner, no speeches in which, under the influence of momentary impressions, streams of ordinary eloquence do not pour out in loud phrases. It is only for the sake of speeches that ceremonial meetings are organized, anniversaries are established and speeches are prepared, in which the main task of the speaker is to demonstrate himself and his skill in mastering phrases and arousing animation with phrases. This animation is not expensive, for it is soon replaced by caustic criticism of both the speech itself and its subject; it happens that the speaker himself is ready to laugh at his artificial pathos and, therefore, at himself. But as the word becomes smaller, the thought becomes smaller, smaller and crushed into pieces, like a broken mirror. This is reflected in all verbal activity: everyone is possessed by some kind of passion - to talk about everything and discuss everything. Without reasoning, no work is worthwhile, but every reasoning must lead to something, lead to a goal; but what is it good for when those arguing have one goal - to somehow speak out, express themselves and refute objections. So sometimes a discussion drags on endlessly, all consisting of a refutation of objections on both sides. Nowadays you encounter this method of reasoning everywhere - in sermons, and in professorial lectures, and in criticism, and, finally, in the debates of various assemblies discussing issues of legislation and government. Sometimes it seems as if a mill is working with one movement of the wheels, but the grinding is not visible. Whoever wants to have his say should ask himself: what thought is he carrying and wants to express - positive or negative. If it is negative, then it is natural that the answer will also be a negative thought, and thus the whole reasoning turns into a struggle of mutual negations. But whoever wants to bring light and reason into the discussion speaks with a positive thought, which he has managed to bear within himself, in silence, for only in silence and at the heights, and not in a swamp and not in a quagmire, is the truth developed. With such a thought, both a writer and speaker can penetrate into the heart and into the depth of the question, illuminate it with light, and show the truth in it. But how do we conduct our usual debates? Someone acts as a defender of his or her stated opinion, supporting it with arguments in defense of his own and certainly with others to refute other, opposing opinions. Following him, the defenders of these opinions come forward and spend a lot of time refuting the entire chain of arguments that the opponent has strung together in his speech: and at this time he waits for his turn, carefully noting everything that this speech is filled with. And so the competition drags on for an indefinite period of time, all made up of pieces of fractional, sometimes petty, polemics. And there is no end in sight until someone appears with a short, clear and direct word, and illuminates the subject from the depths of the question with the light of truth. “The idols of the pagans are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have lips, but they do not speak; there are eyes and they do not see, there are ears and they do not hear, and there is no spirit in their mouth. Those who make them will be like them, all who hope in them.” This was said about the idols of the pagan world, and the same should be said about the idols of the new world, about the idols of mind and doctrine, about the idols of so-called public opinion. An idea appears and takes possession of minds - and develops, and expands, and acquires the artistic construction of a theory, clothed in a term 9 which serves as a banner for many supporters, few of whom can form an accurate concept of what the true meaning of the term is, and separate the true from the false in the idea associated with it. Something like belief in the word and slavish worship of it occurs, and faith degenerates into superstition: people, forgetting the prototype, worship the image; serving the idea little by little becomes a trade, and just like what happened in Ephesus, the mass of workers making copper images of the Church of Diana for sale, not tolerating the preacher of the true non-idol faith, drive him out with frantic cries: “Great is Artemis of Ephesus!” There are many of these concepts and terms that have become, as it were, sacred; It often happens that some outlive their time and are replaced by others. But there are especially famous terms that, starting from the 18th century, have captured the minds, and to this day, expanding their scope, continue to seduce growing generations. These three words: freedom, equality, fraternity. More than this is “freedom”. You think about the meaning of this word. Freedom cannot be recognized as an active principle that generates and determines human action. This is not any significant form of being, it is not a political organism, not an institution of social life, such as, for example, religion, family, property. Freedom in itself is, one might say, only a natural condition of causal connection in the actions of the human will. In this sense, it produces the most opposite phenomena and actions - good or bad, useful or harmful and disastrous. It is obvious that in order to maintain order, justice, and public benefit, freedom is subject to certain restrictions and restrictions. Hence the clashes, reaching the point of struggle, between freedom and authority. However, to bring order to the free activity of mankind, the means of constraint and repression alone are not enough. Their action has only a negative meaning and is itself subject to delusions, mistakes, hobbies of brute force, passion and thoughtlessness. This struggle between freedom and authority would have no outcome if there were not an internal judge in the human soul, acting on the very source of human activity - the will. This is conscience, the focus and support of the moral law. She alone gives our actions the right price; it, giving the will dominance over the impulses of instinct, creates from it a free force. And so in the moral law is the true beginning of freedom and at the same time the beginning of the spiritual unification of people. The moral law is laid down in the very depths of the human soul, where reason does not penetrate, and therefore the power of this law everywhere between people is maintained by faith and affirmed on religious feeling. No matter how much the new theories of naturalism now assure us that the moral principle is a matter of nature, independent of religion, apart from it we will not find solid support for them anywhere. Only religion, uniting people, creates an organic whole out of them, and in this sense, without a doubt, even crude faith is more beneficial than complete unbelief. But Christian faith alone, drawing an immutable moral principle from the perfection of the Divine, denying the vicious principles of selfishness, pride and human lust at the very root and in all manifestations, can cultivate true freedom in humanity. Whatever the vices, errors, abuses, crimes of the ministers of the church, no matter how far the life of its members deviates from the ideal of faith and life laid at the foundation of the church, this ideal remains in all its purity inviolable, and where else can humanity find a solid principle of truth - if it renounces faith in this ideal and loses it? So, it would seem that all ardent admirers of the beginning of freedom should stand up for faith. In reality it turns out to be the opposite. The zealots of freedom, not knowing the truth, hated it, and this hatred fell upon it first of all. Philosophers of the 18th century, indignant at the violence and abuse of secular power, reconciled themselves, however, with any violence in which they dreamed of seeing the embodiment of the idol of freedom, and glorified all the despots of enlightenment: Danton, 32 Robespierre, 33 Marat 34 - they met praisers among them. But they turned all their hatred against faith. It was not difficult to break up the terrible riots and abuses of church prelates, but through this shell of beliefs the main goal was to destroy their very core (écrasez l'infâme) - faith. I had to think about this, and philosophy began to purify faith with free thought. Unconditional freedom of thought has become an idol. The zealots did not think so much about political freedom as about freedom of thought and speech, from which all kinds of freedoms should flow. The whole movement of mankind towards success, all the movements of history, boiled down to one thing: to win for themselves the unlimited right of criticism and verbal speech - whatever and about anything. From this point of view, for the whole of civilization there is no other measure than the independent freedom of all personal opinion. Whoever stands up for this freedom and proclaims it, no matter what the villain, is considered a hero, a benefactor of humanity. Whoever dares to object, no matter how rationally and conscientiously he objects, should be put in the pillory of public opinion. But is this true, real freedom? Theoretical, mental freedom cannot be like this: this freedom is illusory, deceitful, and lies do not give rise to truth. This is what we see in practice. Whoever sets himself up as a free, autocratic oracle of his personal opinion, little by little, enters the apotheosis of his mind and his thought: developing it, he composes a doctrine for himself, and when the doctrine takes possession of a person, the truth is hidden from him, because it loses reality and merges with the thought that gave birth to it. Good and evil, truth and lies - everything becomes a matter of opinion. In every nation, in addition to beliefs, in addition to moral customs, there are well-known, historically established and deeply rooted guiding ideas that constitute the essence of a common age-old life and a distinctive feature of the national character: unity of origin, tribal affinities, unity of traditions and memories and tastes; unity of views on power and government. This is the source of vital strength for every people, the results of moral discipline that binds it into a single whole. And in our time, free thought has everywhere subjected all these guiding thoughts and beliefs to criticism and destruction. God, the soul, moral responsibility, the distinction between good and evil, national traditions, public authorities, the family, the relationship of spouses, parental authority - all the lessons of popular reason and experience taught over centuries, everything became controversial, everything wavered. Smart people, dismantling everything, spent a huge amount of labor and talent on the destruction of old buildings and covered everything with ruins, without creating anything solid and durable. It’s as if they set the highest goal of their mental work to compare critically different systems and carry out a critical analysis of all thoughts so as not to extract anything significant and strong from them. Everyone strives to create his own truth, to invent his own metaphysical system and his own code of duties, secluding himself in the circle of his own self and colliding with other selves in endless disputes. One involuntarily thinks about all this man of the old century and asks: will one day really see that the crowd of people has replaced the people, and the barbaric terms of “collectivity and solidarity” have taken over the sacred name of the fatherland? As it was in the days of Noah! 35 People lived, ate, drank, married, were given in marriage and did not think until the water came and washed everything away. Since then, how many times has what happened in the days of Noah been repeated? Deserts that once flourished with life suddenly reveal to us the ruins of kingdoms and traces of peoples who were once in prosperity and glory and died without a trace. Peering at the ruins, we discover in them traces of an often lush civilization and ask ourselves - where did this force go and how did it disintegrate, how did all its lush color perish? And every time we find no other answer than the same one that was given to us in the days of Noah. The color faded, the juices froze, the strength was exhausted because the roots rotted, the spirit dried up in the soul of the people, and the whole civilization turned into flesh and a thirst for pleasure. All the peoples of the Aryan tribe have legends about the flourishing, prosperous era of the golden age, when people were strong and strong in the spirit of faith and ideal striving for eternity, when history is full of the struggle of heroes with evil giants and monsters, when man carried within himself the beginning of both truth and fidelity, when life was simple, love was chaste, and the thirst for capture and acquisition was powerless. And then everywhere there are legends about the replacement of this age by the age of darkness and destruction: in Indian legends it is called the age of Kali, among the Germanic tribes - the wolf age. And these are the lines with which the Indian poet Tulchi Das, 36 many centuries before our era, describes this era of darkness and decay, familiar to people of the present century. “In general depravity,” he writes, “faith has dried up; the sacred books fell into oblivion, and instead the false teachers scattered false teachings everywhere according to their fantasies. The people are entangled in deception and lies; selfishness took possession of everyone - and there was no place for good deeds. People of all castes forgot their calling: the Brahmins 37 began to trade in the Vedas; 38 The kings began to rob and oppress the people - no one cared anymore about the commandments of revelation. Whatever becomes available to the majority is considered to be the truth; whoever shouts loudest is considered the first scientist. Fraudsters and hypocrites are revered as saints. The husband has become subservient to his wife and spins around in front of his wife like a monkey. Everyone is devoted to lust, self-interest and violence, everyone laughs at the gods, at the shrine, at the sacred books. Wives run away from good husbands, giving themselves over to vagabonds and rogues. The daughter does not listen to her father. No one is happy, no one respects anyone, no one has peace in their souls. The world is full of envy, slander, self-interest - there is no mention of meekness.” 39 From the time thought woke up and began to move in our society, they began to repeat to us in every way about the need for knowledge; They said so much that the very concept of enlightenment became identified in the minds of our intelligentsia with the amount of knowledge. Hence the expansion of programs for higher, secondary, and even primary education, hence the shelves of hastily recruited stupid teachers assigned to each science so that there is no vacancy, hence the formalism of exams and testing commissions, hence the arrangement of magazines that treat de omni re scibili et quibusdam aliis 40 and fill the heads of readers in the intelligentsia market with a mass of fragmentary, confused thoughts and information. The result of all this is pathetic - the disposition of the imaginary intelligentsia, which imagines itself to be knowledgeable, but is deprived of what all knowledge should lead to, that is, the ability to take up a task, do it conscientiously and skillfully, and make it the interest of its life. Every person is called to work and must choose a known task; and in order to be able to do it, you need to gather yourself and concentrate. “Do not expand your destiny,” was the word of the ancient oracle, “try not to wander beyond the boundaries of your business.” Dispersion in different directions entertains the mind, relaxes the will and makes it difficult to concentrate on the task at hand. Being entertained in all directions by various movements of curiosity and wonder, a person cannot accumulate and concentrate in himself such a reserve of vital force as is necessary for a decisive transition from knowledge to action. No matter how many images and information the amateurism of curiosity and taste absorbs into itself, everything will remain fruitless if it cannot collect all its being within itself and move it to action. Knowledge, in itself, does not develop either skill or will. We see examples of this every day. We see many people who are smart, sharp in memory and imagination, educated, learned - and powerless at the decisive moment, when a decision is required for a matter or a firm word in advice. But our life, both private and public, with the complexity of relationships, with the confusion of concepts and tastes, constantly requires a quick and firm decision. And we see that when it is needed, people do not go to it with firm feet, but in roundabout ways, looking in all directions. At this time, a person who has a clear consciousness and will, capable of comprehending in a minute everything he knows in connection with the subject of the decision, is worth more to the cause than many unfaithful and wavering minds. Hence the formalism and futility of many of our councils and meetings: people speak without being able to concentrate on the subject of the discussion. But the best orator is not the one who seeks only ways to catch and confuse the enemy with the petty weapons of casuistry or a stream of pompous threats, but the one who comes to the council with a firm and clear opinion about the matter and expresses it clearly and firmly; not the one who, by mixing colors and shades, is able to prove that in black there is white and in white there is black, but the one who directly and consciously calls white white and black black. Not the true judge who, dissolving every demand and objection hair by hair, creates a formal court according to the formal signs of truth, but the one who, caring for the essential truth, knows how to penetrate with clear thought into the essence of the relationship between the parties. Not the capable military leader who has studied in detail the entire history of campaigns and battles and all the methods of military tactics, but the one who, at a decisive moment, can, with a sharp look, grasp in his mind the position of the terrain and military forces, and with a decisive action of will determine the fate of the battle. Here on earth, we truly walk by faith, and not by sight, and those who think that they have extinguished faith in themselves and want to live from now on by vision alone are sorely mistaken. No matter how high the human mind places itself above the world, it is not separated from the soul, and the soul always strives to believe, and to believe unconditionally: without faith, a person cannot live. And isn’t it a pathetic deception that a person, rejecting faith in the real, in the existing, in what is expressed to his soul as real truth, makes theory and formula the object of his faith, honors it, worships it like an idol, is ready to sacrifice himself and the whole world in his soul, and his freedom, and all his neighbors to it. Theory and formula, whatever they may be, cannot contain the unconditional, and each of them, having arisen in the human mind, is, of necessity, something incomplete, doubtful, conditional and false. What is immeasurable above me, what has been and is from time immemorial, what is unchangeable and infinite, what I cannot embrace, but what embraces and holds me - this is what I want to believe in as an unconditional truth, and not in the work of my own hands, not in the creation of my mind, not in the logical formula of thought. The infinity of the universe and the beginning of life cannot be contained in a logical formula. Poor man, who, having composed such a formula for himself, wants to go through the chaos of existence with it: chaos will swallow him up along with his pitiful formula. Consciousness of one's immortal self, faith in one God, a sense of sin, the search for perfection, the sacrifice of love, a sense of duty - these are the truths in which the soul believes, without being deceived, without idolatry before formula and theory. What a mystery is the religious life of a people like ours, left to its own devices, unlearned! You ask yourself: where does it come from? and when you try to get to the source, you find nothing. Our clergy teach little and rarely; they serve in the church and fulfill the requirements. For illiterate people the Bible does not exist; What remains is the church service and a few prayers, which, passed on from parents to children, serve as the only connecting link between the individual and the church. And it also turns out in other, remote areas that the people understand absolutely nothing in the words of the church service, or even in the “Our Father,” which is often repeated with omissions or additions that take away all meaning from the words of the prayer. And yet, in all these uneducated minds, as if in Athens, an altar to an unknown God was erected, as if in Athens, by someone unknown, for all the real presence of the will of Providence in all events of life is a fact so indisputable, so firmly rooted in consciousness, that when death comes, these people, to whom no one has ever spoken about God, open their door to Him, as to a well-known and long-awaited Guest. They literally give their soul to God. “In the beginning was the word,” - this is how the Evangelist preaches 41. 42 The great German writer wanted to correct this thought of the theologian with his philosophical analysis, forcing Faust to think about it. “No,” says Faust, “in the beginning there was a matter.” 43 When Goethe wrote his Faust in our time, Faust would probably say: “In the beginning there was a fact.” Fact is the favorite concept of modern material philosophy, the cell from which it builds the universe, the steel and foundation of all that it calls truth. What a lie! Truth is something absolute, and only the absolute can be the basis of human life. Everything else is not solid, everything else disappears into wavering images and outlines, and therefore cannot serve as a foundation. A fact is something essentially real, inextricably linked with the conditions of material nature, and in it only what is imaginable. But as soon as we try to separate this fact from its material environment, to determine its spiritual origin, to grasp its true reason, we are already lost in the network of assumptions, hypotheses, perplexities that arise in the mind of each individual thinker, and we feel our powerlessness to know its truth. That is why history presents us with such a mixture of ideas about each event, about each historical figure, when we try to analyze the spiritual significance of this or that. The highest conscientiousness of historical research can only strive to draw a correct picture of events and actions in connection with contemporary conditions of life and activity, to restore a fact in its fullest possible material setting, with an investigation of the causes, consequences and motivations of historical activity. It is obvious that science here cannot do without art, and every true historian must be an artist in his work. Art requires an ideal; Consequently, the historian, in assessing events and characters, certainly has in mind an ideal, the features of which may not be the same for everyone. Everyone is inclined to get carried away by his ideal, that is, his idea of ​​perfection in human motives, deeds and institutions. The historian is critical of events in their mutual connection, and the nature of the criticism is determined by the worldview that has developed in each person. That is why the judgments and verdicts of historical criticism about the most famous figures and the most important events in history are so varied and often contradictory. Whom one exalted yesterday, another today debunks, and vice versa, whom historical science previously exposed as a monster, later finds in him traits of moral superiority. There will hardly ever be an end to these fluctuations in historical criticism, for its very ideal represents fluctuating features and changes with each generation of scientists and artists. Incomparably earlier than pragmatic history, a legend arose from the depths of the people's consciousness and creativity and continues to be created along with history. It itself serves as a source for history and the subject of historical criticism, but, regardless of any criticism, it remains the precious property of the people, retaining all the freshness of direct representation. The people understand it and love it and, let us add, continue to create it, not only because they are inclined towards the miraculous, but also because they sense in it a deep truth, the absolute truth of ideas and feelings, a truth that no most subtle and artistic critical analysis of facts can give them. Those heroes of the folk poem whom history debunks, the people continue to honor; in them the features of an ideal are precious to him - the ideal of strength, virtue, holiness, for in these ideals, and not in people, not in events, not in transitory ways of life, the people sense the absolute truth. Scientists do not want to understand what the people feel in their souls, that this absolute truth cannot be grasped materially, must be stated, determined by number and measure, but it can and should be believed in, and the absolute truth is accessible only to faith. There is nothing perfect, nothing whole, nothing united in human affairs, feelings and motives, for every person is divided in himself and only strives for unification, falling and wavering at every step. And so, if we approach every feat, every event, every historical figure with analysis, no one will stand it, and there will not be a single hero. Each feat is preceded by such a chain of moral fluctuations, it is embraced by such a network of diverse sensations, impulses, random events that guide, change, dissect the human will, that for an inquisitive mind there is no place left for the feat as an integral free manifestation of the will directed towards the ideal. But in the popular imagination, the feat is precisely an integral and living manifestation of strength: this is how the people believe, and cannot live without this faith, for a person’s whole life rests on it, in the midst of sobbing and pity, and grief, and lies, with which it is materially filled. That is why those who want to corrupt this faith among the people and take it away from them under the pretext of concern for an imaginary historical truth are mistaken. People need faith in the ideal of truth and goodness; but how to preserve this faith, how to support it if it is not embodied in a living image? To take away this image from people means to take away the very faith that is expressed in it, faith in absolute truth, in integral perfection. That is why, by the way, the favorite reading of the Russian people is the lives of the saints, the Chetya-Minea, all composed of living images of heroism, virtue, and moral perfection. Each of these heroes of holiness was a man, with all the weaknesses of human nature, with all the hesitation of thought, motivation and will, with all the baseness of the fall of man, and if it were possible to decompose his soul, we would see in it the whole mystery of original sin and all the powerlessness of man’s struggle with himself. But he emerged victorious from this struggle, but this struggle was carried out in the name of the highest ideals of perfection, the measure of which is not on earth, but in heaven, in the realm of the absolute. And this feat of his struggle was described with living features by a similar, sympathetic soul of a pious writer, who put into the description a living love for the same truth, a living desire for the same ideal. This is what the people sense the truth and do not doubt, and believe at a time when the inquisitive philosophy of a learned agnostic tortures the facts and, thinking to recognize the material truth in them, at the same time about spiritual truth, about the truth that itself responds in the believing soul, mockingly asks: “What is truth?” In the myth of Prometheus, 44 bound by Zeus 45 and nailed to a Caucasian cliff, one cannot help but recognize the idea of ​​modern skepticism, in comparison with the idea of ​​Almighty God, the Creator of the universe. This is a protest of the proud spirit against the general belief in the existence of God, a denial of the unbearable feeling of shame (reverentia) before the Divine, obedience and worship of the Divine, which is unbearable for pride. There is no need that the sacred fire by which mankind lives, is warmed, and is fertilized is taken from the Divine, stolen from the Divine - man does not want to know this, and, possessing the Divine fire, wants to live in alienation from the Divine, autocratically. The Sphinx of the ancient fable 46 sat at the crossroads and offered each traveler his riddle. Whoever could not solve it was a victim of the sphinx and plunged into the abyss: only a sage who found the solution could defeat the monster. What is the Sphinx in our lives? Our whole life is an endless, seemingly mechanical chain of phenomena and events (facts). Replacing each other, copulating with each other, all of them, flying by, carry on their wings their questions to the human spirit, and every minute in the rotation of time brings its own modern questions. Wisdom of the spirit is needed to answer them, to resolve them: whoever does not have it becomes a slave of facts and phenomena, a slave of his time, even if the person is called modern. Facts suppress him on all sides, dominate him, and a man of vulgar ways, of sensual custom (rutiner) emerges, and reaches such a blind obedience to the facts that the last spark of light, enlightening every being worthy of the name and title of human, will finally disappear in him. But when a person remains faithful to the best spiritual impulse of his nature, when he knows how to distinguish the basic principles of spiritual life and stands firmly in spirit, not obeying the facts, but dominating them, then they all lie evenly around him in life, each in his place: they did not overcome him, but he overcame them... The Sphyx of ancient Egypt is not the same as the Sphinx of ancient Greece, although both express the mystery of the human soul. The Egyptian Sphinx is a peaceful creature, half-human, half-animal. In front of the church, in front of the royal tomb, passing a long row of sphinxes, a person feels the closeness of the Divine and the mystery of death. The Sphinx is an image of mysterious contemplation, immersed in itself and in the idea of ​​​​the Divine: the ancient Egyptians personified in it the Divinity of sunlight. This is not the Sphinx of the new world, the creation of Greek fantasy. This is a creature of demonic origin, the product of the monstrous Typhon 47 and Echidna, 48 the personification not of the light Deity, but of the dark power of Tartarus, 49 a beastly creature, predatory, destructive. And it expresses a mystery, but not the mystery of self-absorbed contemplation, but the mystery of passionate, negative, violent and destructive thought. And this sphinx to this day never ceases to ask humanity strange, mysterious riddles, unsolvable riddles. Thousands of minds are trying to find a solution, to unravel the riddle of life and religion, and they cannot. But each unsuccessful attempt at a solution only plunges thought and feeling into new abysses, and each riddle gives rise to only hundreds and thousands of new unsolvable riddles, and before poor humanity an abyss of destruction opens up in the sight of the monster, and it will rush into the abyss if it does not stop on the stone of simple, firm faith and clear thinking... The great question that never ceases to confuse the mind and conscience of all humanity is the question of the implementation in human relationships of truth and love, commanded by Christ, which the Christian Church places as the basis of its teaching. There is no reason that would find the key to resolving this contradiction, there is no conscience that would calm down on it. Walking through the bloody history of wars, strife, violence, untruth, ignorance and superstition, which lasts from the beginning of the world until the present day, both in public and private life, everyone asks himself with horror: “Where is and what is the fulfillment of the law of Christ in the midst of this hell in which we live and move?” Where is the way out of the state in which religion itself seems to be a mirror of lies and hypocrisy, an indicator of contradictions between deeds and consciousness, a network of rituals and formalities that serve as a cover for a deceived conscience and an imaginary justification for untruth? There are the elect, there are people of truth, humble in heart, there are works of love and reason, on which the thought rests and temporarily calms down; but, surveying the totality of life, he sees principalities and powers forgetting their calling, he sees unjust gains in honor and glory, wealth acquired by theft, swallowing up the very power and owning the world, he sees self-confident lawlessness under the cover of outward piety, he sees thousands and millions sacrificed to the god of war, the idol of enmity and violence, he sees, finally, countless masses vegetating without consciousness, torn by need, living and dying in suffering. Where, he asks, is the kingdom of Christ, the kingdom of love and truth, where is the effective power of religion, where is the goal and end of disastrous human life? How many times has the expectation of a golden age in humanity been heard and heard from ancient times to the present day, and it ends in disappointment, if not hopelessness, for a Christian cannot and should not be hopeless. The Old Testament prophets depict a future state of peace and prosperity for humanity. Christ brought to earth the commandment of love and peace, but not the fulfillment of this commandment - a fulfillment in which there would be no room for freedom: this very commandment, according to His word, came as a sword and was supposed to light a fire in the hearts of men. And when, after His resurrection, a timid question was heard from hearts that were aflame with hope for the renewal of the world: “Lord, is it not in this summer that you will establish the kingdom of Israel?”, His answer was: “It is not given to you to understand times and years: the Lord has ordained them in His power.” 50 Time, measured in small shares among people, is limitless with the Lord God: with Him a thousand years are like a day, and a day is like a thousand years. And the young Church of Christ in the first centuries, in the midst of persecution, in the midst of vices and troubles, lived with the same hope for the establishment of the kingdom of Israel: this hope for the victory of truth in humanity was a new force that Christianity brought into the bleak pagan world. A terrible time came when this strength seemed to have dried up, and hope turned to despair. The capture and destruction of Rome by Alaric 51 struck the entire Christian world with unspeakable horror; and believing souls were darkened with doubt: where is the power of Christianity, where is salvation? And the pagan world cried out: all these troubles are from the new religion of Christ. Then Blessed Augustine 52 encouraged the troubled conscience and restored Christian hope with his animated book “On the City of God,” explaining to people the fate of Divine Providence in the history of mankind and the immutability of the doctrine of a kingdom that is not of this world. From then until now, in times of social disaster, in the midst of violence and public depravity, how many times has the same question been raised in the Christian world! And we are experiencing a time when, apparently, long-past paganism begins to revive and, raising its head, strives to overcome Christianity, denying its dogmas, its institutions, and even the moral principles of its teaching; when new preachers, like the pagan philosophers of the ancient century, with malicious irony address the remnant of believers with a bitter word: “This is what your Christianity has brought the world to; This is what your faith is worth, which has distorted human nature, taken away from it the freedom of lust, in which happiness consists!” Well, is it really possible that “our faith, the victory that conquered the world, perishes before the pressure of ancient paganism?” No, she remains whole in the holy Church, about which the One who created her said: “The gates of hell will not prevail against her.” 53 She keeps within herself the keys of truth, and in our days, as at all times, everyone who listens to her voice from the truth. It contains, under the covers of images and symbols, the forces that must gather what is scattered from everywhere and renew the face of the earth. When this will happen, One knows, having set times and seasons in His power. Meanwhile, from the very beginning of the church, impatient hearts and proud minds do not cease to search, in addition to the church and in spite of it, for new teachings that should renew humanity, fulfill the law of love and truth, and establish peace and prosperity on earth. Amazed by the monstrous contradictions between the teachings of Christ the Savior and the life of the Christians who make up the Church of Christ, they lay the blame on the church with its institutions and, coming to deny the church that has existed since the beginning of Christianity, they think to establish instead their own, purified, in their opinion, the teaching of Christ, detached from the church, deduced at their discretion from individual texts of the Gospel. Strange misconception. People who are subject to the same lust and the same sin to which the entire society around them is subject, people of the same nature as everyone else, divided in themselves, inclined to want what they do not do, and to do what they do not want, imagine themselves alone as united in spirit and are uncalled teachers and prophets. It is as if they alone imagined themselves standing on a fixed point, while the whole world and they, together with the world, were turning in a circle. Starting from the destruction of the law, they themselves are not able to create a new law from those parts and scraps of the whole teaching that they rejected. Denying the church, they, however, come to the point that they want to create their own church with their preachers and ministers, and if they succeed in this, the same thing that they condemned and rebelled against is repeated on them: only with a new increase in lies and hypocrisy, and insane pride rising above the world. Pride of mind, with contempt for people of the same flesh and blood, excites them to destroy the old law and create a new one. They forget that the same Divine Teacher, whose name they call upon, being meek and humble in heart, did not want to change a single line in the law, but enlivened every line with the spirit of love hidden in it. Condemning dogmatism and ritualism, they themselves eventually turn into narrow and power-hungry dogmatists; rebelling against fanaticism about intolerance, they themselves become the worst fanatics and persecutors; preaching love and truth, they themselves unconsciously become imbued with the spirit of malice and partiality. Pride, blinding them, does not allow them to realize what temptation they bring into the realm of faith, destroying its simplicity and integrity in simple souls, which the Church has not yet had time to educate and bring to the consciousness of faith. It is not difficult, but also how crazy, how shameless, to seduce a simple soul, in which there is only a pure, unoccupied field of religious feeling, an uneducated soul, ignorant of the truths of faith! It is terrible to think that such a soul is approached with a naked denial of the church, and they want to assure her that this church, with its teachings and sacraments, with its symbols, rituals and traditions, with its poetry, which has animated many generations from century to century, is a false and hateful institution. The simple soul was a humble soul: sectarianism elevates it to the heights of pride in its own special faith, and places faith within the narrow frame of the sectarian formula. There is no soul, no matter how ignorant it may be, into which such senseless pride cannot be instilled with confidence in its truth - before whom? Before the whole people who make up the church and live in the humble consciousness of their sinfulness before God and in the humble hope of forgiveness of sins and salvation in church prayer. The fruits of this pride in its further development are obvious. This is hypocrisy in the self-sufficient consciousness of righteousness; this is an evil irritation against all those who believe differently and a desire reaching the point of passion to distract its scattered sheep from the church flock, and any means are considered suitable for achieving the goal. The Church is truly a ship of salvation for inquiring minds, tormented by questions about what to believe and how to believe. Setting out with these questions into the boundless sea of ​​research, doubt and logical conclusions is scary for the limited human mind, for the whimsical imagination, for pride, striving to look for new paths. Having established himself in his own, far-fetched faith, placing himself above the authority of the church, a person, in essence, can end up believing in himself as a bearer of faith; can lead to intolerance and fanaticism, to the strange seduction of the thought of accepting faith as a self-sufficient element of salvation, detached from life and activity. Christ, in a threatening denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees of his time, did not express a stern word of warning and condemnation to them alone; this word should be understood and remembered by all the crazy fanatics of our time, the uncalled teachers of new faiths. “Do not be called mentors - Christ is your only mentor, and woe to you who pass through sea and land to create one sojourner.” 54 The Christian Church has mentors appointed by Christ himself, the head of the church. And who installed and sent them, the teachers of the new faith? Is it the spirit of selfishness and pride, the spirit of division and enmity that they sow between people with their preaching? They imagine that by destroying the fence that contains and protects the teaching of Christ, they will better attract people to this teaching, which they alone supposedly understand! They talk about love, but by distracting a person from the church union, they arouse in him pride, anger and hatred of his abandoned brothers; seducing people with what they themselves have invented and call the truth, they believe it to be in denial of what the church they reject has recognized as truth. “Truth,” they say, “is the most precious property of the human soul. So, if I am sure that I possess the truth, how can I remain inactive, how can I endure so as not to communicate it to my neighbor, who is lost because he does not have, does not know the truth? But who will assure me, uncalled teacher, that this truth of yours is not based on your personal perception and testimony alone? Show me more authoritative evidence about her. Or can you claim that it bears the stamp of Divine revelation? Or do you have the right to proclaim about it, like the ancient prophets: thus says the Lord? Your supposed authenticity is nothing more than your personal, albeit sincere, conviction: if this means everything to you, then to me, your neighbor, it means absolutely nothing. Or have you received a command from above to go into the world preaching and teach humanity what you yourself have been taught from above? But you cannot give me such a command and clearly certify it. So, every preacher of the new faith, no matter how much he considers his conviction indisputable, must have and show respect for the convictions of his neighbors. But it is precisely this respect that the fanatic of the new faith does not want to acknowledge, rejecting it as something unworthy. He begins his operation directly from the faith of his neighbor, erecting a battering gun against it to destroy the entire fence of this belief and its entire system, in order to put his own in his place. This creed, established for centuries, for those who adhere to it, constitutes the entire support of life; but the deeper and sincere it is, the firmer the foundation on which it arose and stands, the more fervently the attack is waged against it, the more inflamed is the desire to destroy it, and to build one’s intended building on its ruins. The goal is apparently creative, but all activity directed towards it is destructive. Having destroyed, this fighter wants to build, but it doesn’t even occur to him how easy it is to destroy and how difficult it is to build on the site of what was destroyed. What was destroyed stood on a foundation that had grown into the depths; but when it has fallen, it is necessary to erect a new foundation for a new building in new depths, and with a daring hand strive to repeat the centuries-old work of the human spirit: who gave the right and power to this uncalled destroyer? He took possession of his victim and took her out - where? - into the desert, where hundreds of roads are open in all directions and there is not a single clear and wide path. Whatever the goal, this is where the end of fanatical religious proselytism is: in the desert. Progressive people, the founders of religions, realizing at the heights of contemplation, in the system of belief, the idea of ​​​​the Divine and His relationship to man, create, in application to it, forms of cult, inspired by the same idea. But the mass of the people remains in the valley, and the light of pure contemplation, illuminating the tops of the mountains, does not quickly reach them. Among the masses, religious ideas and religious feelings are expressed in a variety of rituals and traditions, which from a higher point of view may seem like superstition and idolatry. A strict zealot of the faith is indignant, indignant and strives to break this shell of the people's faith with a violent hand, just as Moses 55 broke the calf that Aaron 56 poured together at the request of the people, while the prophet was in high contemplation on the heights of Sinai. Hence the puritanical zeal of the religious teachers, reaching the point of fanaticism. But in this shell, often crude, of popular belief lies the very grain of faith, capable of development and spiritualization, the same eternal truth lurks. In rituals, in legends, in symbols and customs, the masses of the people see the real and effective embodiment of what would be unreal and ineffective for them in an abstract idea. What if, having broken the shell, we destroy the very grain of truth? What if, by uprooting the tares, we also uproot the wheat along with them? What if, in an effort to simultaneously purify the people’s beliefs under the pretext of superstition, we destroy the belief itself? If the forms in which ordinary people express their faith in the living God sometimes confuse us, let us think whether the commandment of the Divine Teacher applies to us: “Be careful that you do not despise one of these little ones who believe in Me.” In one Arabic poem there is such an instructive tale of the famous teacher Jalaldin. 57 One day, Moses, while wandering in the desert, met a shepherd who was fervently praying to God. And this is the prayer he prayed: “Oh, Lord my God, how can I know where to find You and become Your servant. How I would like to put on Your sandals and comb Your hair, and wash Your dress, and kiss Your feet, and clean Your dwelling, and give You milk from my flock: this is how my heart desires You!” Moses became angry at such words and said to the shepherd: “You are blaspheming: the Almighty God is incorporeal, He does not need any clothes, no dwelling, no servants. What are you saying, infidel?” Then the shepherd’s heart was darkened, for he could not imagine an image without a bodily form and without bodily needs: he gave in to despair and stopped serving the Lord. But the Lord spoke to Moses and said to him: “Why have you driven My servant away from Me? Every man has received from Me his manner of being and the manner of his tongue. What is evil to you is good to another: hell is to you, and honey is sweet to another. Words mean nothing: I look at the heart of a person.” The ancient Persian poet Muhammad Rumi (XIII century) - the author of the famous poem Masnavi? 58 It contains wonderful verses about prayer worthy of a believing soul. “Someone, for the sweetness of his lips, cried out in the silence of the night: “Oh, Allah!” And Satan said to him: “Be silent, you gloomy one, how long will it take you to chatter empty words? You won’t wait for an answer from the throne no matter how much you shout: “Alla!” and look sad!” The man became embarrassed, he felt bitter and hung his head. Then the prophet Kizr appeared to him in a vision and said: “Then you stopped calling on God and repented of your prayer”? And the man answered: “I did not hear the answer, there was no voice: “I am here, and I am afraid that I have become rejected from the door of grace.” And Kizr said to him: “This is what God commanded me. Go to him and say: O man experienced in many things! Was it not I who placed you in My service? Didn't I command you to call on Me? And Mine: “Here I am” is the same as your cry: “Alla!” And your sorrow and your desire and your fervor - all these are My messengers to you; when you struggled within yourself and cried out for help, with this struggle and cry I drew you to Me and aroused your prayer. Your fear and your love are the veils of My mercy, and in your one word “Oh, Lord!” many voices respond: “I’m here with you!” The ancient word: “The fool speaks in his heart: there is no God,” now appears in all its power. His truth is as clear as the sun, although now all “advanced minds” are possessed by some passionate desire to do without God, to hide Him, to abolish Him. People who are virtuous and honest in thought ask themselves the question of how to create a structure of virtue, honor, and conscience without God. Pathetic effort! France, having reached the extreme degree of political disintegration, decided, through its government, to organize a public school “without God.” Unfortunately for us, other representatives of the intelligentsia are not far from the Moscow princess, who babbled: “Ah, France! There is no better region in the world,” and recently a still-famous teacher pointed out to us the new French school as an ideal to follow. Among the new French books officially intended for guidance in teaching in girls' schools about government, there is a book called: “Moral and Civic Instruction for Young Maidens,” op. Madame Greville 59 (Instruction morale et civique des jeunes filles). This is something like a civil catechism of morality, which is supposed to replace the teaching of the Law of God in schools. This book is quite wonderful. It is divided into three parts, and each part into separate chapters. The first part contains the rules of morality, concepts of duty, honor, conscience, etc. The second part contains a brief teaching about the state and state institutions. The third part is the teaching about a woman, about her calling, qualities and virtues. The presentation of the book is concise, simple, clear - just like textbooks are written, with many visual examples, with pictures in the text. It is impossible to argue anything against the essence of the teaching itself: it calls for order, for good morality, for purity of thought and intention, for virtue, and turns energetically to the feeling and consciousness of duty, and strictly indicates to a woman her duties in home life and in society. But here's what's remarkable. Not once on any page is there any mention of God, not the slightest hint of religious feeling. The author, explaining the deep and decisive significance of conscience in a person, gives the following definition of conscience: “Conscience is a consideration of the opinion that other people have about us and about our actions” (considération de l'opinion des autres). On this unsteady and wavering ground of human opinion, writers strive to establish the moral foundations of life! This truly fulfills the saying: “Those who pretend to be wise have gone mad.” Unfortunately, small streams of home-grown intelligentsia are also attracted from our poor Russia into this stream of madness now spreading in France; and from her heralds, from magazines and newspapers, from editorials and feuilletons, the same voice of the Moscow princess is heard repeated in chorus. The same chorus is often joined by well-intentioned, but somewhat naive and inexperienced minds, imagining that magazines and newspapers bring them some kind of “new word” of civilization. It is a pity to read how magazine critics argue on the issue of school, that without religion, of course, it is impossible, that religious education is necessary, but all this without the church and its ministers. We should speak more directly and simply. We don’t reject religious instruction, we even demand it, we don’t understand schools without it, we just don’t want clericalism. And under the cover of this term we mean the church and churchliness. This Jesuitical method of presentation, adopted by the new apostles of the popular school, misleads many readers who do not know how to “discern the spirit” of Scripture. These good people do not know that now the word religion, like many other words, has changed in its meaning, and by it many have already begun to understand something that, if recognized, a person who truly believes in God would retreat with horror. They do not know that in our time a religion without God has been invented, and the very word God, as used by the so-called people of science, has acquired a special meaning. In 1882, a wonderful book appeared that attracted general attention. The denial of God was expressed for the most part by haters of any religion, with a feeling of bitterness, with an expression of frivolous or malicious irony, with a sermon about the exceptional importance of matter for the universe. In this book, for the first time, the whole doctrine of religion without God was expressed in a calm tone, with dignity, with an ideal outlook on life. This book is called: Natural Religion (London, 1883). Its author is the Oxford professor Seeley, 60 the same one whose first work Ecce Homo, which appeared ten years earlier, then attracted the attention not only of people of worldly science, but of pious idealists who imagined finding in it some new word about Christ and the Christian faith. One of those who believed this book published it in Russian translation. But even at that time this book seemed strange and dubious to church people. It was impossible to trust her. This book contained an artistic analysis of earthly life and the character of Jesus Christ, exclusively in the features of His human nature. It was written in a spirit of deep reverence, in philosophical language, but not alien to church and theological terms. The purpose of the analysis was clearly the intention to clarify the image of Christ for reverent imitation. It seemed that the author was a Christian, filled with pious feelings. However, many pious readers of this book were embarrassed by it: as if the author’s Christian feeling and view also did not agree with their Christian views and feelings. The image of Christ in this book was the image of supreme holiness, purity and goodness, but not native, not our own, not the one whom we are accustomed from childhood to honor as the God-man, the word of God, not the Christ whom the Church of Christ glorifies. Something was amiss in the book, as if its author had either lost faith or was not far from it. However, in this book, the author apparently also affirmed faith in the personal existence of God, in the immortality of the human soul, in the messianic significance of Christ’s coming into the world, and even, albeit with some hesitation, in the reality of Christ’s miracles. 10 years have passed, and he is, as if nothing had happened, an enthusiastic preacher of a religion, according to a new religion, not Christ’s. The old revelation, he says, has served its purpose; instead of it, something new appeared: the newest natural scientists, historians, and philologists brought us a revelation that the ancient prophets never dreamed of. From this point of view, the biblical criticism of German scholars is higher and more perfect than the Bible itself. Addressing believers and church people with extraordinary naivety, he says: what should we argue about, what should we be at enmity with each other about? We can unite in one faith. We, people of science, also believe in God. Our God is nature, which is, in a certain sense, revelation. So, we are not atheists, he repeats, and the whole dispute between us, people of science, and you, theologians, is only a dispute about words. Does it really matter: our God is nature, and the scientific theory of the universe is also a theory of theism. After all, nature is a force existing outside of us, its law is unconditional for us - here, it has become a life, the Divinity whom we worship. Isn’t it curious that the author, while rejecting the personal existence of God, at the same time energetically protests against the accusation of atheism, and he himself rejects and discusses atheism. What is atheism, in his opinion? The author answers this question with such a fabrication of the mind that may seem like madness to a simple mind. “What is usually called atheism is a very metaphysical form of denial and has no serious meaning. Genuine, real atheism has a much more serious meaning and contains great moral evil. True atheism can be called by the general term wilfulness. It is precisely every human activity that is a transaction with nature, a transaction of our need with the irresistible law of nature... Not recognizing anything other than one’s own will, imagining as accessible everything that a strong will has outlined, not recognizing any higher force outside oneself that must be taken into account and won over to one’s side for success in an enterprise, this is what pure atheism consists of. Wanting to illustrate this vague and confused idea with an example, the author gives an example of a state that shows in its destinies the image of pure atheism, and points to Poland. Sedet aeternumque sedebit, 61,” he says, “unhappy Poland, experiencing punishment for criminal atheistic self-will, for enjoying limitless personal freedom, which did not want to reckon with the nature of things.” Compiling his theory of religion, the author describes in detail how, in his opinion, religious feeling degenerates from science, and how, passing through the prism of imagination, it is dissected in the moral being of man into the form of a threefold religion: the religion of nature, the religion of humanity and the religion of beauty. In this book, written with talent and animation, what is expressed, although for the first time with such completeness, is far from a new teaching; the reader encounters in it familiar features of positivism, which is so fashionable in our time, features familiar from the writings of Kant, 62 George Elliot 63 and Herbert Spencer, so beloved by Russian translators. 64 None of the mentioned works exposes so clearly the internal impotence of this fashionable theory as in the book “Natural Religion”. What madness can the mind reach when, carried away by the pride of self-adoration, it rejects the supernatural in life and the universe, and begins to build its own theory of life in its relations to the universe. This theory is condemned to revolve in a vicious circle and contradicts itself. By abolishing the personal God, it tries to retain religion, and in vain it tries to establish an object of religious feeling, for besides the living God there is no object for religion. Rejecting the invisible world, the immortality of the soul and the future life, she believes, however, that the goal of life is happiness and in vain tries to limit it to the limits of matter and earthly existence. Calling revelation a fiction or a dream, and every dogma a lie, she herself, however, seeks support for herself in nothing other than a new dogma, presenting, in the form of an axiom that must be believed in, the indispensable and endless progress of mankind. This theory precisely reflects that self-will and proud stubbornness of thought, which our author combines in his concept with atheism. It does not show that solid and clear confidence that serves as a sign of the truth and strength of the teaching. Its preachers, in their sermons about the happiness of mankind, all stumble over a reality that they cannot deny. This reality is the inevitable presence of evil and action, violence and untruth in human life - an argument for pessimism. This argument cannot be suppressed; some of the apostles of positivism try to suppress and muffle it, or hypocritically pass it by in silence; others, more conscientious, stop before him with sadness and doubt. Our author is one of the latter. Glorifying the new religion of nature, humanity and beauty that he preaches, proving all the power and effectiveness of the religious cult connected with it, he at the same time says: “As soon as we begin to calm down on the thought that everything knowable and natural is sufficient for human life, pessimism rears its head and leads us into confusion.” “If it were not for pessimism,” he notes in another place, “nothing would disturb our religious worship.” And at the very end of the book, having built his building, he says the following speeches: “The further our thoughts expand and deepen as the universe embraces us and we get used to infinity, in space and time, the more we are struck by the feeling of our own insignificance, and we become more valuable in horror - moral paralysis takes possession of us. For a while we console ourselves with the idea of ​​self-sacrifice, we say: let me disappear, let me think about others. But soon others become as contemptuous for us as ourselves; all human sorrows at the same time do not seem worth it to alleviate them; human happiness - even the highest - seems so pale that it is not worth caring about its increase. The whole moral world is reduced to one point; the city of spiritual life, the dwelling of the saints, goes into the distance and glows with a barely noticeable star. Good and evil, truth and untruth seem to be infinitesimal, ephemeral quantities, and eternity and infinity remain somewhere outside the moral world. The feeling of love freezes and is exhausted in a world where everything that is good and everything that is cold is exhausted in its own conscious weakness and pointlessness. Supernatural religion, the author immediately adds, fills all this emptiness, connecting love and truth with eternity. And if she is shaken, what good is natural religion?” Can you believe that these words were written by an ardent preacher of natural religion? This is how a serious mind can become entangled in a mental network it has woven. The essence of this entire book, with all the moderation of tone, with all the sincerity of the author, is a bleak paradox. It is true that various worldviews - scientific, artistic, humanitarian - contain elements of religious feeling. But they do not contain elements of a new faith, a new church, but are individual members - disjeeta membra - of the same Christian worldview. No religion is possible without the recognition of axiomatic truths that are inaccessible by inductive means. Such axioms include the existence of a personal Deity, the spirituality of the human soul; from here follows supernaturalism, without which no religion is conceivable. Scientific truths (except mathematical ones) are essentially conditional, they exist consciously only for scientific people and can only be imposed on the masses in a dogmatic form by deception. This deception is happening now... we are present with it every day. Intolerance towards other people's faith and other people's opinions has never been expressed as decisively as it is expressed in our time by preachers of radical and negative teachings: with them it is inexorable, cruel, caustic, combined with hatred and contempt. If you think about the attitude of these new teachers towards the faith they do not recognize, it will turn out to be, perhaps, even more terrible than the ancient religious intolerance that caused bloody persecution for faith. In the latter case, the persecution was based on unconditional faith in the unconditionally existing truth. When a person believes in this position, that it should be the truth for everyone, that the unconditional beginning of life and goodness for everyone is based on it, as a Mohammedan believes in the Koran, it is clear that such a person considers it his duty not only to openly confess his teaching, but, if necessary, to forcefully impose it on others. But when the matter is, after all, nothing more than an opinion, an assumption, even if it is the most probable for the one who deduced it, how to understand the fanaticism of such an opinion, how to understand that the preacher does not recognize it and does not allow for himself or for others not only an opposite opinion, but even a transaction, even conditional and temporary, with an opposite opinion? Meanwhile, such a passionate attitude towards one’s own opinion or the opinion of one’s school is part of all negative teachings. Rejecting, as if it did not exist or exist, the entire previous history of spiritual development in humanity, not recognizing any belief and spiritual state existing from ancient times as having the right to independent existence, not stopping at a single shrine of personal belief contained in the human soul, they demand for themselves free entry into every soul and want to establish their so-called truth everywhere. They call this being faithful to one's convictions. One of the representatives of the teachings of Comte 65 and positivists (Jonh Morley 66 On Compromise) says, for example, in his book that the first duty of every person in relation to himself and to humanity is to resolve the question in his soul: does he believe or not believe in the existence of God? Then, if, suppose, he came to the conviction that faith in God is nothing more than a blind and insane superstition, his most sacred duty is to invade every soul with this conviction, to take advantage of every opportunity and occasion to convey this conviction, first of all, to his family and friends, and then, if it is possible to convey it to the masses, express it everywhere, and unconditionally reject all phenomena and forms of private and public life in which it is directly or indirectly expressed faith, the opposite of this conviction... This way of action is what other than terrible violence against someone else’s conscience, and in the name of what? In the name of only your personal opinion! Neither love nor faith can be seen or heard in this abyss of self-love! And without love and faith there is no truth. What a difference it makes to hear the voice of an old, true teacher. There is so much faith and love, so much deep knowledge of the human soul in the apostolic word to the Corinthians 67 about how human conscience should be respected. He knows what the truth is, but even with this truth of spiritual knowledge, he orders how carefully to approach the human soul. The main thing is for the soul to accept and embrace the new truth in the spirit of sincerity and truth, without division, without discord with itself, with direct, integral faith. Everything that is not from faith is sin. And the apostle teaches the strong, those who know, to spare the conscience of the weak brethren in superstition itself, while the soul has not yet matured to perceive the truth with integral faith. You know,” he says, “that food will not put us before God: if we eat, we do not gain; if we do not eat, we do not lose. You know that an idol is nothing, that a false god does not exist at all, and therefore, with a clear conscience, you buy at the auction and eat the meat that was sacrificed to the idol. But not everyone has such knowledge: there are weak ones who may have an idol conscience, for whom an idol is still something existing, terrible and evil; for them, eating such meat means making a sacrifice to an idol, and when they see that you are eating it, their weak conscience is tempted, that is, it comes into discord, into division on the subject of faith. So, in order not to tempt a weak brother with his conscience, it is better not to eat meat forever. The Apostle, the preacher of Christian freedom, which comes from confidence, in this case sacrifices freedom to the protection of conscience, because conscience is dearer to him than anything else. It is amazing the madness to which intelligent people, who have grown up in alienation from real life and are blinded by the proud confidence in the infallibility of reason and logic, reach. The adoration of reason, having turned them away from positive religion, finally leads them to hatred of any belief in the One Living God. But those of them who are so conscientious that they cannot reject the need for faith declared by all humanity, those who still have a heart that is not completely dried up by the callous logic of thought, admit the legitimacy of religious feeling in human nature and try to satisfy it with some new, invented religion. This is where one has to marvel at the dreaminess of the plans invented by minds apparently striving to expel everything resembling a dream from their conclusions and considerations. Strauss, 68 in his essay “On the Old and New Faith,” rejecting Christianity, speaks with enthusiasm about religious feeling, but puts the idea of ​​the universe, the so-called Universum, instead of the Living God as its subject and center. In London, his fragmentary thoughts on religion, found after Mill’s death, appeared in the world under the title “Three Articles on Religion: Nature, the Benefits of Religion, and Deism.” He undoubtedly recognizes the benefits of religion, but rejects Christianity, although he expresses the greatest enthusiasm about the face of Christ. “It is impossible,” he says, “to dispute the great importance of religion for an individual; it is a source of personal satisfaction and high spiritual mood for everyone. But the question is, to achieve this good, is it necessary to step beyond the boundaries of the world we inhabit, or without this, one idealization of our earthly life, one excitement and development of higher ideas about it can create for us poetry, and even in the highest sense of the word, religion, one that would be capable of elevating our feelings and could (with the help of education) even better than faith in invisible beings, ennoble our existence and activity? The question is worthy of Mill, as we know him from the history of his upbringing. It's interesting how he resolves this issue. Mill could not look for a solution, like Strauss, in the idea of ​​the universe; could not because Mill, strange to say, does not believe in nature; at the beginning of the same book, faithful, as always, to his alienation from life, he enters into the study: “How true is that teaching that posits in nature the measure of truth and untruth, good and evil; and the guiding principle for man is conformity with nature or imitation of nature.” Mill does not recognize this teaching, because in nature he sees blind force and nothing more. She inspires desires that she does not satisfy, erects great talents, powers and deeds in order to crush them in an instant - in a word, she ruins in an instant, blindly and accidentally, everything that she herself has created. That is why Mill refuses to build any system of morality or religion on nature. What does Mill come up with? Here are his actual words: “When we imagine to what strong and deep feeling love for the fatherland can be achieved under favorable conditions of upbringing, it will become clear to us that it is very possible for love for the vast fatherland, that is, for the whole world, to be brought to a similar force of development and turn it into a source of higher spiritual sensations and the beginning of duty. Whoever wishes to become acquainted with the concepts of antiquity on this subject, let him read Cicero’s book: De officiis. 70 It cannot be said that the standard of morality established in this famous argument was very high. According to our concepts, this morality in many cases is very weak and allows for transactions with conscience. But regarding one subject - regarding debt to the fatherland - she does not allow any transaction. For a person who has even the slightest claim to virtue to think for a moment about sacrificing his life, honor, family - everything that is dear to him in the world - to his fatherland, the famous preacher of Greek and Roman morality did not allow this. And so history shows that it was possible to instill in people through education not only the theoretical conviction that the good of the fatherland should be above all other considerations, but also the practical consciousness that this is the greatest duty of life. If this was possible, then why could it not be instilled in them with a sense of exactly the same unconditional duty regarding the common good of the whole world? Such morality in a highly gifted nature would draw strength from feelings of sympathy, benevolence, enthusiastic inspiration by ideal greatness, and in natures of a lower organization - from the same feelings, as they naturally develop, and, moreover, from a feeling of shame. This high morality would not depend in the least on the hope of reward. The only reward that we would have in mind, and the thought of which would serve as a consolation in sadness and support in moments of weakness, the only reward would be an undoubted afterlife (!), but in this life the approval of all the people we respect and, in an ideal sense, the approval of all, both living and dead people, whom we honor and whom we praise. Indeed, the thought that our cause would be approved by our deceased friends and relatives when they were alive is capable of inspiring us no less than the thought of the approval of our contemporaries... How many times have people of high spirit been inspired to work by the thought that Socrates, 71 Howard, 72 Washington, 73 Antoninus would sympathize with them. 74 If we call such a state of mind simply moral, this word will not be enough. It is truly religion: good deeds constitute only a part of religion, its fruits, but not religion itself. The essence of religion is the strong and serious direction of feelings and desires towards an ideal goal that surpasses all personal goals and desires. This condition is realized in the religion of humanity in exactly the same way as in supernatural religions: I am even convinced that it is realized even better and more perfectly.” The above words speak for themselves. They show all the myopia, or better yet, all the madness of human wisdom, when it wants to make an abstract construction of life and man, without coping with life and without knowing the human soul. Such a religion as Mill imagines may perhaps be sufficient for thoughts like his, who have enclosed themselves from the whole world in the shell of abstract thinking; But how can its people, a living organism, united only by living feeling and consciousness, and not by a dead and abstract principle, accept it and understand it? Among the people, such a religion, if it could ever be introduced, would turn out to be a turn towards paganism. A people who cannot be imagined in separation from nature, if they could forget the faith of their fathers, would again personify for themselves as an idea the universe, breaking it into separate forces, or that humanity, which is given to them as a connecting spiritual principle, breaking it into representatives of spiritual power - and only many living gods would appear again instead of the one true God... Is this still destined to come true? We are assured that our old faith is coming to an end, that it will be replaced by a new faith, which is supposedly dawning. God willing, if this happens, it will not be soon, and if it happens, it will only be for a while. Of course, it will be a time not of enlightenment, but of darkness. In our old faith there is the truth of human nature, the truth of immediate sensation and consciousness, that truth that responds in truth, from the depths of the spirit, to the word of divine revelation. This truth exists, and its grain lies in every soul. It is said about her: “Everyone who is of the truth will listen to My voice.” Our old faith is based on the fact that every person feels within himself a living soul, immortal, united, and does not confuse this living soul with either nature or humanity, he recognizes himself in it before God and before people, and wants to live in it forever. With his living soul he enters into a free union of love with other people, and as he lives by it, he himself is responsible for it. Through it he feels his Creator, as simply as he lives, and in this simple feeling, regardless of reason, he finds his faith. Preachers of the new faith appear. Some laugh at the old faith and want to destroy everything, not wanting to create a new one. Others, apparently, are more serious: they are looking for wisdom and want to impose their far-fetched wisdom on us; each of them offers us his own composition, his own construction of faith, because, while still recognizing the need for belief, they only want to compose their own. But how pitiful these works are! All of them are powerless to gather around themselves and animate living human souls with a living idea, because not one of them places the living Spirit of God at the center of belief. Recently, many separate systems have appeared in which philosophers, each in their own way, are trying to build faith for humanity without God. Everyone imagines that they have built such a faith with their reason; but that's not true. The human mind, when it reasons in a direct way, without closing off from itself or denying the facts that exist in nature and in the human soul, has nowhere to go from the idea of ​​God. The real source of atheism is not in the mind, but in the heart, exactly as the prophet said: the fool said in his heart: there is no God. in the heart, that is, in desire, is the source of every fall, no matter how hard the mind tries to comprehend every fall. It always begins with the heart seeking complete freedom for itself and rebelling against the commandment and against the One with Whom is the beginning and end of every commandment. To free yourself from a commandment, there is no other way than to reject its supreme authority and put your own authority, your knowledge in its place. The oldest of all human stories is repeated, for endless centuries: “You yourself can know good and evil; you can be your own God.” This is where godlessness comes from from time immemorial. But it is truly wonderful to see how the mind deceives itself. What kind of religion seems to be without God, and this is exactly the religion that atheists preach. They say: “Instead of old fairy tales about God, take the actual truth. God is nowhere to be seen; there really is nature, there really is humanity. It is not only a fact, it is a force capable of reaching, over the course of centuries and millennia, through experience and reason, to limitless development, to unimaginable perfection. There is so much inner depth and strength in this idea that it is completely sufficient to replace a person’s completely religious feeling and bind all people together by the common religion of humanity.” (Isn’t this the same as the biblical: you will be like gods?). This is the teaching of the latest positive science and so-called utilitarianism. But here, on the other hand, appears the famous apostle of the Tübingen school of theology, a pillar of biblical scholarly criticism, who lived to old age in a learned denial of the historical foundations of Christianity. This is Dr. Strauss, the author of “The Life of Jesus,” the author of his new book “on the old and new faith,” in which he himself says that he set forth his confession, the result of all his scientific works and philosophical reflections about God, nature and man. at that time, when he was still young and wrote his “Life of Jesus,” he still entered carefully and with some respect into the analysis of facts sanctified by the centuries-old beliefs of mankind, and still thoughtfully touched upon the basic ideas lying in the depths of belief; the remnants of reverence for God were still heard in him. But now, when he talks about God, in his words one can hear as if irritable bitterness against God as against a harmful and deceitful fable that has perverted human thought. You can hear how “Jupiter is angry.” But, rejecting God, Strauss, due to a strange contradiction in thought, does not want to part with religious feeling. He is aware of the need for this feeling in himself, and is also aware of the presence of a religious feeling. What is the subject of it, what can have sufficient power to take possession of the soul and fill it? Not a personal deity, which does not exist, answers Strauss, but the universe (Universum), which constitutes the source of all good and all power, and which exists according to the law of the purest reason. We demand, he says, for this universe the same reverent feeling with which the good man of the old faith treated his God. What is this universe, and is there anything spiritual in it? In answering this question, Strauss reveals himself to be a follower of positive philosophy and modern materialism. He certainly extends the teaching of Kant and Laplace about the exclusive action of mechanical forces in the planetary system to all phenomena of animal and mental life, and considers the human spirit to be nothing more than the result of the complex action of material, mechanical forces alone. Strauss does not recognize souls in the spiritual sense. Naturally, he enthusiastically follows Darwin's theory of the origin of species, not limiting himself to the application of this theory to the phenomena of the external world, but extending it arbitrarily and dreamily to all kinds of phenomena of life. Contradictions and leaps in conclusions do not bother him at all. All doubts are eliminated in him by his new faith, faith in his favorite hypothesis - incompatible, in his opinion, with the existence of God. There is no need that this or that general proposition (for example, about arbitrary generation) has not yet been proven. “I don’t know exactly how or when,” says Strauss, “but it will certainly be proven.” in the problem of the origin of man, does he not think about the difficult questions of how to explain and how to reconcile with the system the origin of mental powers, moral ideas, and aesthetic concepts in man? Everything is explained by one, almost magical, word: natural selection of individuals. Truly, if this dreamy enthusiasm for a favorite theory contains a new faith, then it is nothing more than a new superstition. Darwin's teaching could not have come at a more opportune time, to reinforce the preachers of the new faith. It seemed to illuminate them with a new light, as if it brought them the key stone that was missing to close the vault over the whole system. Having grasped this teaching, many are ready to proclaim or are proclaiming the old faith to be completely broken and destroyed. From all sides they rush to apply the principles derived by Darwin to all phenomena of social life - and deduce from them consequences that Darwin himself may not have thought of. The school, as often happens, gets ahead of the teacher and, perhaps, will soon proclaim him himself retarded. Meanwhile, Darwin's teaching, in itself, in the sphere of the data from which it is derived, hardly justifies the fears for the integrity of the faith that it aroused in many of its zealots. Galileo's system, Newton's theory, new discoveries in geology aroused even more excitement and fear in their time; but the faith of the believers did not suffer from them. The same will happen, of course, with Darwin's teachings. Moreover, at the present time, he cannot yet be recognized as established in science, and the first enthusiasm he aroused is beginning to weaken. only dii minorum gentiumK believe in it unconditionally. Advanced people of science are already beginning to become convinced that this teaching, in essence, represents only a hypothesis, more or less probable, but not yet verified by a sufficient number of data; that the provisions derived by the brilliant scientist from his numerous observations, in essence, turn out to be bold and witty generalizations of the phenomena he noticed, still leaving a lot of room for bewilderment and doubt. But these provisions, raised to the level of immutable truth, are already repeated by the masses as verbum magistri and have become, on the one hand, a proverb in the mouths of the vulgar talkers of liberalism, on the other hand, they have given many serious minds the basis for many new mental combinations. Who doesn't talk about Darwin these days? Who doesn't play with words: natural selection, sexual selection, struggle for existence. However, not only frivolous people, but also truly scientific and serious people, Darwin’s discovery forces them to make strange leaps in the reasoning and conclusions of science; forces one to express speeches that to a sound, unprejudiced judge seem nothing other than fantasy or madness. This happens most often when, with the help of Darwinian teachings, they want to build and complete a system of such a worldview in which there would be no place for the Divine. and indeed, Darwin's doctrine is very beneficial for the argumentation of new materialism. Man, according to Darwin, was completely in vain to assign to himself and his spirit some special, privileged position in the universe; on this basis he imagined himself alone, among other animals, under the direct and personal guidance of the Divine. This is a delusion, and a harmful delusion (the pernicious idea). Man, like any other animal, is nothing more than a product of the consistent and limitless development of natural forms of animal life. It is not difficult for anyone who wishes to deduce from this the conclusion that, therefore, there is no God, and there is no immortal soul. Further, from Darwin's teachings it follows that all existing forms of living being were formed, and all subsequent ones are formed, from the eternal and incessant movement of matter, leading from one form to another, with new development and with new tools for needs. It is not difficult for anyone who wishes to deduce from this the following conclusion: that in matter itself lies creative power - precisely this eternal movement; that in it lies the entire future of nature and humanity, capable of limitless progress and improvement, and that then there is no need to look outside of matter itself for the ultimate creative force, as well as for the Creator’s providence for the universe and man. It is clear how such a conclusion fits with the taste of thought that rejects God and believes in humanity. It is only incomprehensible how common sense can believe in the eternity of matter, rejecting its initial cause, and believe that movement in itself, the movement of anything, by one flow - even of eternal time - is capable of producing anything anyone can imagine. It will be a sad time, if it ever comes, when the new cult of humanity that is now being preached is established. The human personality will mean little in him; those that exist now, the moral barriers to violence and autocracy, will also be removed. In the name of doctrine, in order to achieve imaginary goals for the improvement of the breed, the most sacred interests of personal freedom will be sacrificed, without any twinge of conscience; However, there will be no mention of conscience under a view that denies the very idea of ​​conscience. Our reformers, having themselves been brought up in the circle of those ideas, concepts and sensations that they deny, are not able to imagine the terrible emptiness that the moral world will have when these concepts are expelled from it. Whatever the hobbies of the current legislator, ruler, current government of all kinds, the idea of ​​a human personality, of a personality that cannot be crushed the way an insect is crushed, still hangs over it constantly, although not always consciously. This idea has its root in the age-old concept that every person has a living soul, one and immortal, therefore having an unconditional existence that no human power can destroy. That is why among them there is no such villain and rapist who, in the midst of all his violence, would not look back at the living soul he tramples underfoot with some fear and respect. Take away this consciousness: what will our legislation, our government and our public life turn into? Champions of personal freedom of man strangely delude themselves when, in the name of this freedom, they join the emerging cult of humanity. Fortunately, we can hope that these new horizons, which humanitarian teaching will compensate us in the future, will never open for humanity, or at least will not open for everyone and not for long. What these horizons of a new faith and a new life could open up for us - we can judge only by some of the conclusions and political applications that are pointed out to us from time to time. Here is one example of such an application of Darwinism to the field of practical legislation. There is a special argument by Darwin “about the restrictions of marriage that are beneficial for humanity.” at the very beginning of the article, Darwin explains that one of the main ideas of Christianity is the idea of ​​​​the personal responsibility of each person for his soul and the independence of man, in his spiritual sphere, from other people. As a result, it is assumed that a person has the right to control his answer with his body. This idea and this right must, according to Darwin, give way to the action of the new law he discovered - his so-called evolutionary doctrine. A person has the right to dispose of his body and allow himself to satisfy bodily needs only to the extent that both are consistent with the normal development of the whole breed. So, as the science of Darwinism draws new conclusions and generalizations of the law of evolution from its observations of the facts of material life, legislation can and should constrain the personal freedom of man, even in satisfying his organic needs. Referring to statistical data collected in two or three scientific works on the physiological influence of heredity on the human body, Darwin claims that in England there is one insane person for every 500 people, that this madness occurs in most cases from a hereditary disposition towards it, transmitted by marriage and birth, and that the number of individual cases of insanity increases with time in geometric progression. So, the human race is threatened by the unlimited spread of evil, against which measures must be taken. We can agree with this conclusion. The whole point is what measures are needed. Darwin, from his point of view, proposes to restrict the freedom of marriage to the extreme for humanity. “It is necessary,” he says, “to improve and strengthen the physical organism in the human race; for this purpose we must invent an artificial remedy to replace the weakened power of natural selection. Only under this condition is progress in the human race possible. Mens sana in corpore sano [in a sound body - a sound spirit (lat.)]. The successes of medical art in this case serve not for the general benefit, but for harm. There is no doubt that in the mass of our civilized society the level of health has dropped to alarming proportions and that the art of medicine, by supporting weak organisms, will only increase evil for future generations. It is necessary, according to Darwin, to reduce the number of the weak who enter into competition with the strong in the struggle for existence.” and these are the means Darwin proposes to legislation for this purpose. All existing legal barriers to marriage must remain in force. Moreover, the law must: firstly, recognize the occurrence of certain illnesses in one of the spouses as a decisive reason for divorce. Which ones? Darwin gives a whole range of diseases transmitted by inheritance; we find here diseases of the lungs, stomach, liver, gout, scrofula, rheumatism and the like, so that any spouse who does not have Herculean health would have to tremble every day for the integrity of his marriage union, especially since its dissolution due to illness would be associated with the state interest, or, more correctly, with the interest of all mankind. and one might think that Darwin has in mind the application of this kind of investigative process to cases, because further, secondly, he proposes to introduce a general system of medical examination to certify the mentioned diseases, modeled on the examination system adopted in Germany to certify ability for military service. Thirdly, Darwin proposes the following rule. No one can enter into marriage without presenting proof that he has never suffered from attacks of insanity in his life. Not only that. He must also present his untainted pedigree, that is, prove that his parents and even further, ascending and lateral relatives, never had such attacks. All this is necessary, Darwin explains, in order for the capacity for happiness to be significantly increased among the mass of humanity, with the destruction of the main obstacle to happiness, that is, disease. “Is it possible to introduce such restrictions?” – Darwin himself asks, and answers: “Nothing! Do such restrictions still exist in various marriage laws? as proof, he cites three pages of examples from various legislations, most of all barbaric ones, referring at the same time to Prussia, and Siam, and China, and Madagascar, and the Ostyaks and Tungus. He seems to like every prohibition to marry and every reason for divorce. at the end of his speech, he does not even dwell on the simplest question that could be asked of him: what will the legal prohibitions of marriage serve when, in addition to marriage, it will be impossible to maintain natural cohabitation and, therefore, childbearing? Perhaps this question came to the author’s mind, but the example of Japan given in the same article seemed to him to be a sufficient answer, where prostitution is not only tolerated, but is even protected by the state, since it delays the excessive birth of people... This is how the supreme apostle of Darwinism himself judges! Obviously, the basic law of existence seems to him to be “protection of the strong and destruction of the weak.” and he apparently wants to elevate this very rule into a positive law for civil society. Here is an example of extreme enthusiasm for a one-sided idea of ​​one’s own invention. Apart from this, the future legislator of society sees nothing and does not recognize, apparently, any motives other than physiological ones in life and development. he does not mention moral motives at all. Strong and weak organisms appear to him as numbers, abstract quantities on which he makes mathematical calculations. He doesn’t even ask himself the question of whether his strong will really gain strength because all the weak will die? He does not want to know the truth that all strength increases from activity, from testing and exercise, and that the strong will have nothing to test and increase their strength when there are no weak ones requiring help and protection; that the weak themselves, growing under favorable conditions, can become stronger, achieve strength and become capable of passing it on to another generation. Finally, will the strong, who have survived the natural struggle, be able to serve to improve the breed if their strength is supported by a mechanical process at the expense of the weak? New Christianity without Christ A remarkable phenomenon of our time is the denial of the church with all its dogmas and institutions, rushing from everywhere, combined with the preaching of Christianity without Christ. Unrecognized teachers of various persuasions, united only in this denial, preach with zeal, reaching the point of fanaticism and mockery of any objection, a vague, not systematized, but imperative application to life of principles arbitrarily extracted and arbitrarily interpreted from the Gospel; but, at the same time, they deny the Gospel in its entirety and, together with the church, deny the head of the church - Jesus Christ, the God-man. They call this Christianity true, and that which was preached by the church from the beginning, false. In denial, it is easiest for people to unite: they are drawn to this by a common spirit of discontent and a vague desire for better. Everyone, concentrating on his own self, always selfish, self-willed, exclusive, renouncing in spirit from the world of his fellow men, comes to denial. Indignant against untruth and evil in human relations, he forgets about his own untruth, seeks to establish truth in humanity and forgets that every person is divided in himself - he wants what he does not do, and does what he does not want, and that the life of humanity takes place over thousands and millions of years and falls into eternity; that at the same pace there is an intermittent and painful evolution of truth in humanity, by which the eternal laws, written from time to time, are violated and desecrated from time to time. The church, they say, set itself up as the guardian of these laws: it did not know how to implement them in reality; its building is dilapidated, its work is full of dead formalities, superstitions, deceptions and abuses. We must destroy this building and announce the new law of love and truth to humanity: we will destroy the church. The easiest way to improve institutions, according to innovators, is to destroy existing ones. Neo-Christians also begin with this, but in place of the destroyed institution they are not able to build a new one; setting the law of their invention, they do not want and do not know how to create anything for the storage and implementation of the law, which is possible in human nature, as if the law itself should act independently and by itself unite humanity for a new life. Before you deny the church and its beliefs, you need to know it. and in order to know it, it is not enough to study its dogmas, institutions and customs externally. The Church is a living organism, a collection of believing souls; and in order to know the church, you need to enter the soul of the people who make up the church, you need to live one life with the people, as with equal brothers, without putting yourself above the people, without treating them with only denial, as an ignorant and wild crowd. But the self-appointed prophets of neo-Christianity are incapable of this; and therefore, when they denounce vices, evil, and lies in the life of the church, in these denunciations there is no love, but only the pride of self-sufficient thought and the malice of irritation are heard; there is not that fiery desire for correction and improvement, that ardent hope for the victory of love and truth that is heard in the speeches of Christ, and denunciations filled with a proud spirit lead only to bare denial. Where does all this come from? One cannot help but think that the ideal of the present age, the end point of progress in humanity, is now becoming a self-sufficient self, striving in human form to rise above humanity and to be its own law. Such, apparently, are the ideals of the latest philosophical teachings, such are the heroes of the favorite novels, dramas and poems in the latest literature. The ideal person seems to be the one who puts himself as the ultimate goal of his actions and looks at other people as a tool for his own exaltation. To be yourself, to listen only to your own will and your desire, to recognize nothing and no one above yourself, beyond yourself - this is the ideal of a person striving to be a superman. Under this thought, which is essentially monstrously absurd, others lay the foundation for another thought: all this must be achieved by man in the midst of society in order to, having mastered it, subjugate it for his own good and establish in him the kingdom of love and brotherhood. But no philosophy can recognize such a foundation. What comes from egoism and is based on egoism, there cannot be any rudiments of love and devotion, and the one who has consciously imprisoned himself in his ego cannot throw it off and free himself. True, for activities devoted to the public good, it is not soulless, indifferent and characterless people that are needed, but persons with character and conscience, and such a person must be cultivated by anyone who wants to serve society. But a personality in the moral sense can be formed and achieve development only through the intercourse of a person with others like himself: in this way only a person can develop dignity in himself. But when a person begins by alienating the society in the midst of which he lives, subjecting it to contempt, in order to cultivate in his alienation his proud, whimsical self and then assign to himself the mission of completely ruining this society and creating a new one in its place according to his plan; there is no wisdom in this, but only madness. However, today this madness is elevated to an ideal, artistically depicted by thinkers and poets. and behind them, without reasoning, carried away by talent, the crowd strives in a herd movement, admiring the heroes and heroines of idealized egoism. One after another, self-proclaimed prophets of insane autonomy of thought and action, prophets of social reform, prophets of anarchy and villainy, prophets of new beliefs that deny religion, appear. and when an artist of thought and words takes on this, he attracts a crowd of admirers. Many hobbies, which, despite the internal inconsistency of the teaching, often reach the point of enthusiasm, are explained by the strength of its artistic design. When an idea - whatever it is - takes possession of a brilliant artist of thought and speech, he can apply all the power of his talent to its development and erect on it a building that amazes with the beauty and harmony of logical conclusions from an idea that is essentially false. But the crowd, carried away by its delight, is incapable of recognizing this basic lie. and the creator-artist, carried away by both his creation and the delights of his fans, little by little himself enters into the role of a prophet, called upon to renew humanity with a new idea and send its enthusiastic preachers - his disciples - to all corners. Our time is replete with teachings based on the principles of extreme materialism, which denies spiritual power in the life of mankind. Divided into many separate systems and doctrines under different names (positivism, naturalism, agnosticism, utilitarianism, extreme socialism, anarchism and others), these teachings, having developed into a scientific and artistic structure, proliferated in an extensive literature, acquired many enthusiastic fans, have endless means of propaganda through the printed and spoken word and are little by little taking possession of the minds of the growing generation. This creates the ground for unbelief, for frivolous criticism of the church and frivolous alienation from it. But having moved away from their church, in which they were born, people cannot renounce many sensations and impressions of their society, generated and nurtured by centuries of Christian teaching. Experience shows that where the roots of faith have dried up, there still remain the roots of superstition, everywhere often mixed with shallow faith. There remains some feeling of the spirit in life, some fear of the line separating spirit from matter. Hence, what is noticed everywhere in our century, similar to what happened in the age of decomposition of Roman pagan culture, is the search for some kind of faith: on the one hand, the proliferation of superstitions, sometimes wild and monstrous, creating a special cult for themselves, on the other, the desire to find an answer to the needs of the spirit in Mohammedanism and Buddhism; and, finally, the desire to create a new religion on rational principles, putting into it, by inspiration of fantasy, moral rules taken from the Gospel - a religion of love called purified Christianity. Denying the church, destroying every fence of church faith and church unity, the apostles of these teachings want to create instead of the church some kind of worldwide brotherhood of imaginary followers of Christ, dissolving in love - without faith in Christ. Having condemned the church, which for centuries has failed to realize the kingdom of God on earth, they themselves dream of achieving this with their teaching, establishing love, general contentment, equality without vice or crime: behold, they preach, the true goal of our teaching is the implementation of the kingdom of love and peace on earth. A vain dream, a vain confusion of human minds and hearts. Religion cannot exist without faith, and this new, imaginary Christianity - in whom and what does it believe and on what, except for the poor human word, does it affirm its commandments and its dreamy aspiration for the kingdom of love and truth on earth? This teaching walks the earth and does not have what the Church of Christ lives by - the desire for heaven. in the Church this striving is not idle or dreamy, because it has a living goal, a living image of Christ the Savior - the God-Man. Faith cannot rest on one teaching, no matter how pure and sublime it may be; cannot hold on to one collection of dogmas. They may preach life, but there is no life in them yet. The life of the Christian Church is in the person of Christ, the God-man, in whom the eternally ideal being of the Divine was incarnated and appeared to man. He, having appeared, took possession of the whole soul of man and showed him the Heavenly Father. Christianity cannot exist without Christ, and Christ’s covenant is not to establish on earth a kingdom from this world, a kingdom of universal contentment, prosperity and peace: His kingdom is not of this world. In the essence of existence, according to His law, joy is placed, but not happiness, not peace, not material well-being, but with the joy of the spirit and with service to one’s neighbor - sacrifice, bearing the yoke of Christ, the cross, the bliss of the poor in spirit and those who cry, liberation from sin and - eternal life. Whoever wants to remove all this from Christianity destroys it at the very root and the flattering dreams of a proud thought erects it in the place of the eternal truth of Christ. Old institutions, old legends, old customs are a great thing. The people value them as the ark of the covenant of their ancestors. But as history has often seen, as we often see today, people’s governments do not value them, considering them old rubbish that needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible. They are vilified mercilessly, they are rushed to be poured into new forms and they are expected to immediately be infused with a new spirit. But this expectation rarely comes true. The old institution is so precious and irreplaceable because it was not invented, but created by life, came out of past life, from history, and was sanctified in popular opinion by the authority that history and... history alone gives. This authority cannot be replaced by anything else, because its roots are in that part of existence where moral bonds are most firmly connected and deeply affirmed - namely, in the unconscious part of existence. It is in vain that others believe that it can be replaced by the consciousness of the idea of ​​​​a newly introduced institution, which they want to graft into popular thought; only individuals can quickly assimilate such a consciousness through rational power and find in it a source of inspiration and faith. Such consciousness is inaccessible to the masses; when they want to graft it onto her from the outside, it is refracted, crushed, distorted in her, arousing false and fantastic ideas. The masses assimilate an idea only by direct feeling, which is nurtured and established in it only by history, passed on from generation to generation, from generation to generation. It is possible to destroy this tradition, but it is impossible to arbitrarily restore it. In the depths of old institutions there often lies an idea that is deeply true, directly flowing from the foundations of the people’s spirit, and although it is sometimes difficult to recognize and comprehend this idea under the many external growths, covers and forms with which it is clothed, which have lost their original meaning in the new world, the people comprehend it by instinct, and therefore firmly hold on to institutions in the forms familiar to them. He stands for them, with all the shells, sometimes ugly and, apparently, meaningless, because he instinctively protects the grain of truth hidden under them, protects against frivolous encroachment. This grain is most precious because it expressed the primordial need of the spirit by an ancient institution, it reflected the truth hidden in the depths of the spirit. Both the needs and the forms with which the institution is clothed are crude: a crude form is the product of a crude custom, a crude disposition, external poverty, a transitory and accidental phenomenon. When morals change for the better, then the form will be spiritualized and ennobled. Let's cleanse the inside, raise the people's spirit, illuminate and bring into consciousness the idea, then the rough form will disintegrate by itself and give way to another, more perfect one; the external will become pure and simple by itself. But popular reformers do not want to know this when they become furious with indignation at the rudeness of the form and the abuse of ancient institutions. Because of rituals and forms, they forget about the essence of the institution and are ready to destroy it completely, seeing nothing in it except rudeness and ritual superstition. They themselves think that they have passed through it, experienced it and can do without it, but they forget about the millions to whom it is available, as they live and develop spiritually, only in this crude ritual. Break it in the minds of the people - and the people, who only know it, will lose an entire institution with ritual, will lose, perhaps forever, the opportunity to again grasp the idea embedded in it by their ancestors and clothe it in a new form. Wouldn't it be better to start the transformation from within, first to enlighten the people's spirit, deepen the idea in it, purify and enrich its moral and mental life? Then the idea would have been saved, and there would have been no violence in people’s life, and the crude form would have spontaneously transformed into a new one. “The great thing,” says Carlyle, “is the existing, the real, that which arose from the bottomless abysses of theory and possibility, formed and stands between us as a definitive, indisputable fact, on which people live and act, lived and acted. It is not for nothing that people hold on to it so tightly while it still stands, and leave it with such sorrow when it crumbles and leaves. Beware, come to your senses, enthusiastic admirer of change and transformation! Have you thought what custom means in the life of mankind, how wonderful all our knowledge, all our practice is suspended over the endless abyss of the unknown, not done - and our whole being is like an endless abyss, across which the bridge of custom is thrown, a thin layer of earth, folded by centuries-old work... “This earthen bridge is a system of customs, certain ways of believing and doing: without it, there will be no society. with him it sticks; for better or for worse – it exists. in them, in these customs, is the true code of laws, the true constitution of society; the only, albeit unwritten, code, which in no way can not be recognized, which cannot be disobeyed. What we call a written code, a constitution, a way of government - isn’t all this a miniature image, an extract of the same unwritten code? Yes, this is how the written law should be and this is what it always strives to be, but it never happens, and in this contradiction is the beginning of an endless struggle... But if in custom you feel a lie, and this lie oppresses you, should you leave it, should you respect it, should you destroy it? Yes, do not put up with lies and destroy lies, but remember in what spirit you destroy: see that not in the spirit of hatred and malice, not with the violence of selfishness and self-confidence, but in purity of heart, with holy zeal for the truth, with tenderness, with compassion. Look, when destroying a lie, are you not replacing it with a new lie, your untruth, from which new lies and untruths will be born? If so, your last ones will be worse than your first..." Because of freedom, there has been an age-old battle in the world of human institutions and relationships, but where is it, this freedom, if it is not in the human soul? From everywhere, reason takes up arms against old authorities and strives to destroy them, apparently for the sake of freedom, but in fact in order to put in their place the authorities of the present moment, newly invented today, perhaps only so that tomorrow they will be replaced by even new ones. The modern preacher of reason and freedom looks contemptuously at Orthodox believers because they adhere to the faith that they accepted in the church from their fathers and grandfathers, and remain faithful to tradition; but has he really developed from himself what he considers his main opinions about the church and about the main subjects of spiritual life? He ridicules the reverent feeling of a church person and calls it superstition. and he himself has the so-called public opinion behind him and binds him with reverent fear: isn’t this the greatest of superstitions? Our past is dear to us, and we respect history. He laughs, he despises the past and believes in the present; But how is this worship of the present better than our feelings, ridiculed by him? They tell us: throw off the yoke of the law, break the age-old chains of tradition, and you will be free... But what kind of freedom is that, when at the same time the present status quoK is elevated to us as a law and falls on us with a yoke even heavier than before, when, instead of the infallible and inspired Scripture, which is taken away from us, they tell us to believe in the infallibility of the opinion of the crowd of the people and want us to hear in the majority of voices the indisputable and the infallible voice of truth! III. Old leaves (from Sallet) Plucking dried leaves from a tree, You will not wake up sleeping nature, You will not call, through snow and bad weather, Spring greenery, spring warmth! The time will come - the warmth of spring will die, life and strength will flow in the frozen juices, and the withered leaf will fall away by itself, As soon as the fresh leaf on the branch unfurls. Then the old leaf under the sun's ray, Sensing life, it will come into spring fermentation: in it, new growth is being prepared on the ground, the younger generation will find fresh juice in it... Spring did not come with the intention of angrily ruining The fruit of the past centuries and the work in the new world: It is the great destiny to create and fulfill: He who destroys is small in the kingdom of Christ. Don't be a creator when you are led There is only proud contempt for the past. The spirit created the old: only in the old will it find A solid foundation for a new creation. The prophets and the law will forever be true, In a single line - the eternal meaning lurks, And in the new truth only that should be revealed, Which has had a deep meaning since ancient times. The purest grain is stored, And sprouts through the dust, So that under the sun's ray To develop into a mighty tree. In the desert, scorched by the heat of the day, Wherever the cry of corvids is heard, Under a pile of hot stones Hidden life-giving spring The water is clear and cold. Where the sun's ray has faded away forever In the abyss of the cold bottom of the sea, Pearls that sparkle for the eyes Beneath the rough stone crust The precious diamond lurks; But the mlat crushes layer by layer - Diamond extracted from stone. Isn't that how the world is destined? By the will of the secret of Providence, Temptations, lies and delusions? So that the wonderful gift of living water, To the world in boundless streams, In sinful and meager vessels? The web of lies does not drown out, From evil and death triumph It does not cloud the vessels of sinners, It will never be eclipsed by darkness. Only a fool can have clear thoughts and ideas about everything. The most precious concepts that the human mind contains are in the very depths of the field, and in the twilight; Around these vague ideas, which we are unable to bring into connection with each other, clear thoughts revolve, expand, develop, and rise. If we were cut off from this background, only geometers and intelligent animals would remain in this world; even the exact sciences would lose their present greatness in it, depending on their hidden relationship to other infinite truths, which we only guess and into which only at times we seem to glimpse. The unknown is man’s most precious asset: it is not for nothing that Plato teaches that everything in this world is a weak image of the supreme economy. It even seems that the main effect of the beauty that we see is to excite the thought of a higher beauty that we do not see, and the charm produced, for example, by great poets, consists not so much in the pictures they depict, but in those distant echoes that they awaken in us and that come from the invisible world. A life bursting with youth, desire and passion, a life filled with pleasure, a life under the unceasing sunshine, plunges a person into a dream from which one does not want to part - a dream filled with enchanting visions and sweet sensations. But this dream is someday interrupted by grief, care, disappointment, the fall of happiness and truth. The sun disappears, night comes with all the fears of the night. But in the middle of this night, in the vault of heaven, the heavenly bodies appear to the troubled soul, in their mysterious beauty, which she did not see or feel in the sun’s radiance. Then the mysterious embraces and humbles the troubled soul, and the luminaries of childhood and youth rise to the forefront - the simplicity of the first sensations, the caresses and covenants of disinterested parental love, the forgotten lessons of God-reverence and duty - everything that, together with the beginning of existence, arose for a person from eternity, and nourished, and taught, and illuminated the beginnings of young life. The soul had to plunge into the darkness of the night in order for its heavenly bodies to be revealed to it from the depths of the past. Carus, in his famous work “On the Soul” (Psyche), says that the key to understanding the essence of the conscious life of the soul lies in the region of the unconscious. in his book he explores the mutual relationship of the conscious and the unconscious in human life and expresses many deep thoughts. “The Divine in us,” he says, what we call the soul, is not something that has stopped once at a certain moment, but is something constantly transformed in a constant process of development, destruction and new formation; every phenomenon that occurs in time is a continuation or development of the past and contains within itself the hope of the future. A person’s conscious life decomposes into separate moments of time, and only a vague idea of ​​his being in the past and future is available to her, while the present minute eludes it, because as soon as it appears, it already passes into the past. Bringing all these moments to unity, the consciousness of the present, that is, finding a true solid point between the present and the future, is possible only in the area of ​​the unconscious, that is, where there is no time, but there is eternity. The well-known myths of Greek antiquity about Epimetheus and Prometheus have a deep meaning, and it was not without reason that Greek wisdom connected them with the highest development of mankind. All organic life reminds us of these two reverse sides of the creative idea in the region of the unconscious. both in the plant world and in the animal world, every impulse, every form lets us know, when we think about it, that there is something here that returns us to the past, to what has appeared and existed before, and predicts to us something that will be formed and appear in the future. The deeper we think about these properties of phenomena, the more convinced we are that everything that in conscious life we ​​call memory, recollection, and everything, in particular, that we call foresight and foreknowledge, all this serves only as the faintest reflection of the clarity and determination with which these properties of memory and foresight are revealed in unconscious life.” Carus's work examines cases in which the conscious life of the soul, suspended, sometimes suddenly passes into the realm of the unconscious. “It is remarkable,” he says, “the sudden and involuntary emergence in our soul of ideas and images that have long disappeared from it, as well as their sudden disappearance from our consciousness, while they are preserved and observed, however, in the depths of the unconscious soul.” Ideas about persons, objects, places, etc., even other special feelings and sensations, sometimes for a long time seem to have completely disappeared, when suddenly they wake up and arise again with all their vividness, and thereby prove that they were not really lost. There have been some very amazing cases in which at once consciousness with extraordinary clarity extended to the whole circle of life with all its ideas. There is a well-known case of this kind with an Englishman who was exposed to the strong effects of opium: once, during a period of strong excitement, before the onset of complete dullness of feelings, he was presented with an unusually clear and complete picture of his entire previous life with all its ideas and sensations. The same thing, they say, happened to one girl when she fell into the water and drowned, just before completely losing consciousness. Carus does not provide details and does not refer to evidence of the above case: many, no doubt, have also heard similar stories in a vague form. But here is the only one known to us, an interesting and completely reliable story about a similar event from the very person with whom it happened. This happened to the very famous English admiral Beaufort, in Portsmouth, when in his youth he capsized his boat in the sea and went to the bottom, not knowing how to swim. He was pulled out of the water and subsequently, according to the conviction of the famous doctor Wollaston, he wrote down a strange story of his sensations. Here is the story in its entirety. Describing the circumstances under which the fall took place, he says: “I convey all this either from a vague memory or from the stories of witnesses; In the first minute, the drowning man himself is completely absorbed in the feeling of his death and the struggle between hope and despair. But what followed, I can testify to with full consciousness: a sudden and such an extraordinary revolution took place in my spirit at that moment that all its circumstances remain to this day as fresh and vivid in my memory as if it happened to me yesterday. from the moment all movement in me ceased (which was, I believe, the consequence of complete suffocation), a quiet feeling of complete calm replaced all the previous rebellious sensations; one might perhaps call it a state of apathy; but there was no dull submission to fate here, because there was not the slightest suffering here, there was not the slightest thought of death or the possibility of salvation. On the contrary, the feeling was rather pleasant, something like that dull but satisfied state that occurs before sleep after severe fatigue. My feelings were thus dulled, but something completely opposite happened to my spirit. The activity of the spirit was revived to a degree exceeding any description; thoughts began to arise after thoughts with such a speed that no one can not only describe, but also comprehend, unless he himself has experienced a similar state. I can now trace the course of these thoughts to a large extent, starting with the very event that just happened, the awkwardness that was its cause, the confusion that arose from it (I saw two people jump off board after me), the effect that it was supposed to have on my tender father, the announcement of the terrible news to the whole family; a thousand other circumstances closely connected with my home life: this is what the first series of thoughts consisted of. Then the circle of these thoughts began to expand further: our last voyage appeared, the first voyage with the wreck that happened, my school life, my successes, all the mistakes, stupidities, pranks, all the small adventures and undertakings of that time. and so further and further back, every incident of my past life passed through my memories in progressively reverse order, and not in a general outline, as shown here, but as a living picture in all the smallest features and details. In a word, the whole history of my existence passed before me, as if in a panorama, and every event in it with me was connected with the consciousness of truth or untruth or with the thought of its causes and consequences; amazingly, even the smallest, most insignificant facts, long forgotten, all almost resurrected in my imagination, and, moreover, as familiar and vividly as if they had happened recently. Doesn’t all this point to the limitless power of our memory, doesn’t it prophesy that we, with all the fullness of this power, will wake up in another world, will be forced to contemplate our past life in all its fullness? and on the other hand, doesn’t all this justify the belief that death is only a change in our existence, in which, therefore, there is no real interval or break? Be that as it may, one circumstance that is extremely remarkable is that the countless ideas that flashed through my soul, every one of them were turned to the past. I was brought up in the rules of faith. My thoughts about the future life and the hopes and fears connected with them have not lost any of their original strength, and at other times the mere possibility of imminent death would have aroused terrible excitement in me; but at that inexplicable moment, when I was completely convinced that the line separating me from eternity had already been crossed, not a single thought about the future entered my soul, I was completely immersed in the past. How much time I was occupied by this stream of ideas, or, better to say, into what fraction of the time they were all squeezed in, I cannot now determine exactly; but, without a doubt, not even two minutes passed from the moment I was suffocated to the minute when I was pulled out of the water. When life began to return, the feeling was in all respects the opposite of before. One simple but vague thought—the pitiful idea that I was drowning—gravitated over my soul instead of the many clear and definite ideas that had just flown through it. Helpless melancholy, like a nightmare, suppressed all my sensations, preventing the formation of any definite thought, and I was hardly convinced that I was really alive. While drowning, I did not feel the slightest physical pain; and now excruciating pain tormented my entire composition: I have never experienced such suffering subsequently, despite the fact that I was wounded several times and often underwent severe surgical operations. Once a bullet shot through my lungs: I lay for several hours at night on the deck and, bleeding from other wounds, finally lost consciousness in a faint. Without doubting that the wound to the lungs was fatal, of course, at the moment of fainting I had a complete feeling of death. But at that moment I did not experience anything similar to what was happening in my soul when I was drowning; and when I came to my senses after fainting, I immediately came to a clear consciousness of my actual state.” The more clearly the distinctive tribal features of each religion are identified in the mind, the more convinced one becomes of what an unattainable and dreamy task it is to unite religions in one artificial, far-fetched agreement on dogma, at the beginning of mutual concessions in parts of no importance. What is essential in each religion is hardly possible to express, to find out on paper or in a certain form. The most essential, the most persistent and precious in church belief is elusive, inaccessible to definition, like a variety of light and shadows, like a feeling formed from an endless series of successive sensations, ideas and impressions. The most essential is connected and intertwined with many such subtle roots with the mental nature of each tribe and with the general principles of the moral worldview that have developed in it that it is impossible to separate one from the other. People of different tribes and different churches can, in many respects, when meeting in mutual communication, feel like brothers and shake hands with each other; but in order for them to feel like brothers in one church, united in religious communion of spirit, for this they need to live together for a long time, understand each other in the whole life situation and intertwine with each other in the innermost roots of the depths of their soul. So sometimes a German who has lived in Russia for a long time unconsciously gets used to believing in Russian and feels at home in the Russian church. Then he comes to us, becomes one of ours, and his communication with us is complete, spiritual. But it is impossible to imagine that this or that society of Protestants, standing far from us, judging us by ear, could, by book or abstract agreement on dogmas and rituals, unite with us into one church in an organic union and become one with us in spirit. Until now, not a single church union based on agreement has ever succeeded: sooner or later the false beginning of such a union was discovered, and its fruit was everywhere the increase not of love, but of mutual alienation or even hatred. God forbid that we reproach each other for our faith; Let everyone believe in their own way, as is most congenial to them. But everyone has a faith in which he feels safe, which he likes, which he loves; and you can’t help but feel when you approach another faith, not akin to one, not sympathetic, that here is not what we have; It’s unpleasant and cold here; I wouldn't want to live here. Let the mind speak with abstract reasoning: after all, they pray to the same God. Feeling cannot always agree with this reasoning; Sometimes it seems to the feeling that in a strange church it is as if they are praying to the wrong God. Many will laugh at this feeling, perhaps calling it superstition, fanaticism. In vain. Feelings are not always deceptive; it sometimes reveals the truth more directly and truly than in reasoning. in a Protestant church, in a Protestant belief, it is cold and unpleasant for a Russian person. Moreover, if faith is dear to him as life, he feels that calling this church his own is the same as dying for him. This is the immediate feeling. But there are many reasonable reasons for this feeling. Here is one of them, which is especially striking in its obviousness. In theological polemics, in disputes between religions, in the conscience of every person and every tribe, one of the main questions is the question of deeds. What is most important – works or faith? It is known that Latin theology and Protestant theology still argue on this issue. The late Khomyakov in his theological writings perfectly explained the extent to which the scholastic absolute formulation of this question is deceptive. The unification of faith with deed, as well as the identification of word with thought, deed with word, is an ideal unattainable for human nature, just as everything unconditional is unattainable... an ideal that eternally excites and eternally convicts the believing soul. Faith without works is dead; faith, contrary to deeds, torments a person with the consciousness of inner lies, but in the vast world of appearance that embraces a person, and in the face of endless eternity, what does deed or all kinds of deeds mean without faith? Show me your faith by your works - a terrible question! What should a confident person answer when asked by an examiner who seeks to know the truth through action? Let us assume that a Protestant asks an Orthodox person such a question. What will the Orthodox answer to him? You'll have to put your head down. One feels that there is nothing to show, that everything has not been tidied up, everything has not been started, everything is covered in rubble. But after a minute you can raise your head and say: we are sinful people and there is nothing to show us, but you are not righteous either. But come to us yourself, live with us: and you will see our faith, and feel our feeling, and maybe you will fall in love with us. and you will see for yourself what our deeds are. After such an answer, ninety-nine out of a hundred will leave us with a contemptuous grin. in essence, the whole point is that we don’t know how to show our deeds against faith, and we don’t dare. And they show. and they know how to show, and, to tell the truth, they have something to show, in perfect order - affairs and institutions created, preserved and strengthened over centuries. “Look,” says the Catholic Church, “what I meant and what I mean in the life of the society that listens to me and serves me, what I created and what is held by me. These are the works of love, these are the works of faith, these are the works of apostleship, these are the feats of martyrdom, these are the faithful regiments, like one man, which I send to the ends of the universe. Is it not clear that grace abides with me and in us from the beginning to this day?” “Look,” says the Protestant Church, “I do not tolerate lies, deception and superstition. I bring deeds into conformity and reason into agreement with faith. By faith I have sanctified work, everyday relationships, family life, by faith I eradicate idleness and superstition, I establish honesty, justice and public order. I teach every day, and my teaching, close to life, educates entire generations in the habit of honest work and good morals. Humanity is called to be renewed by my teaching - in virtue and in truth. I am called to eradicate with the sword words and deeds, depravity and hypocrisy everywhere. Is it not clear that the power of God is with me, because I have the true vision of religion?” Protestants still argue with Catholics about the dogmatic meaning of the matter in relation to faith. But despite the complete opposite of theological views on this subject, both of them put the matter at the head of their religion. Only among the Latins does deed serve as justification, atonement, as a testimony to grace. Lutherans, on the other hand, look at business, and in connection with business, religion itself, from a practical point of view. It is as if the matter turns into the purpose for which religion exists, becomes a touchstone on which religious and ecclesiastical truth is tested, and this is the point at which, more than any other, our religious thought diverges from the religious thought of Protestantism. Without a doubt, the view now expressed does not constitute a dogmatic position in the Lutheran Church, but it permeates all of its teaching. Undoubtedly, there is a very important practical side to it, for life here, for this world; and that is why many, even among us, are sometimes ready to hold up the Protestant Church as a model and ideal for our church. But the Russian person, in the depths of his believing soul, will never accept such a view. Piety is useful for everything and according to the apostolic word; but this is only one of the natural accessories of piety. A Russian person knows no less than anyone else that one must live by faith, and he feels how little his life resembles faith; but he places the essence and goal of his faith not in practical life, but in spiritual salvation, and with the love of the church union he seeks to embrace everyone - from the righteous man living by faith to that thief who, despite his deeds, was forgiven in one minute. This practical basis of Protestantism is nowhere more clearly expressed than in the Anglican Church and in the spirit of the religious outlook of the English nation. It is consistent with the character of the nation, developed in its history - to direct thought and activity everywhere towards practical goals, to persistently and steadily achieve success and in everything to choose those paths and methods that lead closer and more surely to success. This natural desire had to seek a moral basis for itself, to develop a moral theory for itself; and it is no wonder that moral principles found sanction for themselves in a religious view corresponding to a certain character. Religion, undoubtedly, sanctifies the moral principle of activity, teaches how to live and act on earth, requires hard work, honesty, and truth. One cannot but agree with this position. But from this position, a practical view of religion goes directly to the question: what kind of religion does one have who lives in idleness, is dishonest and deceitful, is depraved, disorderly, and does not know how to support himself? Such a person is a pagan, not a Christian; only the Christian who lives according to the law and demonstrates in himself the power of the Christian law. The reasoning appears to be logically correct. But who does not have a question in their soul: what about the publicans and harlots in the world and in the Church, those who, according to the word of Christ, often precede the righteous of the Church in the Kingdom of God? Of course, it would be strange to assume that such a view of religion constitutes a positive formula for church belief in England. Such a formula would be a clear denial of the Gospel teaching. But such is precisely the spirit of religious opinion among the most conscientious and zealous representatives of the so-called “national ecclesiastical institution”, who defend and praise the Anglican Church as the first stronghold of the State - the bulwark of the State - and as the main expression of the national spirit. in English literature, both spiritual and secular, this view is sometimes expressed in very sharp forms, in words before which the thought of the Russian reader stops with bewilderment, similar to horror. There is an essay remarkable for its depth and thoroughness of thought, written by a man who was obviously a believer, deeply and zealously devoted to his church. This is what is said here, by the way, about religion. “Some religions are obviously unfavorable to the sense of public duty. Others have nothing to do with him, and of those religions that favor him (these are, to a greater or lesser extent, all forms of the Christian faith), some act on him with special, others with less force. It can be said that those religions in which the image of an infinitely wise and powerful legislator dominates over all are most powerful in this sense. His personal existence is unsearchable for the human mind; but he created the world as the world is, he created it for a race of people who are prudent, firm and courageous in spirit and stable; for those who themselves are not mad and not cowardly and do not really favor madmen and cowards, know firmly what they need, and with determination use all legal means to achieve it. Such and such a religion constitutes the silent but deeply rooted conviction of the English nation, in its best, most respectable representatives. They represent an anvil on which many hammers have already been beaten, and even more will be beaten, regardless of any enthusiasts and humanitarian dreamers.” (Stephen. Liberty, equality, fraternity).K This is the concept of religion that a confident Anglican Protestant can reach. The written words essentially contain a direct distortion of the Gospel word; they seem to say: blessed are the mighty and mighty in action: the kingdom belongs to them. Yes, we say, the kingdom of earth, but not the kingdom of heaven. The author does not make this reservation, but does not distinguish between the earthly and the heavenly. What a terrible, what a desperate doctrine! This mood of religious thought undoubtedly had the greatest practical significance in Protestant countries, and especially in England, and in this sense one cannot but agree that Protestantism was a strong and beneficial engine of social development among those tribes whose nature it corresponded to and who accepted it. But isn’t it obvious, at the same time, that some tribes, by their nature, cannot accept it and submit to it, because precisely in this view of Protestantism they do not feel a vital religious principle, they see not unity, but a division of religious consciousness, not a living truth, but a construct of thought and seduction. “Woe to the weak and falling! Woe to the vanquished!” Of course, in this life this is an immutable truth, and the rule of worldly wisdom tells everyone: fight, gain strength and keep the strength within yourself if you want to live; there is no place in the world for the weak. But to give this rule an unconditional, as if dogmatic force in a religious sense - this is what our soul does not accept, just as it does not accept the terrible Calvinian teaching, akin to Protestantism, that some are called from eternity to virtue, to glory, to salvation and bliss, while others are condemned from eternity, and no matter what they do in life, everything drags them into the abyss of despair and eternal torment. It is scary to read other English writers in whom this string of Anglican Protestantism resonates with particular force. in Carlyle, for example, worship of the strength and talent of the winner and contempt for the vanquished reaches the point of enthusiastic pathos. Contemplating his heroes, strong people, he honors the embodiment of the divine in them and with subtle contemptuous humor speaks of those weak and unfortunate, clumsy and fallen, who were crushed by the victorious chariot. His hero embodies the idea of ​​light and order, in the darkness and disorder of cosmic chaos; his hero builds his own universe; and everything that meets him on the road and does not know how to submit to him, and serves him, and does not have its own strength to overcome him, dies with dignity and righteousness. Carlyle's enormous talent captivates the reader, but it is difficult to read his historical poems and see how often he uses the name of God in vain in the struggle of the strong with the weak. among the pagans of the classical period and among those near the victorious chariot, there was sometimes a jester who, serving as a representative of the moral principle, was supposed to pursue with his jokes not the vanquished, but the winner himself. The most difficult thing to read is Froude, the famous historian of the English Reformation and the most prominent representative of English national principles among historians in the church and in politics. Carlyle is at least a poet; but Froude speaks in the calm tone of a historian, loves dialectics - and there is no lawlessness that he would not justify with his dialectics in favor of his favorite idea; there is no hypocrisy that he would not build into the truth, proving the truth of the reform and its main figures. He stands unshakably, fanatically, on the foundations of Anglican orthodoxy, and his main basis is the consciousness of public duty, devoted to the state idea and the law, and the inexorable pursuit of vice, crime, idleness and everything that is called betrayal of duty. All this is beautiful in human affairs; But what is it like to put such a rule as the basis and goal of a religious view if you think that each of these sacred words - duty, law, vice, and crime - is given special significance by each party at every moment, and what among people today is called truth and valor, for which tomorrow they are executed as for a lie and a crime. There is no place left for mercy, for compassion in Froude’s beliefs: how can mercy be reconciled with indignation at what is considered a vice, a crime, a violation of the law? Referring to the terrible executions to which the innocent, as well as the guilty, were so often subjected at that time, the strict judge of human affairs says this about his people: “The English are a strict and harsh people, they do not know compassion where there is no legitimate reason to allow compassion; on the contrary, they are filled with sacred and solemn horror of crime - a feeling that, as it develops in the soul, necessarily hardens it and forms an iron character. A person of strict disposition is inclined to tenderness only when there is still a place for good in the midst of evil, and good is still fighting against evil; but in view of the complete corruption and evil, no compassion is conceivable; it is only possible when we mix crime with misfortune in our hearts.” What contempt the author must feel for a Russian person who truly has such confusion in his soul and who from time immemorial calls the criminal unfortunate. Just as personal character, like the character of a tribe, so the character of each church, in connection with the tribe that has adopted it, has both its advantages and its disadvantages. The merits of Protestantism have become sufficiently clear in the history of the Germanic and Anglo-Saxon tribes. The Puritan spirit created present-day Britain. The Protestant beginning led Germany to strength, to discipline and to unity. But on the other side of it there are such shortcomings, such aspirations of religious self-consciousness that we cannot sympathize with. Protestantism - like any spiritual force - is prone to fall precisely in that in which it places its fundamental spiritual foundations. Striving for absolute truth, for the purification of belief, for the implementation of belief in life, it is too prone to believe in its own truth and get carried away to the point of proud worship of its own truth and to the point of contempt for someone else’s belief, which is identified with untruth. Hence, on the one hand, there is a danger of falling into hypocrisy and Pharisaic pride. and indeed, many voices are heard from the Protestant world who are bitterly aware that hypocrisy is the plague of strict Lutheranism. on the other hand, having begun with a sermon about tolerance, about freedom of thought and belief, Protestantism in its further development showed a tendency towards fanaticism of a special kind, towards the fanaticism of a proud mind and self-confident righteousness over all other types of belief. Strict Protestantism treats with contempt any belief that seems to it unclean, unspiritual, full of superstitions and external rituals, everything that it itself has discarded as slave bonds, as children's clothing, as an accessory of ignorance. Having created for himself a code of beliefs and rituals, he considers his confession to be the confession of the elect, enlightened and reasonable, and he is inclined to consider all those who adhere to the old church as people of a lower kind, unable to rise to true understanding. This contemptuous attitude towards other beliefs is perhaps unconsciously expressed in Protestantism; but it is too noticeable for those of other faiths. No religion is free from a greater or lesser tendency to fanaticism; but it’s funny to hear when Lutherans come to us with accusations of fanaticism. In our country, with tolerance for any belief inherent in our national character, there are, of course, isolated cases of exclusivity and narrowness of church views, but there has never been and cannot be anything like the contempt with which a strict Lutheran looks at the incomprehensible for him, but for us, filled with deep spiritual significance, belonging to our church and the properties of our belief. In nothing more clearly than in the church is the difference between the public spirit and the mindset of the Anglo-Saxon and, for example, the Russian tribe. In the English church, more strongly than anywhere else, the Russian person has this thought: there is a lot of good here, but still, how glad I am that I was born and live in Russia. In our church you can forget about all classes and social differences, renounce your worldly position, and completely merge with the people’s assembly, in the face of God. Our church, for the most part, was created with public money, so it is impossible to distinguish a ruble from a penny; in any case, our church is a national cause and a national property. That is why it is twice as dear to all of us, because when entering it, the last beggar feels in exactly the same way as the first nobleman, that this is his church. Church is the only place (what a blessing that we have such a place!) where no one will ask the last poor man in rags: why did you come here and who are you? Where the rich cannot say to the poor: your place is not next to me, but behind. Here, go into the church, look at the church meeting. It is reverent, it is perhaps solemn; but it is an assembly of ladies and gentlemen, of whom each person has his own place especially assigned to him; and rich people and nobles in their neighborhood have places separated and decorated, like boxes. Is it possible, looking from the outside, to resist the thought that the church meeting here is only a modification of the public meeting and that there is a place in it only for the so-called “decent people” in society? Everyone prays according to their own books, but just as everyone has their own book in their hands, it is clear that everyone wants to be before God on their own, without losing their individuality. They say that in the last 20 - 30 years a noticeable change has taken place in this regard: places in churches are mostly open, that is, not tightly fenced off, and access to them has become freer than before; and in the past, especially in the provinces, places in churches were arranged in closed or separate stands so that the owner of each place could pray calmly, alone, without being embarrassed by any proximity. How clearly reflected in this church arrangement is the history of the local feudal society and the very history of the local church reform! Nobility and gentry constitute everything and lead everything, because they possess everything and attract everyone to themselves. Everything must be bought or taken by battle, even the right to have a place in the church. The priesthood itself is a right of a certain kind, which is included in the price. Pastoral places, with the right to a certain income or salary, constitute in England the property of patrimonial right, patronage, and the choice of place is the property of either private landowners or the crown, due not so much to state ownership as to feudal ownership. That is why the pastor, among the people, appointed independently of the people and independent of the people for his maintenance, appears among the people also in the form of a prince appointed from above. An ecclesiastical office is, first of all, a privilege and an asset; and it’s a shame to say: this property is an object of bargaining. The places of chief priests (incumbents) can be rented out for a certain price, based on the capitalization of income, just as the places of solicitors, notaries, brokers and the like are rented out. in any English newspaper, in the special section of advertisements for the so-called preferences, you will find a number of offers to buy a priest's place, with descriptions of income items: the place is praised with its amenities for life, the house, location are described, the income is indicated and the price is offered with the warning that the current incumbent is old, such and such years, and will probably not enjoy his position for long. For negotiations, it is indicated to contact somewhere. in London, even a special magazine is published (“The Church preference registrar”), with a detailed description of all articles, land and income of each place for information and calculation of those who want to receive it for a certain amount. They say that in the political sense it is beneficial when every right, personal or public, is obtained only by battle. Maybe anything else, but not the right to public prayer in church. It is no wonder that the public conscience cannot be satisfied with such a church structure and that England - the country of the established state church, the classical country of learned theology and debate about faith - has become, since the reform, a country of dissenters of all kinds. The religious and prayer need of the masses of the people, not finding a place or satisfaction in the established church, began to seek an outcome in free self-statutory church meetings and in various sects. The division of church rites here is exorbitant between the inhabitants of the most insignificant town. The most established church is divided into three parties, and the supporters of each of them (the so-called High, Low and Broad churches) usually have their own church and do not go to someone else's. in a small village, where there are no more than five hundred permanent residents, there are often three English churches and, in addition, three Methodist churches of three different denominations, which, differing in very subtle and capricious details, refuse to communicate with each other. A separate church - for the original or Wesleyan Methodists, then for the Congregationalists, then for the so-called Bible Christians: the latter are the same Methodists, but separated several years ago only because they believe, in disagreement with others, it is impossible to have married people in the rank of church evangelists. That's how many churches - and capital, beautiful and extensive churches - in one village! All these sects and assemblies are distinguished by the peculiarities of their beliefs, sometimes very subtle and capricious, or completely wild; but, apart from dogmatic differences, all express the same desire for a free, popular church, and many of them are imbued with a bitter hatred of the established church and its ministers. In addition to individual sects, in the midst of the established church itself, a large party has long been formed in the name of free church communication - the free church movement. Private people and individual societies use their means to provide the common people with the opportunity to participate in worship: for this they have to build separate churches or rent separate premises, theaters, barns, halls, and the like. This whole movement has already produced a palpable reaction in the customs of the established church itself, causing it to open its doors wider. But isn’t it strange that here we have to take by battle what is from the beginning as free as the air we breathe? How often does it happen here in Russia to hear strange speeches about our church from people who have been abroad, who have read foreign books, who like to judge red-handedly from someone else’s voice, or simply from naive people who are carried away by an ideal idea that ignores reality. These people find no measure of praise for the Anglican or German Church and the Anglican clergy, and find no measure of condemnation of our church and our clergy. If you believe them, everything there is living activity, while here we have carrion, rudeness and sleep. There are things going on there, but we have bare ritualism and inaction. No wonder so many people say this. There is a saying among people that they meet a person by their dress. They say: they escort you according to your mind; but in order to recognize the mind and feel the spirit, you need to look closely and work with your thoughts, but it’s not difficult to judge by the dress. You will form a ready-made impression for yourself, and then you will stay with it. Moreover, there are many people for whom the first thing, the first and final decider of impression, is external improvement, manners, dexterity, cleanliness, respectability. in this regard, of course, there is something to admire, at least in the English church, and there is something to grieve about sometimes in ours. Who has not happened to meet a secular, and sometimes, unfortunately, a clergy person who has been abroad, ardently praising the local simplicity of the church and condemning our dear “for immaturity.” It can be sad to listen to such speeches, just as it is sad to see a son when, having lived in a fashionable circle, in the midst of all the intricacies of metropolitan life, he returns to the village where he once spent his childhood, and looks with contempt at the unpretentious surroundings and at the simple, perhaps rude, customs of his own family. We are surprisingly inclined by nature to be carried away, first of all, by the beautiful form, organization, and external design of any matter. Hence our passion for imitation, for transferring to our own soil those institutions and forms that amaze us abroad with their external harmony. But we forget at the same time, or remember too late, that every form formed historically grew in history from historical conditions and is a logical conclusion from the past, caused by necessity. No one can change or circumvent their history; and history itself, with all its phenomena, figures, established forms of social life, is a product of the spirit of the people, just as the history of an individual person is, in essence, a product of the spirit living in him. The same should be said about the forms of church structure. every form has its own spiritual lining on which it grew; We are often seduced by the form without seeing this lining, but if we saw it, then sometimes we would not think of rejecting the finished form with all its harmony and would happily remain with our old and rough form, or formlessness, until our own spiritual life brings out its form for us. The spirit is what is essential in any institution, this is what should be protected most dearly from crookedness and confusion. From time immemorial, our church has had and still retains the significance of the national church and the spirit of love and indifferent communication. By faith our people have held on to this day in the midst of all adversities and disasters, and if anything can support them, strengthen them and renew them in further history, it is faith, and only church faith. We are told that our people are ignorant in their faith, filled with superstitions, and suffer from bad and vicious habits; that our clergy is rude, ignorant, ineffective, degraded and has little influence over the people. All this is true in many respects, but all these phenomena are not significant, but random and temporary. They depend on many conditions and, above all, on economic and political conditions, with changes in which these phenomena will sooner or later change. What is essential? What does the spirit belong to? The love of the people for the church, the free consciousness of full communication in the church, the concept of the church as a common property and a common meeting, the complete elimination of class differences in the church and the communication of the people with the ministers of the church, who came from the people and are not separated from them either in everyday life, or in virtues, or in their very shortcomings, with the people they stand and fall. This is a field in which many good fruits can be grown if you work in depth, caring not so much about improving life, but about improving the spirit, not so much about ensuring that the number of churches does not exceed the need, but rather about ensuring that the need for a church does not remain unsatisfied. Should we covet with envy, from afar and by ear, even the Protestant Church and its pastors? God forbid that we wait for the time when our shepherds establish themselves in the position of officials placed over the people, and become princes, among their people, in the atmosphere of a secular person, in the complexity of needs and desires in the midst of people's poverty and simplicity. Thinking about life, you come to the conclusion that for every person, in the course of his spiritual development, the most precious thing, the most necessary thing, is to preserve within himself the simple, natural feeling of human relationship with people, the truth and freedom of spiritual imagination and movement. This is the inviolable capital of spiritual nature, with which the soul is protected and protected from the action of all bureaucratic forms and artificial theories that imperceptibly corrupt a simple moral sense. No matter how precious these forms and theories are in many respects, they can, having been grafted onto the soul, completely distort and destroy simple and common-sense ideas and sensations in it, confuse the concept of truth and untruth, and undermine the very root on which a healthy person grows in his spiritual relationship to the world and to people. This is what is essential and this is what we so often kill in ourselves because of forms that are not at all essential, with which we are deluded. Because of this, how many people and institutions are lost among us, falsely perverted by false development, and yet in the church institution this root is most dear to us. God forbid that he too may someday not be undermined by crooked church reform. Protestants reproach us for the formality and ritualism of our worship; but when you look at their ritual, you involuntarily give preference to our ritual in this regard; you feel how simple and majestic our ritual is in its deep, mysterious meaning. The priestly position in our ritual is so simple that all that is required of him is reverent attention to the words spoken and the actions performed; in his mouth and through him, sacred words and rituals speak for themselves - and how deeply and mysteriously they speak to the soul of everyone and unite the whole assembly into one thought and one feeling! That is why the simplest and most inexperienced person can, without adjusting himself or using artificial efforts, perform a prayerful action and enter into prayerful communion with the entire church. The Protestant prayer ritual, with all its outward simplicity, requires the clergy to act in prayer in a certain tone. That is why in this ritual only deeply spiritual or very talented people can be simple; the rest, that is, the vast majority, are forced to adjust themselves and resort to affectation, which is most often found in Protestant churches and makes a painful impression on an unfamiliar person. When you see a preacher, standing in the middle of the church, facing the assembly seated decorously in the pews, saying prayers, raising his eyes to the sky, folding his hands in the well-known form used by everyone, and giving his speech an unnatural intonation, you feel embarrassed for him; I think how awkward it must be for him! The awkwardness becomes even more palpable when, having completed the ceremony, he ascends the pulpit and begins his long sermon, turning back from time to time to drink from a glass of water and gather his courage. and in this sermon it is rare to hear a truly living word, when the preacher is truly a spiritual person or talent. For the most part, church workers speak in an extremely strained voice, with extreme affectation, with strong gestures, turning from side to side, repeating in different ways common phrases used by everyone. Even when they read from a book, which often happens, they resort to well-known body movements, intonations and arrangements. It often happens that the preacher, pronouncing certain words and phrases, shouts and hits the pulpit with his fist in order to give expressiveness to his speech... Here you feel how correctly our church has applied itself to human nature, without placing sermons as part of the liturgical rite. Our entire ritual, in itself, constitutes the best sermon, all the more valid because everyone accepts it not as human, but as God’s word. and the church ideal of our preaching as a living word is the teaching of faith and love, from the divine scriptures, and not the arousal of feelings, as a necessary action of every clergyman on those gathered in church for prayer. They say that the ritual is an unimportant and secondary matter. But there are rituals and customs that to refuse would mean to deny oneself, because they reflect the spiritual life of a person or an entire people, they reflect the whole soul. in the difference in ritual, the fundamental and deep difference in spiritual representation, hidden in the unconscious spheres of spiritual life, is most clearly expressed, the same difference that prevents the fusion or fullness of mutual sympathy between peoples of different tribes and constitutes the main reason for the difference in churches and religions. To deny, from an abstract, cosmopolitan point of view, the action of this attractive or repulsive force, equating it with prejudice, would mean the same as denying the force of affinity (Wahlverwandschaft) operating in personal relationships between people. How significant, for example, is the difference among different peoples in funeral rites and in the treatment of the body of the deceased! A southern man, an Italian, flees from his dead man, hurries to clear his house of him as quickly as possible and leaves outsiders to take care of his burial. On the contrary, we, in Russia, have a characteristic folk feature - a religious attitude towards a dead body, filled with love, tenderness and reverence. From the depths of centuries, lament over the deceased, filled with poetic images and movements, echoes to our time, turning, with the adoption of new religious rituals, into a solemn church prayer. Nowhere in the world, except for our country, has funeral custom and rite been developed to such deep, one might say, virtuosity, to which it reaches in our country; and there is no doubt that this character of his reflected our national character, with a special worldview inherent in our nature. The features of death are terrible and disgusting everywhere, but we dress them with a splendid veil, we surround them with the solemn silence of prayerful contemplation, we sing over them a song in which the horror of stricken nature merges with love, hope and reverent faith. We do not run away from our deceased, we decorate him in the coffin, and we are drawn to this coffin to peer into the features of the spirit that left its home; we worship the body and do not refuse to give it the last kiss, and we stand over it for three days and three nights with reading, with singing, with church prayer. Our funeral prayers are filled with beauty and grandeur; they are long lasting and are in no hurry to give up the body touched by decay to the earth, and when you hear them, it seems that not only is the last blessing being pronounced over the coffin, but a great church celebration is taking place around it at the most solemn moment of human existence! How understandable and how kind this solemnity is to the Russian soul! But a foreigner rarely understands her, because she is a complete stranger to him. in us, the feeling of love, struck by death, expands in the funeral rite; in him it painfully shrinks from the same ritual and is struck with pure horror. A German Lutheran living in Berlin lost his beloved Orthodox sister in Russia. When he came to us on the eve of the burial and saw his beloved sister lying in the coffin, horror struck him, his heart sank, and it was clear that the feeling of love and reverence gave way in him to the disgust with which he was present at the farewell to the dead body and had to take part in it himself... in this, as in many other things, the German cannot understand us until he lives with us and enters the depths of our spiritual life. For this same reason, it seems, nothing outrages Lutherans in our church so much as the veneration of holy relics, which for us, by our nature, seems so simple and natural when we bow to our dead, and embrace their bodies, and honor them in burial. He, not living our life, sees nothing in this honoring except wild superstition, but for us this is a movement and a work of love, very natural and simple. It is difficult for him to understand us, just as it is wild and disgusting for us to hear about the agitation that has recently arisen in German and English society demanding the introduction of a new funeral rite. They want the dead not to be buried, but to be burned in specially constructed ovens, and they demand this from a utilitarian and hygienic point of view. This propaganda is intensifying, rallies are being held, societies are being formed, improved furnaces are being built at the expense of private individuals, chemical experiments are being carried out, funeral marches are being composed to accompany the burning... Voices are growing, cries are intensifying, in the name of science, in the name of enlightenment, in the name of the public good. From what distant world, from what everyday life do these sounds reach us - and how alien this world is to us, how unpleasant and cold! No, God forbid you die in that land, in a foreign land, far from the mother of the damp Russian land! Who is a Russian person - in soul and custom, he understands what the church of God means, what the church means for a Russian person. It is not enough to be pious yourself, to feel and respect the need of religious feeling; It is not enough to understand the meaning of the church for the Russian people and to love this church as one’s own. We must live the life of the people, we must pray together with the people, in the same church meeting, feel the same heartbeat with the people, imbued with the same triumph, the same word and singing. That is why many, who know the church only from home churches, where a select and decorated public gathers, do not have a true understanding of their church and the real taste of the church, and sometimes look indifferently or incorrectly in church custom and service at what is especially dear to the people and what in their concept constitutes church beauty. The Orthodox Church is red with its people. As you enter it, you will feel that everything in it is one, everything is comprehended by the people and is held together by the people. Enter a Catholic church, how everything in it seems empty, cold, artificial to the Orthodox congregation. The priest serves and reads on his own, as if above the people and separated from the people. He prays on his own from his book; the people pray in their own way, come and go, having completed their prayers and waited for this or that church action. A sacred rite is performed on the altar; the people are present only with him, but do not seem to assist him with common prayer. The ritual does not speak to our feelings, and we feel that the beauty that should be in it is not our beauty, but someone else’s. All the movements of the ritual, mechanically arranged, seem strange, cold, and inexpressive to us; outlines, images of clothing - unseemly; the sounds of church recitative are discordant and soulless; singing in a foreign language, in which you cannot recognize the words - not the hymn of a national assembly, not a cry pouring from the soul, but an artificially arranged concert that covers the divine service, but does not merge with it. Our soul yearns here for its church, just as it yearns among strangers for its homeland. It’s the same with us: here is indescribable beauty, beauty that is understandable to a Russian person, beauty for which he is ready to lay down his soul, that’s how he loves it. Russian church singing, like a folk song, flows in a wide, free stream from the people's breast, and the freer it is, the more fully it speaks to the heart. Our tunes are the same as those of the Greeks, but the Russian people sing them differently, because they put their Russian soul into them. Anyone who wants to listen to how this soul expresses itself must go to the wrong place, where famous choirs and chapels wield their voices, where the music of new composers is performed and everyday life is performed according to new official transcriptions. He needs to listen to singing in a well-maintained monastery, or in one of those parish churches where choral singing has developed in good order; there he will hear what a wide, free stream of festive irmos pours out of the Russian breast, what a solemn poem a dogmatist is chanted, the stichera composed with the canonarch, what animation of joy permeates the canon of Easter or the Nativity of Christ. Here we will look back and see how every word of the song resonates in the people’s assembly, how it shines in raised eyes, floats over bowed heads, is reflected in choruses rushing from everywhere, because every church person is familiar with words and chants from childhood, and everyone’s soul sings when he hears them. The service is harmonious, earnest - truly a holiday for the Russian people; and outside the church, the soul retains a deep feeling that is reflected in it, even when remembering this or that moment, the Russian soul, accustomed to the church, and at any moment ready to perk up when the song of the Easter or Christmas canon is heard within it, with the thought of the bright matins, or the favorite tune of the festive Irmos, or “Worldwide Glory” with its stunning “Dare...”. Truly, these are the sounds that the poet said that they and for the one who has been accustomed to these words and sounds since childhood, how many memories and images arise from them every time from that great poem of the past, which everyone has lived and everyone carries within themselves... Happy is the one who has become accustomed since childhood to these words, sounds and images, who has found beauty in them and strives for it, and cannot live without it, to whom everything in them is clear, everything is dear, everything elevates the soul from the dust and dirt of everyday life, who in them finds and collects the lost your life in the corners, your happiness scattered along the roads. Happy is he who, from childhood, was taught by kind and pious parents to the church of God and placed in it among the people to pray the national prayer, to celebrate the national holiday. They collected a treasure for him for a lifetime, they truly introduced him into the mind of the spirit of the people and into the love of the heart of the people, making the church for him a home and a place of complete, pure and true union with the people. What can we say about the many churches of ours, lost in the depths of the forests and in the vastness of the fields, where people stand stupidly in the church, not understanding anything, under the goat-talking of the sexton or the muttering of the cleric? Alas! It is not the church that is to blame for this stupidity and it is not the poor people who are to blame: it is the lazy and ignorant minister of the church who is to blame; The church authorities are to blame for inattentively and indifferently distributing church ministers; In some places, people's poverty and helplessness are to blame. Good for the person in whom at that time a spark of love and zeal for spiritual life is ignited and who manages to bring the abandoned church into the light of splendor and singing. Truly, he will illuminate the country and the shadow of death with light, he will resurrect the dead and the defeated, save souls from death and cover many sins... That is why the Russian people so willingly and so much sacrifice for church buildings, for the creation and decoration of churches. How crookedly those who condemn him for this zeal judge, and many such voices are already heard. This generous zeal is attributed either to rudeness and ignorance, or to bigotry and hypocrisy. They say: wouldn’t it be better to use this money for “public education”, for schools, for charitable institutions? Both are sacrificed for both in their own way, but the sacrifice is completely different, and a pious Russian person with common Russian sense will think twice before he opens his purse for a generous dacha for formally educational and charitable institutions. Isn't it the Church of God? She speaks for herself; it is a living, national institution. in it alone there is joy for both the living and the dead. in it alone everything is easy, free, in it every soul, from small to great, has fun and rejoices, and celebrates from heavy suffering; there is one place in it for both white and gray people, both rich and poor. It is decorated more than the royal chamber - the house of God, and each of the small and poor stands in it as in his own home; everyone can call the church their own, because the church was built with people’s rubles and, moreover, with people’s pennies and is maintained by the people. There is shelter and prayer with consolation for everyone, and that teaching that is dearest to the Russian people. This is what unconsciously and consciously immediately affects the Russian soul about the church and forces the Russian person to donate to the church without looking back and without reasoning. The Russian person feels that he is not mistaken in this matter and gives faithfully and sacredly to a faithful and holy cause. My comrade, Nikandr, was a subject of surprise for me even in school. It seemed that there was nothing mysterious in his nature, but I could not unravel it and get used to it. It seemed that anyone could approach him, easily and comfortably, but every time I happened to come close to him, I felt that some vague, empty space remained between him and me, and that it could no longer be narrowed, that there was nowhere to go further. He was good to everyone, and everyone was good to him; he took part in everything that interested and worried us all, and seemed to be able to understand everything and talk about everything with everyone; but you didn’t see him giving himself up to anything, getting carried away by anything. When the conversation consisted of seductive anecdotes, and he had his own anecdote in stock, it sounded like some sound brought from outside; when serious speeches were made, he also inserted his measured word; when the circle became liberal, and he did not remain in debt with liberal phrases; but it was definitely taken out of the book. When we all got caught up in the so-called story, and the water came out above everyone’s heads, and he didn’t lag behind us - you couldn’t even blame him for outright cowardice, but it’s a strange thing! When the water subsided, he came out dry and shook himself off in a minute, while we all came out wet and rumpled. It cannot be said that he was not loved, but he did not have any close friends. No one was surprised at his intelligence, a word he accidentally said awoke no one’s soul or raised thoughts; but everyone considered him a capable person; and although he was constantly successful, his successes aroused envy in almost no one. He studied diligently, although he was not one of the so-called crammers, and his successful answers were given to him, apparently, without much effort. We didn’t remember him ever being short in his answers: everything came out so roundly with him. Our superiors considered him the star of our entire class, they put him forward on ostentatious occasions, they spoke of him as a man who would go far. Our superiors were delighted with his answers, with his writings, with the way he carried himself, with his decent and polished appearance and behavior in every way. But I remember that I was little satisfied with both his writings and his answers: I was surprised only at the roundness and smoothness with which everything was arranged and organized for him; but everything he said left me with some impression of incompleteness, insufficiency: like breakfast, beautifully served, because of which the guest gets up hungry. The prophecy of our superiors came true. Nikandr took rapid steps in his career. A few years later, when I arrived in the capital, I found him in a significant place. and here, in the service, the name Nikandra sounded incessantly in the mouths of his superiors with enthusiastic praise. From everywhere we heard: what a capable person! What a feather he has! and truly, according to the general opinion, Nikander possessed the skill of presentation, which his boss especially appreciated. But I again became perplexed by Nikander’s presentation and everyone’s praise when I happened to read papers written by him. These papers made on me the same impression as his answers in the exams - the impression of a beautifully served breakfast with nothing to eat. I was tormented by hunger, while others turned out to be full and satisfied. in Nikandr’s papers, in his notes and reports, what was clear to me was his ability, truly masterful, to dull and seduce the taste, to absorb the real grain of the question, to entangle it in the shrouds of a rounded phrase to the point that the reader, losing sight of the essence and root of the matter, focused his interest on the shell, on its secondary and formal accessories, on those paths along which the matter follows from its origin to confluences; Thus, the skillfully composed paper smoothly and evenly brought the pliable reader to the required result, marking the point to which it was necessary to move the matter this time. It seemed that everything was so clearly stated in polished phrases, but, in essence, nothing was clear, everything was covered in fog; and the matter, according to paper, was settled in the end - e sempre bene [always good (it.)]. After living for several more years in my corner, where new laudatory rumors about Nikander’s abilities reached from time to time, I again came to the capital and found him in a new place, even more significant. Here I had to witness his activity and marvel again at his skill, although it never ceased to seem to me a strange art. But I myself, having grown older in years and experience, began to understand that there are many things in the business world that youthful philosophy does not even dare to dream about. The features of Nikandrov’s physiognomy began to become clear to me, and he became for me an interesting subject of study, not in itself, but in inseparable connection with the environment in which his activities took place. He says little, but listens attentively: attentively, although apparently indifferently. You can rarely notice an expression of animated participation in his facial features: sometimes you see a slightly thin shadow of anxiety, when reasoning takes on an alarming character, when a sharp difference in opinions is revealed. This anxiety even turns into some excitement when, in heteroglossia, issues of a delicate nature are raised and raised, especially when the dispute threatens to lead to one of the phenomena called a scandal. All Nikander’s instincts are aimed at smoothing out any unevenness in characters, in feelings, in opinions, at extinguishing any quarrel, at establishing harmony and calm everywhere. He is already alarmed when reasoning begins to penetrate into the depths of the subject, when it tries to reduce individual questions to a common principle, to get to the main idea; Knowing from experience that disagreement in the main idea is the most stubborn and irritating, he uses all his tactics to extinguish it. One must marvel at the dexterity with which he then tries to lead his opponents away from the dangerous field and transfer them to another, even and smooth field of spillikins, trifles, details and particulars of the matter. On this smooth field he is the master: here it takes little effort for him to assure the disputants that they, in essence, agree with each other, that they should not raise questions that are not of significant importance. On this field I have not seen a master like Nikander, and his feats are amazing. He knows how to place opponents in front of him, who are separated by an apparently impenetrable abyss of fundamental contradiction in basic opinions on the subject: the struggle apparently takes place between elements, and seems irreconcilable. and look, in just ten minutes Nikander managed to fill this abyss with light fluff, cover it with thin brushwood, and the opponents are already crossing it, giving each other a hand! Nikander does not like basic ideas; but it’s not for nothing that he’s experienced. He knows that the main ideas lie mostly shallow in the minds, and it is almost always possible to divert from the depths an uncertain thought or a vague sensation tending to the depths. For this, he has a technique that rarely betrays him: against basic ideas, he knows how, in extreme cases, to put forward so-called principles, general provisions, decisive verdicts, to which rarely anyone dares to object. There are magic words that enchant every meeting with us - and Nikander knows how to pronounce them at the right moment. Such a word, like the classic quos egoK, instantly calms our rising waves. “It is already recognized by everyone”, “the newest civilization has reached such and such a conclusion”, “statistical figures prove”, “in France, in Prussia and similar countries, such and such a rule has long been introduced”, “such and such a European scientist on such and such a page said such and such”, “no one now argues, for example, that the price is determined by the proportion between supply and demand” and many similar sayings - these are the magic tools that create miracles in our reasoning. But the most magical of magic words is “science says, science recognizes.” Nikander has long understood that we are afraid of this word - science - like the devil, and usually do not dare to object to it. We feel that this is a double-edged sword, and therefore we are instinctively afraid to take it up when it is offered to us. To object to this word - science - but this means to raise questions: what science, where is it, where does it come from, why, and many others about which there will be no end to debate and in which we feel that we will be endlessly confused. and so we usually stop at this word, calm down and accept the finished result of science, which is offered to us, without further ado about who is offering it, on what occasion and in what sense. Live forever, learn forever! Truly, I am now just beginning to understand why our teachers at school admired Nikandr so much, and why in his current activities everyone is happy with him, everyone glorifies him as a genius. They say that a genius is one who answers the questions of the time, who knows how to comprehend the needs of an era, place and satisfies them. Nikandr knew how to understand the issues of time, the needs of the environment and satisfy them. What are the needs, what are these minor questions, what are these simple needs! Still, he is a great man and, alas, partly a representative of the great figures of our time. A whole school of figures similar to him had already formed around him. How decent they all are, how smooth they are, how smoothly and smoothly they enter into the reputation of “capable” people! When I see them, I can't help but think of a fragmentary scene from Faust. The perfume disappears without any smell. Marshal asks the biskup in surprise: “Do you hear anything smelling?” “I don’t hear anything,” Biskup answers. and Mephistopheles explains: “Perfume of this kind, my sirs, has no odor (Diese art Geister stinken nicht, meine Herren).” Calmly and without embarrassment, I look at Laisa as she, stretched out in a magnificent carriage, rushes along the main street, responding with smiles to the bows of the walking nobility; or sits, half-dressed, half-undressed, at the opera, and the ladies of high society cast glances of envy at her, mixed with contempt, although contempt does not prevent them from slowly borrowing from her certain features of her manners and toilets. It is openly written on her face who she is, what she is looking for, why she lives, dresses and has fun in the world, and she bears her name without hypocrisy, although without shame. When she, looking around her at the elegant boxes, impudently lornes the dressed-up ladies of fashionable society, her impudence does not surprise or outrage me: her gaze seems to say to them: “I am truly who they take me for, and my face is open; and why do you wear masks?” I think about Laisa’s fate, and I feel sorry for her: it comes to mind, by what destinies did life lead her on this path, what environment raised her and instilled in her a thirst for wild pleasure? The thought comes to her: how will this path end for her, and to what pitiable old age will her youth, burning out in the intoxication of passion, lead... Laisa lives in her own circle, and the doors of the big world salons are closed to her. But when in these salons I meet the proud and majestic Messalina, my soul is indignant, and I cannot look at her without indignation. All the big doors are wide open before her; there is no noble assembly, wherever she is invited and wherever she is greeted with honor; a swarm of noble youth circles around her; a resounding title, brilliant surroundings, and luxurious hospitality attract to her salon everyone who considers themselves to belong to a select society. Everyone is full of praise for her beauty, her taste, her courtesy, her cheerful disposition; in a word, “crowned with the flowers of graces, she walks cheerfully through the blessed land.” But when, taking the mirror of truth, I ask myself what is the difference between the noble Messalina and the despicable Laisa - alas! I feel sorry for Laisa, but I feel contempt for Messalina. When she comes to the ball, I look at her with horror, although many people admire her. The art of exposing not only her neck and chest, but also her back and arms, reaches such limits to which the custom of Laisa herself does not extend, so that many of her regular visitors look with a grin at Messalina’s toilette. Some even assure that Laisa’s guest will not hear from her such unbridled speeches, such cynical jokes as her gentleman in a mazurka or her neighbor hears from Messalina in a roulette game. But Laisa bears the stamp of rejection, and Messalina reigns in the salons. Laisa has no family, no home in the real sense of the word, and she is outside the family circle. Messalina, however, has a husband whose great name she bears, and she has a magnificent house, with a whole cohort of livery footmen on the marble staircase. But what connection connects her with this husband, and why they live under the same roof is a secret known only to Messalina. her husband is present in her salon; her husband accompanies her to other salons and covers everything with himself. But when they meet Messalina in the winter on a frantic troika, or in the spring on a noisy park in a luxurious carriage drawn by trotters, someone other than her husband shares with her hours of fun and gaiety; and even in the presence of her husband, someone else seems closer to her and treats her more freely... and here’s what’s surprising: when meeting Laisa with one of the knights of the chosen circle, many shyly look away, but when they meet Messalina with her favorite companion from the same company, they bow affably and then whisper to each other with a smile. O virtue and honor of secular society, who recognizes your ways! Messalina is a mother, she has children, but you cannot recognize what moral connection this mother has with her children. She hardly sees them and almost does not know what is being done with them. in a special section of the house they live with their governesses and at a certain hour they appear in the form of butterflies, in the latest fashion costumes, with bare arms and legs, receive a kiss from their mother and go home. She has no time to think about children, amid the nervous excitement in which her days and nights pass. Falling asleep early in the morning, waking up late in the morning, as soon as she collects her shattered feelings, she already receives a guest, then goes for a walk with him, then receives guests in her salon, going over with them the news, gossip, and scandals of yesterday and this morning, and compiling an inventory of present and upcoming entertainment and holidays. Dresses in the morning, dresses for dinner, dresses for the opera, dresses for a ball or evening. What is the interest of her life? Where are the mental or moral springs that set it in motion? To what center are her thoughts and desires gathered? You cannot find an answer to these questions when you see the flow from empty to empty, which makes up her whole life. There are books on her table, but she has hardly been seen reading. Solitude is unbearable for her; being in public is her indispensable need: for what? For some mindless game of non-stop entertainment. Life should seem to her like something like a continuous holiday, in the style of Watteau’s paintings, with electric lighting. A natural person, no matter how much he strives to enjoy at will, inevitably stumbles over care, illness, grief and loss, and the mysterious idea of ​​life and death appears before him like a ghost. Messalina is invulnerable here too. What does caring for home, family, and children mean to her? This is the manager’s business, or at least the husband’s business. Disease? But she is in good health and is used to adjusting her nerves - that’s what the doctor is, and that’s what strong drops of chloral are for. Grief? Is there such a grief that cannot be driven away? You can go to Baden, to Monaco, where there are so many strong feelings, and finally to Paris, where with the help of a vort it is not difficult to shake off any grief from your shoulders. Sometimes shame appears where it is not asked, but how dare he cross the threshold of the magnificent palaces, where all such honorable, all such noble people come to eat, drink, and celebrate, and admire the hostess, where dressed up ladies tell each other about their love games and adventures, where the chirping of mutual complacency and carefree gaiety is heard in all corners, where everyone excuses each other for everything except a strict attitude to the moral principles of life... Is old age scary, it would seem, for a secular woman? But has not Parisian science invented reliable remedies against the natural decay of beauty, and are there not many old women who look young with the help of a false blush, false skin, false hair, and even a false bust? Finally, death is behind everyone's shoulders... death is death - but - franchement, apres tout [honestly, in the end (French)] - who thinks about death! It would seem that there is one place from where a thunderstorm is heard and fear blows. Everything is a lie in the life and environment of Messalina. The luxury that surrounds her, her house with magnificent decoration, the majestic footmen placed along the stairs, her thousands of outfits and headdresses - all this is a lie, all this, it seems, should collapse every minute. All this, and for a long time now, in essence, is not hers, but someone else’s, imaginary, because the debts of her and her husband have already been lost, and the bills from the stores presented to her have long been forming an ugly pile that no one knows how to sort out. Its estates are mortgaged and put up for public sale every now and then, factories stop operating every now and then, creditors pester with demands and bring lawsuits. But by some magic all this is unraveled at critical moments - the estates are released from sale, the factories restore their activity, the creditors, like a conqueror driven by an unknown fear, scatter and become silent, and Messalina announces a ball in her palace, at which a select society is present, and there is no end to the enthusiastic praise of the splendor, taste, and splendor of the ball... For none of the brilliant guests of Messalina the mystery is that all this is an imaginary value, but everyone flies like moths to the bright light, to the luxurious decoration, without asking whose it is or where it comes from, everyone is happy, everyone admires: such are the bonds of friendship that bind together a crowd of people who together thirst for pleasure and excitement and together bow to the idol of vanity. One day, it seemed that complete destruction was coming for Messalina, and there was no longer any salvation: what pitiful speeches were raised about her in the living rooms then! “Have you heard: poor Messalina - their affairs are very bad. They say that they have no more than 20 thousand rubles of income left - this is terrible, this is poverty, isn’t it?” Is it possible to tolerate such destruction of such a house? Petitions and pleas flew from all corners, and now, as if by magic, a favorable wind brought a lot of money to improve matters in the disordered household... So, is it any wonder that Messalina is carefree and is not embarrassed by any fears. She and her husband stand proudly, looking straight into the eyes of everyone: how many times, when you happen to meet them, do you think of a verse from Racine’s “Phaedra”: “Gods, who love them and reward them, is it really for their virtues?” Messalina and others like her live on the heights, never descending into the valley. You look up at them and ask yourself in amazement: how do these people, always breathing the air of the mountain heights, not suffocate? Or, like the Olympians, do they feed on ambrosia? They see and hear only those like themselves, and all the affairs, worries, sorrows and joys of the people of the lower world appear to them in a foggy picture, reaching them like the distant buzz of insects. Will poverty and grief dare to penetrate into their gilded palaces, not in the form of an idea and concept, but in the form of a living suffering person, and become personally sympathetic towards them? God forbid we say that they are evil people: no, many of them are good people and filled with the best intentions; but they have no time to stop and concentrate, in the cycle of the day, devoted from minute to minute to the search for pleasures and entertainment, to the conventional duties and conventional decency of the circle in which they rotate. Others, when their conscience awakens in them, curse themselves and their way of life, and say: “Tomorrow I’ll start like a human being.” But this tomorrow never comes, because for tomorrow the inexorable charter of the enchanted circle has outlined a schedule of hours, fun and conditional duties... One of the most subtle arts is the art of deceiving oneself and calming one’s conscience, and humanity has been exercising itself in this art since the world has existed: is it any wonder that its techniques have been brought to the point of virtuosity. People living a conventional life of a closed circle cannot rest in the thought that they do not care about what happens in the lives of ordinary mortals, they do not care about poverty, want and poverty. We must show them that nothing human is alien to them. and so the instrument of public charity institutions was invented for this purpose - an excellent means for clearing the personal conscience of an individual. The institution itself exists and operates, like any institution, it acts according to regulations and charter; and a man, a man with his own conscience, with his own feeling, with the personal energy of the will, lives on his own, freely, and any sadness that would spoil his life, would constrain his freedom, would take away his free time, is assigned to the institution... With the help of such a brilliant discovery in that enchanted circle where Messalina shines and dominates, what is good turns into poison, from bitter comes sweet, and the work of charity, the work of pity and mental pain, the work of mutual sympathy between the sons of dust in the name of the highest spiritual principle of love turns into one of the types of public entertainment and represents a vanity fair. and this is the form in which Messalina appears as the patroness of the poor, the benefactor of suffering humanity. I saw her at those moments, as she stood, in the light of electric lighting, to the sounds of a ballroom orchestra, behind one of the benches artistically arranged in the magnificent halls of a large house, at one of the so-called charity bazaars. She was dazzlingly beautiful in her brilliant toilette, which had just arrived from Paris and cost a lot of money. A crowd of buyers crowded around her, melting from her gaze and smile, and her earnings that day aroused the envy of many neighboring shops. She left her place that day with a proud consciousness of a fulfilled duty and a new, experienced triumph, although all her proceeds, like the proceeds of her friends, did not reach the price of those toilets that she wore on herself... The thought involuntarily came to mind: what a huge sum would have been made up by adding up all those figures that these beneficent persons brought into the hall on their shoulders! there was no place for Laisa in this meeting - and why should she be here? Laisa is a despicable woman; “desperate for the sake of life and determined for the sake of morality.” But once upon a time there was someone just like her, carrying the fire of love within herself, in a wild wandering through the crossroads of the world. She sinned a lot and for a long time, but all her sins were forgiven her because she loved a lot, although she did not know, until the last meeting with the true beginning of love, where to put her love. But who, besides herself, did Messalina love and love, and what fire does she carry within herself? There are dry and not very smart people with whom you can talk seriously, on whom you can rely, because they have a strong, definite opinion, there is a certain character that invariably appears in them. There are smart and entertaining people who cannot be taken seriously, because they do not have a strong opinion, but only sensations that are constantly changing. Such are often the so-called artistic natures: their whole life is a game of changing sensations, the expression of which reaches the point of virtuosity. And in expressing them, they do not deceive either themselves or the listener, but, like talented actors, enter into a certain role and perform it artistically. But when, in real life, they have to act with their face, it is impossible to foresee in which direction their activity will be directed, how their will will be expressed, what color their word will take at the decisive moment... Such development of thoughts and feelings, unfortunately, is a common occurrence among us and especially among people who are gifted by nature. Their abilities develop in the artistic direction: they do not have a clear and definite idea on which a person stands and which keeps him in life and activity, but everything has turned into sensation. They are able to be inspired by any environment into which they accidentally find themselves, to be preachers and singers of any idea that they have caught in this environment and which has a course in it. Falling, moreover, into continuous contradictions of today and yesterday, they know how to skillfully reconcile these contradictions and move from one to another by skillfully playing with the shades of every thought and the modulations of every sensation. in the political or official sphere, such people sometimes unconsciously become careerists, getting used to going with the flow of the wind that blows in one direction or another and spiritualizing in themselves any favorable wind. Among statesmen making speeches in meetings, between prosecutors and lawyers, the following examples are often encountered: inspired by the impression of the moment, the same person who today was a strict, unforgiving judge of untruth, tomorrow is its defender, will with ardent conviction, with a burst of inspiration, defend a completely opposite idea and look for features of beauty in the phenomenon that yesterday he denounced as moral ugliness. The ability of a talented actor to be inspired by each role and enter into the soul and character of each person he represents. But, at the same time, that is why he devotes himself to this art, and that is why he is able to experience moments of characteristic action in the person represented, because in front of him there is a mass of spectators, whose soul merges at these moments with his soul, therefore, inspired by his role, he is at the same time inspired by the mass of the public. That is why acting is so exciting, reaching the point of passion both in the actor and in the audience. The same feeling is characteristic of every speaker in public meetings: acting, that is, speaking in this or that idea, in this or that direction, and being inspired by his task, he is at the same time inspired by the environment in which he acts, without renouncing his self for a moment, and his self strives in him to excite sensations in this environment - sympathy or delight. and this desire can drive a talented nature to passion, so that she irresistibly seeks scenes for her art, practicing it on every stage, in a large gathering, in a conversation circle in a living room or study, adapting herself to the mood of each circle and being inspired by every color with which it is painted. Deliberative and legislative assemblies abound with such people: one can say that they form the majority that makes decisive decisions. It seemed that people of serious business and firm direction could serve as a counterbalance to them; but these people are rarely strong in words, that is, they do not know how to wield the weapon that their opponents, people of sensation and pressure, freely have at their disposal. The larger the assembly, the more mixed its composition appears, the less capable it is of grasping the idea of ​​the question, of grasping its actual content and of comprehending truth and untruth in it, and the more capable of being carried away by the sensation—sometimes the sensation of the moment—that this or that speaker produced. Few begin the task, having familiarized themselves with it through preliminary study, in good faith: the rest come to the meeting without an exact idea about the matter, or with a vague idea about it, or approach it with prejudice and predisposition. in such a collection, the artist of words is the master of sensation: skillfully wielding the arrangement of facts and numbers, throwing light and shadows on them at his discretion, exciting some with pathos, intimidating others with irony, he masters the field, and the struggle with him for the truth becomes extremely difficult and sometimes impossible for a person who does not know how to wield a phrase, but wields the strict connection of logical reasoning. His arguments are inaccessible to many people, carried away by sensation, and the more conscientious he is, the more vividly he feels the moral responsibility for his opinion, the more difficult it is for him to overcome the irresponsible majority that has no conscience, for what conscience can there be in a sweeping opinion, devoid of unity and integrity and united only by the number of votes? A number is what, unfortunately, now serves as the final criterion of truth and the decisive sanction of sentences, which often resolve the most important issues of state policy... The type of Moliere's Harpagon has many varieties that have not yet been subject to artistic development. It is strange that in comedy so far no one has paid attention to a special type of miserliness - miserliness with time; and this is a rich plot. Just as Molière’s miser hoards money and trembles over it, so another kind of miser hoards time and trembles over it, not making productive use of it himself, or admiring only his capital, as a miser admires ducats. Money would come to life if the soul that owns it came to life, and would become in the hands of a person a powerful instrument of fruitful productivity and reasonable charity: like any power, money requires living circulation. The British have already said about time that time is the same as money. A living soul must put it into circulation, spend it productively, without sparing, but also without wasting, without unwinding. Our social life is rich in these two extremes. on the one hand, we have too many idle people and extremely developed waste of time among people who do not know what to do with it. The collision of people of this type with people who work and value their time presents situations that are not without comedy. on the other hand, we often meet time hoarders, and, unfortunately, it is not uncommon to meet them among so-called business people, even those in power. The fear of losing time sometimes reaches the point of nervous irritation in such a person, forcing him to shut himself away from people and look, as if at a thief and kidnapper, at anyone who comes to him with a living matter, for an explanation or a request. This is why it can be so difficult to see other people and those in power even doing the most necessary work. The only way to communicate with them is by letter or paper: written messages have a calming effect on them, although the clerical work associated with them requires much more time than a personal explanation. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the strong development that paperwork is receiving in our country. Ask such a person why he locks himself away so jealously and hoards his time: he will say that every minute is precious to him. But if you take a closer look at what these minutes and hours are spent on, you can only marvel at why he is fussing, why he cuts himself off from life, from people, from living reality, and sits, like Harpagon, over his treasure. Xenophon, in his memoirs about Socrates, tells the instructive story of a young Athenian who, not yet twenty years old, decided to become a statesman and began to diligently make public speeches in the hope of attracting popular favor. When he came to Socrates, Socrates asked him: “I hear, Glaucon, that you really want to have power in government?” - “Yes, I admit, I would like to.” “What a wonderful lot,” Socrates told him, “to govern the state, how much good you can do for your fatherland! What an honor to place yourself and your whole house! How can you become famous in Athens, and not only in Athens! Themistocles was also famous among the barbarians... Wonderful! But I think you agree with me that such an honor is not given for nothing: you have to do something to earn it?” “Oh, of course,” Glaucon hastened to respond. “Tell me,” continued Socrates, “where would you start, for example?” The young man did not answer; he had never thought about where to start. “However, we’ll see; for example, they say: the treasury is most needed for the state; “You, of course, would try to increase the income of the treasury?” - “Of course, so.” – “Curious to know where you would start? Of course, you already know very well from what items the treasury receives income, and how much it receives, and from where?” The young man had to admit that he did not know this exactly. “Well, in that case, tell me, what expenses seem unnecessary to you, which ones would you like to cut?” “I admit that until now I have not had time to think about this carefully. But it seemed to me, Socrates, that there is no need to think much about it when you can arrange a treasury at the expense of the enemy...” - “Your truth, but for this it is necessary to defeat the enemy, to be stronger than him; and if he is stronger, then he will probably take away what you have. Therefore, if you are counting on war, you need to know exactly your strength and the enemy’s. Do you know, tell me, how many ground forces we have, how many naval forces, and what the strength of our enemies is?” - “So, out of my head, in one minute, I can’t calculate for you.” “It doesn’t matter,” Socrates continued, “if you have it written down somewhere, we’ll look together.” But there was nothing in Glaucon’s letter either. “Well, okay,” Socrates began again, “I see, and we will have to leave this article for now; apparently, the time has not yet come for it. But you probably know everything that relates to the internal guard of the state: how many posts are there and how many are needed for the internal guard, where what is missing and needs to be added, where what is superfluous and needs to be subtracted? “Yes, to tell the truth,” answered Glaucon, “I would destroy them all if it were up to me. What kind of guards do we have? Is it worth keeping them when there is such theft everywhere that no one can protect themselves!” - "How so? After all, if guards are removed from everywhere, then thieves will rob in the wild, in broad daylight... Do you know this matter so intimately, and do you truly know that our police are no good?” - “So it seems to me; everyone says so.” “No, Glaucon, it’s not enough to guess, but you need to know for sure.” and Glaucon had to agree with Socrates. “Well,” Socrates asked again, “you want to rule the state. Do you know how much wheat is required in our city per year for the people’s food supply, what the home supply may be, and how much more needs to be purchased from abroad?” “How can I know all this, Socrates,” answered the young man, “you ask so much that you have to undertake terrible work to answer you.” - “But you can’t do without this, Glaucon; You can’t manage your house without knowing how much of what the house requires, and it’s much more difficult to manage a state than a house. “Your own house, that is, your uncle’s house, is in disarray: start with this - fix your uncle’s house, and see if you have the skills and strength.” - “Yes, I would willingly take on this matter, but my uncle does not listen to my advice.” - "How? - Socrates said to this, “you cannot persuade your uncle, and do you imagine that you are able to convince all the Athenians, together with your uncle, with your speeches?..” This conversation finally concluded with the fact that the young man came to his senses, began to study and stopped making speeches in public assemblies. It is appropriate to remember this simple and ancient story at the present time, when the whole earth is teeming with Glaucons striving for state activity in the field of all kinds of transformations; when young men, who have barely left the school bench, and, moreover, poorly supported, already begin to scribble semi-literate drafts of new regulations in the offices or make speeches, stringing together phrase after phrase. Only at that time was Socrates, to whom his relatives brought the young ambitious man, noticing that he was becoming ridiculous with his empty eloquence. and in our meager times there is no Socrates, and even if there was one, our Glauconians would not go to him and would not listen to him. Their empty speeches sound in a gathering of similar listeners, inflating the speaker with invincible complacency and infallible self-confidence; their projects go through without criticism and sometimes arouse surprise instead of laughter; Before them, that coveted staircase opens its smooth steps, along which the newest figures, inspired by the phrase, ascend... As soon as a person begins to think, a desire awakens in him to define himself, to establish his place in life, to bring his idea of ​​life into agreement with reality. An unsettled idea oscillates in the midst of an ever-moving motley and impermanent reality, in the midst of successive aspirations, sensations and desires. The thinking soul desires and demands to recognize itself in all this and find a point at which it can establish the balance of life and create a character for it. and there are happy people for whom this balance is given by itself, without much effort. Without making any conclusions and conclusions, without asking himself why, why, where, for what, a person by himself, unconsciously finds a solution to these questions in reality. His ideas all correspond to his organic needs and fit smoothly into his soul, without colliding with desires and sensations. The interest of his activities lies in the circle that he has chosen for himself and from which he does not seek to leave. Types of this kind are often encountered in ordinary life and can arouse sympathy, because the simplicity of their attitude towards life often imparts to them the quality of directness and sincerity. It is true that these types are of little interest at the lowest stage of their development, because we do not see any creative power in them. But at the highest levels of this type, cultured people, people of developed thought, who can be considered balanced, also belong to it. They do not strive for creativity, they are not masters of thought and deeds, but they are gifted with the ability to perceive, understand and convey creative thought, because they have talent; For them, by nature, a harmonious combination of life and work, ideas and images is possible, and thought, without ceasing to act, does not seek to destroy this harmony. This type includes many people who have made an honorable name for themselves in administrative activities, in literature, in art, in science - and their activity is precious, because they educate both the thought and taste of the social environment, disseminating in it not created by them, but perceived by them ideas and images. They do great things without great pretensions. Their activity excites imitators due to the sympathetic inclination of the mind, but they cannot create a new school and gather around them a crowd of enthusiasts of the new teaching. There are other souls who want to establish their life balance on their own, consciously. Every reasoning in man begins from the knowledge of good and evil. The feeling of evil and error produces confusion in the soul, from which the human mind seeks a way out and, not content with an instinctive feeling, which is sufficient for others, resorts to the help of reason, seeking ways and means to achieve the truth. This is how rationalists are formed who want to achieve unity in the divided human nature. Certain general principles, accepted on faith by the mind, constitute for them an indisputable theory, under which they strive to subsume all the phenomena of life. Reason, which they identify with this theory, becomes for them a deity, deciding all questions of real life, and they recognize their opinions as sentences of truth, to which everyone who is not devoid of reason must submit. This direction of the mind in other cases reaches the fanaticism of formal logic. A fanatical admirer of general principles does not want to admit anything that is not part of his system of thinking, and does not stop before the obvious facts and phenomena of reality: if I see, he says, I won’t believe it. in the highest manifestations of this type we see: philosophers, theologians, moralists, natural scientists, who set out to bring to unity and balance with reason not only everything that they themselves see, think and feel, but also everything that other people think and feel, and even that which has never been thought of, but that may someday happen and appear. The highest representatives of this type can be Auguste Comte and, in particular, Stuart Mill - the purest example of an abstract thinker, with unconditional faith in the absolute value of reason and analysis. But these are only large phenomena: the lower varieties of this type in different areas of knowledge and activity are very diverse - and their number has recently multiplied to infinity. There are imaginary philosophers who have clothed themselves in some fashionable religious or philosophical doctrine, or who have composed a doctrine for themselves - simply from the denial of those ideas that are accepted by the environment around them. Both, however, imagine that they possess a universal key of knowledge - in politics, in science, in philosophy. Reasoning is a kind of art and is nourished by the artistic instinct: the mind loves and gets used to building a more or less harmonious building of evidence, arguments and conclusions. Some turn this tool to the service of their passions, lusts and material interests, while others are carried away by a passion for freedom of thought and logical constructions of thought, striving to lead the entire field of thinking to formal unity. This passion is one of the most powerful and dominant over a person. Among the first are passionate admirers and preachers of social or religious ideas that should transform humanity - these are the upper degrees of the type. At its lower levels are sophists of all kinds, using their art as the art of mental games of defense or proof - whatever it is, for the sake of a random whim or for the sake of interest: lawyers and journalists of the lowest level belong here. People of this type, however, strive to establish harmony in their soul by balancing its ideal elements, bringing them to order, in a consistent logical connection. But there are minds that, having perceived one idea, coming from within or from without, or one belief, strive to subordinate everything else, in a series of all kinds of ideas and beliefs, to their formula: they recognize nothing else and do not want to know. These are the real preconceived thought fanatics. Such a person is so convinced of the truth of his idea or belief that he completely identifies it with the truth, and even if he could recognize the truth, he would not recognize it, just as he does not recognize reality that does not agree with what he believed as the truth. Pursuing his idea to the extreme limits, he does not stop at any other idea, does not pay attention to facts and phenomena that he does not want to know. Thus affirming his life on his favorite idea, forcibly suppressing all other ideas and movements of feelings that do not agree with it, such a person cannot, however, completely destroy them, and often these very forces denied by him, contrary to the theory of reason, contrary to belief, which does not allow any transaction, continue to control his actions, his personal relationships and feelings in real life. These feelings and movements, hidden in the depths of a person’s soul, feelings that he never recognizes as his own, by themselves, regardless of consciousness, turn out to be alive in his real life, although he has renounced them and buried them mentally. This phenomenon is especially noticeable in cases where the idea possessing a person is a decisive denial of the ideas accepted among the people around him. So, for example, we see that a liberal atheist, denying all religion to the point of hatred, falls into gross superstition in his home life or creates his own religion from scraps of those forms that he denies; a theorist who denies all charity as a lie and evil, according to the theory of the struggle for existence, when he sees poverty, he strives to help it; an ardent preacher of freedom of relationships, a denier of marriage and family, turns out to be a gentle and caring husband and father; the fanatical preacher of celibacy and asceticism rejoices at the new births of his children; a bitter enemy of wealth and a hater of capital does not miss the opportunity to increase his capital and estates. Phenomena of this kind, all too well known, serve as a striking exposure of the lies with which every theory detached from life is permeated. The fatal bifurcation of human nature appears everywhere; in the language - one, often lofty and solemn word; and the reality is completely different. Hypocrisy lurks in the depths of the human soul, in both small and great things. We are horrified when it appears to us in all its shamelessness of lust, covering itself with the banner of religion or philanthropy. But besides conscious and shameless hypocrisy, how often does it appear in an unconscious form, when a person, blinded by the pride of his thought or his belief, carries it dominantly under the banner of truth, boasting a crowd of admirers and disciples, carrying it throughout all the markets. Often these students begin to develop the system of their teacher with new generalizations of its main idea, in the form of a formula that should enlighten humanity, explaining to it the whole mystery of the Divine, the world and life, and transform religion, art, social science, and philosophy with the sudden light of truth. and these students often do a disservice to their teachers by systematizing all the shortcomings and errors of their teaching. What motives lead the human mind to such one-sided and extreme development? There are characters who are inherently prone to contradiction and protest against stated opinions, especially against opinions and beliefs rooted in society, against everything that, according to legend, exists and is recognized. This natural inclination can sometimes turn into a passion seeking an outcome and satisfaction. To help her, a sharp mind develops a skillful dialectic that serves him as a tool to achieve his goal, that is, to convince others of what he considers to be the truth, with all the energy of intense will. Delving deeper into one or another scientific theory, into a religious or social doctrine, the mind wants to extract from it a truth that no one has seen before, and on this truth it seeks to establish the unity of science, the unity of belief, the unity of human existence. So another seeker of truth, delving into the Gospel text and looking in it for his ideal of religious truth, rejects in it, as inconsistent with the ideal, everything except a few words and sayings, and on these fragments of the text he builds his edifice of a new faith, preaches it as a revelation of his thoughts and attracts disciples and admirers from the multitude of people wandering around the world and seeking to consolidate their scattered thoughts and desires in unity. and it is impossible to count, since man thinks and feels about the phenomena of social life, how many such teachers of the new faith have appeared and how much they have sown between people of different faiths not of love, but only of mutual malice, hatred and persecution. in the highest representatives of this type a certain genius of imagination and invention cannot be denied. The inventor, obviously, possesses artistry, and, carried away by the harmony of the design, creates his own building, striking in shape and size, despite the obvious absurdity of the content. Such, for example, is the system of the brilliant madman Fourier. and all the highest level creators of such systems were remarkable artists of thought and words. It is noteworthy that few of them took an active part in the implementation of their theories: almost all are content with proclaiming their teaching, without caring about its consequences: developing the word of their teaching, they throw it into the world so that it acts by itself - come what may; the teaching itself, capturing minds on the fly, creates disciples who, becoming its fanatics, often strive to implement it, developing and interpreting it in their own way. in fact, often the fanatical preacher of anarchy himself turns out to be a modest citizen, a good family man, a good man, while his disciples and followers commit insane and bloody deeds in his name and by virtue of his teachings. The apostle of socialism publishes his books, makes speeches, arranges his well-being, and his teaching, inspiring entire masses, directs them to criminal activity. The teacher does not care how much life has been ruined by his teaching, how many lies have been planted in immature minds, how many new disasters it has produced in humanity, how many ugly distortions have been introduced into it by the narrow minds of often very stupid people who believed in it; all the same, he believes in his recipe, in his formula for the unity of human life, which sooner or later must transform humanity. Our time - the time of confused and wandering thoughts - is especially replete with such types of abnormal, unbalanced people. The life of mankind at all times has been filled with untruth, violence, lies and poverty; but in our time, thought works more intensely than ever, and more clearly than ever, this endless scroll of evil and untruth opens before it. It is not surprising that in the midst of painful sensations, a thought seeking an ideal gets lost in them and does not see a way out, but strives to find it. and woe to her if she finds no other way out but denial, indignation and protest: through denial she often comes to an ostensibly positive formula for life, her invention, but this formula becomes only a new lie in the public consciousness; entering into a struggle with other formulas, another invention, it itself is exhausted in fruitless denials, until it gives way to some new teaching. Rows of people are stretching one after another, wanting to find within themselves the answer to Pilate’s question: what is truth? But this answer is found within himself, without searching, only by those who themselves “are of the truth.” Ancient classical languages at school All improvements in human thought, all expansions of human thought are achieved through a stubborn struggle with time and space. These boundaries are irremovable, but human labor manages to push them aside. Our century is the century of brilliant victories over space. Fast ships and railways, telegraphs and telephones, tools of daily printing, improving and multiplying with dizzying speed, established live, direct communication between people and countries around the globe. The conquests of optics and chemistry give us access to many secrets of celestial space. A person who now sees and knows what immediately surrounds him seems pitiful and weak to us today. But the person who sees and knows only what he directly experiences is also weak and pitiful. The boundaries of time are as ineradicable as the boundaries of space, but they are also subject to expansion through the hard work of man. Hoary antiquity bequeathed to us writing and left us countless monuments of past human creativity, as well as past processes that changed the appearance of the earth's surface. Knowledge of the past, living communication with it in word and deed, is perhaps subject to limitless expansion. The people of the Middle Ages felt this vividly, and with reverent contemplation of the past they prepared for the brilliant future of the Renaissance. And now, in the silence of the scientific world, the hardworking restoration of what has long passed continues. The treasures bequeathed to us by the relatively close past of Greece and Rome are being replenished. they are accompanied by revelations from a more distant past: Egypt, Chaldea, India and China. An inquisitive thought is penetrating ever further into the depths of centuries, trying to restore the material history of our planet. But the modern crowd has turned away from these studies. Victories over space distracted her attention from the lessons of time. She prefers to communicate with the past fortune-telling about the future, groundless and fruitless without close acquaintance with the past. The methods of direct penetration into this past are declining, and its living speech, which for so long served as a connecting link between centuries and generations, is increasingly being removed from the field of mental education. This hobby, like many others, found an exaggerated echo in Russian society, which does not remember kinship. What we now say and write about the study of languages, ancient, modern and domestic, will amaze posterity with its frivolity. It’s time to remember what the European ancient languages ​​are - Latin and Greek. The Latin language is not only the language of the ancient Romans, but also an international language that has survived the Roman Empire almost to this day. The authority of the Catholic Church and the need for communication between bookish people of multilingual Europe preserved its widespread use until the 18th century. At the same time, it, along with living languages, was modified and enriched, adapting to new needs, but at the same time maintaining its grammatical structure. The needs of Catholic worship made it an instrument of abundant and brilliant poetic creativity in an area completely alien to the ancient world. The greatest poets of the Renaissance - Dante, Petrarch, Milton - felt the need, in addition to their natural language, to use this New Latin language for their creativity. The singer of "Paradise Lost" in this language, on behalf of Cromwell, greeted the Swedish Queen Christina. The greatest scientific philosophers of modern times - Bacon of Verulam, Spinoza, Newton, Leibniz - adapted this language to the scientific field. Linnaeus surpassed them all in this regard. His Latin language is incomparable and captivating in its clarity and accuracy, in its truly poetic animation, and contributed greatly to the rapid spread of his fruitful creations. In the last century, the great mathematician Gauss wrote almost exclusively in Latin. these days, Pope Leo XIII, in addition to encyclicals, writes elegant poems in Latin, and one of them, as a refutation of rumors about the inapplicability of the Latin language to modern things, is dedicated to the praise of photographic art. Only partly and for a short time was the Latin language supplanted as an international language by French in the 18th century, thanks to the amazing development of this language by writers of the 17th century. Revived nationalism soon restored the equality of the great European languages ​​and also advanced the rights of minor languages. Meanwhile, the Babylonian proliferation of languages ​​since the time of Leibniz makes thinkers and scientists dream of an international and universal language that would serve as an instrument of communication, business and scientific, between all the tribes of the universe. We witnessed the ugly and stillborn invention of the Volapuk. This pitiful attempt only emphasized the need for a language that was formed historically, through the unconscious creativity of countless generations, as an international instrument of communication. In fact, until now only Latin can serve as such a language - the only one known to all educated members of the European family, the only one that opens access to the past of all sciences. There are philologists who advocate returning this language to its medieval predominance. 75 Individual peoples are free to dream about the future dominance of the language of French or English, German or Russian. Such a victory, if possible, is a matter of the very distant future. In the meantime, no one who has the opportunity to devote the summers of adolescence and youth to their mental development should be denied access to the only instrument of communication at present with all enlightened peoples, with all centuries of the Christian and partly pre-Christian past. The Greek language has a different meaning. The Orthodox Church has never imposed it, as a liturgical language, on foreign-speaking peoples. Never, since the distant times of his worldwide dominion, has he served to spread new scientific discoveries, new thought trends. But he concluded his international career with the dissemination of the highest revelations, but he remains a repository of the highest beauties of human thought and word and the crown of writings written by human hand - the New Testament with the interpretation of its closest successors of the Holy Tradition. Let not everyone succeed in mastering its complete assimilation, but only people of genius can reach the heights of philosophical, theological, and artistic understanding without its help; but this tool must be given into the hands of everyone who is to work in the highest spheres of science, art, and spiritual contemplation. The school, not deathly united, but, like life itself, diverse, cannot exclude any of these languages ​​from its programs. Such castration of her would be the greatest sin of our time before future generations. The distribution among schools of various types and purposes of the amount of knowledge in both languages ​​that is necessary and achievable should be the subject of the most careful and thoughtful work, as well as the choice between long-developed teaching methods. Only people who have not experienced its beneficial effects due to the accidents of their upbringing or their own thoughtlessness can speak about the abolition of this teaching. I repeat: to break the connection with the past, throwing away the only instrument of its direct knowledge, thereby depriving ourselves of the only data that allows us to work fruitfully for the future, would be as perverse and insane as limiting our knowledge of the present to the random place of our residence. This elementary truth has obviously been forgotten by the current reformers. It is the duty of every thinking person to remind him, persistently and loudly. The craze that has now taken hold of society will, of course, pass. But one attempt to carry out the supposed break is enough to cripple an entire generation mentally and morally. Absit omen! There is a force of moral gravity in human souls that attracts one soul to another; there is a deep need for one soul to influence another. Without this power, people would seem like a bunch of grains of sand, not connected by anything and carried by the wind in all directions. This force naturally, without prior agreement, unites people into society. It forces people to look for another person, someone to admire, someone to listen to, someone to be guided by. Inspired by a moral principle, it receives the meaning of creative power, uniting and raising the masses to great deeds, to great feats. But for civil society this free and random mutual influence is not enough... The natural, as if instinctive desire for it, thickening and focusing, seeks an imperious, indisputable influence by which the mass with all its various needs, desires and passions would be united, to which it would submit, in which it would find the excitement of activity and the beginning of order, in which it would find, among all the perversions of self-will, the measure of truth. So, in its idea, all power is based on truth, and since truth has its source and foundation in the Most High God and His law, naturally written in the soul and conscience of everyone, then the word is justified in its deepest sense: there is no power except from God. This word is addressed to those in power, but it applies just as impressively to power itself, and oh, if only all power would realize its full meaning! A great and terrible thing is power, because it is a sacred matter. The word sacred in its original sense means: separated, doomed to serve God. So, power does not exist for itself, but for the sake of God, and is the service to which a person is doomed. Hence the boundless, terrible power of power, its terrible burden. Its power is limitless, and not in the material sense, but in the spiritual sense, for it is the power of reasoning and creativity. The first moment of the universe is the appearance of light and its separation from darkness. Likewise, the first exercise of power is the denunciation of truth and the discrimination of untruth: on this is based faith in power and the uncontrollable attraction to it of all mankind. How many times and everywhere has this faith been deceived, and yet its source remains intact and does not dry up, because a person cannot live without truth. This is where the creative power of power comes from - power attracts people of goodness, truth and reason, excites and inspires them to deeds and exploits. The authorities have both the first and the last word - the alpha and omega in matters of human activity. No matter how long humanity lives, it never ceases to suffer either from power or from anarchy. Violence, abuse, madness, selfishness of power - stir up rebellion. Having lost faith in the ideal of power, people dream of doing without power and putting the word of law in its place. A vain dream: in the name of the law, autocratic unions that arise in large numbers raise a struggle for power, and the fragmentation of authorities leads to violence - even worse than before. So poor humanity, in search of a better structure, rushes along, as if along the waves of a boundless ocean, in which the abyss calls for the abyss, there is no helm - and no pier in sight... And yet it is impossible for him to live without power. In the spiritual nature of man, behind the need for mutual communication, the need for power is deeply hidden. since his nature split into two, the difference between good and evil appeared, and the craving for good and truth entered into an incessant struggle in his soul with the craving for evil and untruth - there was no other salvation left than to seek reconciliation and support in the supreme judge of this struggle, in the living embodiment of the powerful principle of order and truth. So, no matter how many disappointments, seductions, torments from power there are, humanity, as long as the desire for goodness and truth is still alive in it, with the consciousness of its division and powerlessness, will not cease to believe in the ideal of power and repeat attempts to realize it. From ancient times to the present day, madmen have said and continue to say in their hearts: there is no God, there is no truth, there is no good and evil, attracting other madmen to themselves and preaching atheism and anarchy. But the mass of humanity retains faith in the highest principle of life, and in the midst of tears and blood, like a blind man looking for a leader, he seeks power for himself and calls on it with unceasing hope, and this hope is alive, despite centuries-old disappointments and seductions. So, the matter of power is a matter of continuous service, and therefore, in essence, a matter of self-sacrifice. How strange, however, this word sounds in current concepts of power. It would seem natural for people to run and evade victims. On the contrary, everyone is looking for power, everyone strives for it, they fight over power, commit crimes, destroy each other, and having achieved power, they rejoice and triumph. Power strives to exalt itself and, while exalting itself, falls into a strange dreamy state, as if it exists for itself, and not for service. and meanwhile, the indisputable, one true ideal of power is in the word of Christ the Savior: “Whoever wants to be first among you must be a servant of all.” This word passes by our ears as something not pertaining to us, but to some other, special community that was in Palestine - but truly, no matter how high a power is, which in the depths of its conscience is not aware that the higher its greatness, the greater the volume of years of activity, the more painful its bonds become, the deeper the scroll of social ulcers opens before it, in which so much “sob, and pity, and grief” is written, the more Screams and cries about untruth are heard louder, penetrating the soul and binding it. The first condition for power is faith in oneself, that is, in one’s calling: the good of power is when this faith merges with the consciousness of duty and moral responsibility. It’s a disaster for power when it separates itself from this consciousness, feels itself without it, and believes in itself. Then the fall of power begins, reaching the loss of this faith in oneself, that is, to humiliation and decay. Power, as the bearer of truth, needs most of all people of truth, people of firm thought, strong understanding and right speech, for whom yes and no do not touch or merge, but arise independently and separately in the spirit, and are expressed in the word. Only such people can be a firm support of power and its faithful leaders. Happy is the government that knows how to distinguish such people and appreciate them, and steadfastly adhere to them. Woe to the power that is burdened by such people and prefers to them people of inclined disposition, evasive opinions and flattering tongue. A right person is a person of integrity who does not tolerate division. He looks straight into his eyes, and in his eyes one sees one image, one thought and one feeling. His appearance is calm and fearless, and his tongue does not waver right or left. His thought agrees with itself and is expressed without asking whose opinion it agrees with, to whom it is pleasant, to whose desire or whose lust it corresponds. His word is simple and does not look for crooked paths and crafty ways to convince that the thought that gives rise to the word has not been confirmed in truth. This is not the type of person who is unsteady in thought, double-minded and flattering. He looks into your eyes, but in his eyes you don’t see him alone, but someone else is standing behind you and looking at you, and you don’t know who to believe - this one or that other? He speaks, and even though his speech was red and hot, what is on his mind is: what impression did it make on you, does it agree with your desire or whim, and if you respond to it, he will turn it to you and say that you are its creator, that he borrowed it from you. He will grab your fleeting word on the fly, put it into form and carry it in the form of a firm thought, in the form of a decisive opinion. The more capable such a person is, the more skillfully he will be able to use you and guide you. You are at a loss or in doubt - He has a solution ready that will lead you out of difficulty, out of anxiety, into the peace of self-satisfaction. You are hesitant to recognize which side is right - he has ready arguments and formulas that can convince you that what seemed doubtful to you is the real truth. Paper endures everything - this is an old proverb that was formed at a time when literacy was almost exclusively paper and paper alone served as a material and tool for chicanery. A different time came - the paper remained, but oral speech began to dominate over it, and one had to marvel at the latest chicanery in the speeches of countless speakers. A new school arose in which the ignorant, as well as the intelligent and learned, began to learn the art of speaking eloquently about anything, eloquently proving the truth of anything and playing a skillful game designed to appeal to the impressionability of listeners. A new breed of people has emerged, from among whom a number of practical figures, administrators, judges, and teachers are often replenished. Happy is he who, having gone through this school, still managed to retain in himself a strong thought, conscientiousness of judgment and the ability to recognize the truth in the midst of a cloud of general views and formulas of the latest sophistry; in short, who, having gone through the school of double-mindedness, managed to remain straightforward. The boss must be aware of the dignity of power. By forgetting about it and not observing it, the authorities undermine themselves and distort their relations with their subordinates. Combined with dignity and must be inseparable from it is the simplicity of dealing with people, which is necessary to excite them to the cause, and to revive interest in the matter, and to maintain sincerity in relationships. The consciousness of dignity also fosters freedom in dealing with people. Power must be free within its legal limits, because with the consciousness of its dignity, it has no need to be embarrassed and worry about how it will appear, what impression it will make and what kind of attack it will have towards approaching people. But the consciousness of dignity must be inseparable from the consciousness of duty: as the consciousness of duty fades, the consciousness of dignity, expanding and rising beyond measure, produces a disease that can be called hypertrophy of power. As this disease intensifies, power may fall into a state of moral darkness, in which it appears to exist on its own and for itself. This will already be the beginning of the disintegration of power. Conscious of the dignity of power, the boss cannot forget that he serves as a mirror and example for all those under his power. As he begins to behave, so others will learn to behave like him - in techniques, in dealing with people, in methods of work, in attitude to work, in tastes, in forms of decency and indecency. It would be in vain to imagine that power, in those moments when it takes off its commanding robe, can safely mingle with the crowd in the daily life of the crowd, in the marketplace of everyday vanity. However, while respecting his dignity, the boss must equally firmly respect the dignity of his subordinates. His relationship with them must be based on trust, because in the absence of trust there is no moral connection between the boss and the subordinate. It’s a disaster for the boss if he imagines that he can know everything and judge everything directly, regardless of the knowledge and experience of his subordinates, and wants to resolve all issues with one of his powerful words and orders, without coping with the thoughts and opinions of the subordinates who are directly related to him. in this case, he will soon feel his powerlessness before the knowledge and experience of his subordinates and will end up becoming completely dependent on them. It’s a real disaster for him if he falls into the pernicious habit of not tolerating and not allowing objections and contradictions: this is a property not only of limited minds, but is often found in the most intelligent and energetic, but overly proud and self-confident figures. A conscientious leader should be afraid of the habit of arbitrariness and autocracy in decisions: it fosters indifference, the ulcer of bureaucracy. The authorities must not forget that behind every paper there is either a living person or a living cause, and that life itself urgently demands and awaits a decision and direction corresponding to it. it must contain truth - personal - in a direct, conscientious and accurate view of the matter, and also truth - in accordance with the living social, moral and economic conditions of people's life and people's history. This truth does not exist if the guiding principle for power is an abstract theory or doctrine, detached from life with its special, diverse conditions and needs. The wider the circle of activity of a person in power, the more complex the management mechanism, the more necessary for him are subordinate people who are capable of doing business, who are able to unite themselves with the general direction of activity towards a common goal. People are needed at any time and for any government, and in our time it is almost more necessary than ever: in our time the government has to reckon with many newly emerging and established forces - in science, in literature, in the criticism of public opinion, in public institutions with their independent interests. The ability to find and choose people is the first art of power; Another skill is to guide them and introduce them into proper discipline of activity. The choice of people is a matter of labor and the art acquired through labor to recognize the qualities of people. But power often tends to remove itself from this labor and replaces it with external or formal signs of qualities. The most common signs of this type are patents from the completion of higher education courses, patents acquired through exams. This measure, as we know, is very incorrect and depends on many accidents, therefore, in itself does not certify, in fact, either the knowledge, much less the ability of the candidate for the task for which he is required. But it serves to relieve the authorities from the labor of peering into people and identifying them. Guided by this one measure, the authorities fall into mistakes that are harmful to the cause. Not only ability and skill, but also a person’s education itself does not depend on the implementation of educational programs in a variety of subjects included in the curriculum. Countless examples of the best students who are not fit for any job - and the worst who turned out to be wonderful people - prove the opposite. It often happens that the ability of people is revealed only from the moment when they touched the living reality of the matter: until then, science, in the form of lessons and lectures, left them indifferent, because they did not sense real interest in it: such was the history of the development of many great public figures. The head of a vast department with a wide range of action cannot act successfully if he wants to, without due measure, extend his power directly to all the individual parts of his department, intervening in all the details of office work. The most energetic and experienced leader can waste his strength and confuse the progress of affairs in subordinate places if, with equal zeal, he begins to deal with significant issues in which he should give general direction, and with the minor matters of current production. His place is at the top of the business, from where he can survey the entire circle of subordinate activity: by descending directly into all the corners and crannies of management, he will lose the measure of his labor and his strength and the ability to broaden his horizons, disrupt the division of labor necessary in any practical matter and weaken in his subordinates the moral interest of the activity and the consciousness of the moral responsibility of each for the work entrusted to him. on the other hand, the main boss will be mistaken if he gives himself a personal choice not only of those directly dependent on him, but also of all secondary figures and workers subordinate to the heads of individual parts of the department: in this case, he would take on the matter beyond his strength, and not for the benefit of the cause, but only to please his personal arbitrariness and autocracy. The head of each individual part bears responsibility for the success of the business entrusted to him, and to take away from him the right to choose his employees and workers at his discretion means to remove from him responsibility for the successful progress of the business, to weaken his authority and to restrict his freedom in the legal circle of his activities. Unfortunately, as the moral principle of power in the boss weakens, he is overcome by the destructive passion of patronage, the passion to patronize and distribute places and positions of higher and lower ranks. The spread of this passion, hypocritically disguised as good nature and good deeds to people in need, is a great misfortune. The motives of this beneficence are often mixed with the motives of subservience to other powerful people who want to benefit their clients. Alas! benefits of this kind are often distributed at the expense of the public good, at the expense of the improvement of official functions, and finally, at the expense of the state or public treasury. As soon as the authorities forget themselves, they already abandon the thought of the truth of their service and the public good, which they are called to serve. And the treasury! To the indifferent authorities, it seems to be somehow placed from above, in an unknown country, as an inexhaustible horn of plenty, from which blessings and mercies of all kinds pour in, where you can turn with the firm hope of fulfilling some commandment: ask and it will be given to you; where every need, clothed in familiar forms, is graciously and complacently accepted. Is it hard to forget, and everyone more or less forgets, from what sources this cornucopia is fed, from where, from whom and in what ways, sometimes difficult and painful, rubles and pennies are collected into the treasury of the state treasury, and who and what it is intended to serve. Little by little, this oblivion can spread to everyone, from top to bottom, and turn into general demoralization - both the taxing authorities and the taxed ordinary people: and they, despite the grumbling and complaints, are possessed by some senseless expectation of benefits and favors from the treasury and the state. The ranks of officials are growing, institutions are multiplying, salaries are doubling; At the same time, taxation increases, and the state budget takes on monstrous proportions, absorbing inventions, claims and demands of private interests and social fantasies rushing from everywhere. The budget of the current French democracy presents a terrifying picture of the demoralization of the government, which has lost consciousness of the moral dignity of power. One of the main engines of favoritism is flattery, the original source of temptation, acting not only on weak, but also on strong natures, for the art of flattery is inexhaustible in the variety and shades of its techniques. One of the most subtle techniques consists in skillfully instilling in a superior that every creative thought comes from him, that every new invention suggested to him is inspired by him, that every work of his subordinates is animated by him. So little by little the flatterer becomes pleasant, declares himself capable and gives the impression of being a devoted person. and when the boss’s disposition towards such pleasant treatment became noticeable, catching his favorable and good opinion became part of the usual policy of internal management economy. A person with a definite outlook on life, who has educated himself and his will through reasonable work, who is clearly aware of what he is striving for and what he wants, is, as a duty of his rank, free in his relations with people, and from this freedom of relations he gains the ability to judge people. Meeting on his way people who are strong in spirit and capable, he knows how to distinguish between them, for he is not in the least embarrassed by the thought that his dignity will suffer damage in any way from the dignity of another person. Taking power, he does not lose his freedom. But a person who is not prepared for power through the discipline of work and will feels unfree in dealing with people. One external dignity of power blinds him, but also weakens him, for it is not combined in him with the dignity of spirit and understanding, and therefore he does not know how to appreciate spiritual dignity in others: it only exposes and confuses him. On the contrary, he feels free with people of low spirit and worldly inclinations, who flatter him, applying themselves to his character and inclinations. This is how a network of close people and favorites is formed around the boss, from whom he is able to arbitrarily, without further consideration, select people for the affairs of his management. Himself not brought up with work, he does not have a clear idea of ​​what it means to work and what the work costs: he is presented ready-made with someone else’s idea, which he takes as his own, someone else’s work, which he recognizes as his own and launches in his own name. Companionship is also added to these engines of favoritism. Unconscious close relationships established in early youth with comrades in learning, youthful amusements and entertainment, or military life, form a bond between people based not so much on mutual sympathy of a spiritual nature, but on the habit of close communication. and for some people habit becomes the main guiding principle of daily life and activity, both in personal and social relationships. and when a comrade is a seeker of places and assignments, the choice is determined by personal favor or concern for the organization of a person with meager or frustrated means, sometimes without any consideration of whether the person is capable of the work for which he is going, whether he has the right to rule over the many private and public interests entrusted to him. Even closer to the boss’s favor are his relatives, sometimes numerous, who seek to arrange their fate through official feeding and consider taking care of this arrangement the moral duty of an imperious relative. Is there any place left, and what place, for concern for the public good, for the sake of which power is entrusted to the person in charge? There remains only one name of the public good, hypocritically inscribed on the banner of the rank that the boss bears, the position that he occupies. And it is not difficult to forget when a person draws all his motivations, patterns, and forms of activity not from within, but from without, from the environment in which he revolves and where his interests are concentrated. If he is efficient and diligent in his work, what is the use when all his work is paper and because of the paper he does not see a person with his needs, with his legitimate expectations, with his thirst for satisfaction and help? What is the use when, having heard about injustice, about violence, he does not burn with jealousy to correct the evil, give justice, restore what has been violated, but serenely orders a paper to be written and serenely signs it? For an indifferent boss, all his subordinates become only mechanical tools of production, soulless wheels of a complex machine in which half the force is absorbed by friction, because there is no spirit of life in the movement of the wheels, there is no animation from above. The interest in the business is gradually depleted, being absorbed by the interest of service, the interest of promotion, awards, higher salaries, in a word, the personal interest of everyone’s needs and benefits. and the one who sets to work at the beginning with the ideal of activity, without finding for himself either guidance or support, little by little is drawn into the mechanics of general indifference. But how quickly can the picture change when a living person appears at the head of the institution with a consciousness of duty and moral responsibility, with knowledge of the matter, which must be managed, with a heart that wants to establish order and truth in the midst of disorder and lawlessness, with a will that is governed by clear, conscious thought. Here it is revealed what power of excitement a rational power possesses when it turns not to paper, but to a living person, recognizing in everyone both the ability to do something and the desire to do a living thing. Then the subordinate workers, from the soulless wheels of a soulless machine, become members of an organic body, acting according to the inspiration of the animated center of the nervous system. If only the appearance of a living person at the head of the institution was not accidental, but a conscious manifestation of reasonable political thought and deliberate choice. It is good for the state in which state thought guides the selection of appropriate people at different levels of government, where, in the succession of generations, one transfers to the other a supply of people ready for business, strengthened in the school of practical activity. But where this mental and moral connection between senior figures and juniors is cut off, the supply of people who were brought up by deed itself under the guidance of knowledge and authority disappears, and in their place are random people, career seekers, striving for power without thinking about the duty of power and the responsibility for power, not trained for any business, but ready to take on anything. Rising upward from one empty level to another, they also become distributors of power... and here are signs of the moral decline of power. The most precious ability of a ruler is organizational ability. This is a talent not often encountered, a talent not acquired by any school, but innate. one can say about people of this quality what is said about poets is that they are born and not made (nascuntur, non fiunt). It is worth imagining what combination of various qualities is required for organizational talent. in such a person the power of imagination is combined with the ability to quickly choose methods of practical activity. He must be extremely smart, prudent and at the same time decisive for action, guessing the right moment for it; quickly penetrate into all the details of the matter, without losing sight of its guiding principles; must be a subtle observer of people and characters, be able to trust people and at the same time not forget that even the best people are not free from base instincts and selfish motives. Happy is the ruler when he manages to recognize such talent and not make a mistake in his choice. A mistake is possible, and there are often cases when they think that organizational talent is seen in a person of great intelligence and eloquence. But both of these talents are not only different, but also completely opposite. The logical development of thought and the ability for dialectical argumentation almost never coincide with organizational ability. On the contrary, a person who is capable of conceiving methods of action and creating a plan for it is very often completely unable to state conclusively what has formed in his mind for action. But this talent is revealed only in practice, and eloquence, influencing minds with the logic of its arguments and criticism of other people’s opinions, quickly captivates people and immediately evokes delight and surprise. The people are looking at the top, in power, for protection from untruth and violence, and there they strive to find moral authority in the person of the best people, representatives of truth, reason and morality. It is good for the people when they have such people - among their rulers, judges, spiritual shepherds and teachers of the growing generation. Woe to the people when they do not find a moral example and leadership in the upper, powerful strata of society: then the people lose heart and are corrupted. In the social and economic life of former times, history shows us a noble class of people, from generation to generation called upon to be not only bearers of power, but also guardians of the needs of the people and guardians of good traditions and customs. If such a class is destined to be reborn in our century, this is what the foundations of its existence and the essence of its calling should consist of: – serve the state with one’s face and property; - to be in word and deed the keeper of good folk traditions and customs; - to be an intercessor and trustee of the people in their needs and a protector from insults and violence; – with advice and example to support good morals in the family and in society; - do not get carried away by the passion for acquisition and enrichment that dominates society and shun enterprises that are usual for satisfying this passion. Is it possible to realize such an ideal? Is the burden of such a calling possible? and without this, what about a special class called to power? The significance of power is great and holy. Power worthy of its calling inspires people and inspires their activities: it serves as a mirror of truth, dignity, and energy for everyone. Seeing such power, feeling its inspirational effect is great happiness for every person who loves truth, seeks light and goodness. The great disaster is to seek power and not find it, or instead to find the imaginary power of the majority, the power of the crowd, arbitrariness in the ghost of freedom. It is no less, if not even more sad, to see a power devoid of consciousness of its duty, the very thought of its calling, a power that carries out its work unconsciously and formally, under the cover of superior greatness. As soon as she forgets herself, her decomposition begins. The same forms of production remain, the wheels of the mechanism still move, but there is no spirit of life in them. Little by little, the very desire to elect people prepared and capable of every task weakens, and people are no longer elected, but are appointed haphazardly, according to random motives and interests that have nothing to do with the work. Then the tradition guarded by experienced and dedicated workers begins to disappear in production, the school that actually educates new workers with the experience of old ones begins to disappear, and people who get down to business for the sake of personal interest and a career, constantly changing in pursuit of the best, do not leave anywhere a lasting trace of their labors. Any practical activity requires art, which enlivens this activity, and art is acquired through reasonable and conscientious labor, for which guidance is necessary. So, every institution designated for practical activity must at the same time be a school in which a generation of new leaders is accustomed to the art of business under the guidance of old leaders. This establishes the inner interest of each matter and the moral force that should revive it. Under these conditions, an institution can grow and improve, having open horizons in front of it: there is something to expect and hope for, there is a path to go forward. But when an institution becomes numb and dead, closing itself in the vulgar ways of current formality, it ceases to be a school of art, turning into a machine around which hired workers are replaced. The horizons are closed, there is nowhere to look, and there is no aspiration or movement forward. This may be the fate of new institutions, growing with the complication of social and civil life. This is what a school becomes with a multitude of students, teachers and subjects of study, when it has to fill its staff with teachers who are not prepared and incapable, who teach by craft, for the sake of bread: the spirit of life disappears in it, and it becomes unable to educate and educate the younger generation. This is what a court becomes, no matter how complicated and improved the forms of production are, when it ceases to be a school for the formation of a judicial class strong in knowledge, experience and art: the forms freeze and die, and the spirit of life disappears in them, and the court itself can become the same machine, around which only hired workers are replaced. The ideas of power of people who want and seek power are as diverse as human passions and desires. among the mass of people whose thoughts are focused on daily life, the prevailing desire is to improve their life without any further considerations. Then the predominant motive for power is ambition. in every person his own self, no matter how small and insignificant, is capable of rapid and limitless growth, reaching in others to monstrous proportions: everyone, no matter how small, looking around, sees around him even smaller sizes, who, under favorable circumstances, managed to climb onto the roof of this or that building and happily look down from the roof on humanity walking on the earth. Belonging to the host of at least the “deorum minorum gentium”[Gods of the minor clans (lat.)] is tempting for a small person, and then, how many buildings of all sizes are seen on the horizon, and from a small building how nice it is to look out for another roof, higher, and move to it and peer into the distant horizons, on which flaunt “dii majorum gentium”...[Gods of the senior clans (lat.)] there were examples of such ascent! Such are the vulgar paths and currents along which the imagination of small and medium-sized people walks and strives. Few of them ask themselves: who am I and am I capable of the work that will fall on me with my elevation? Will I cope with it and how will they answer for it? and whoever puts such questions to himself, they immediately fade away in the radiance of imaginary glory, and the questioner has only to compare himself with many around him sitting on the rooftops in order to immediately calm down. But, leaving aside vulgar ways, how varied and pure, sublime, but, alas! also deceptive aspirations for power. Two knowledges are essential for consecrating a person to power. One is the age-old rule: “Know yourself,” the other is “Know the environment around you.” Both are necessary so that a person can consciously determine his will and act, act on human will, and move events - no matter how broad or narrow the sphere. The action takes place in the world of realities; the laws of reason are at the same time the laws of nature and life. He who does not know these laws, does not pay attention to them, does not apply to them, is not able to act. But the human imagination, brought up only on the abstract aspirations of the soul, even the most sublime, but not brought up on realities, elevating the human spirit to the heights, encourages a person to imagine himself capable of action, painting tempting pictures of truth and goodness in front of him. This is how deceptive self-confidence grows in a person, and little by little it can grow into confidence in his calling. and when this is also combined with faith in some general provisions and axioms, which, supposedly acting on their own, require only application to human relations and are in themselves capable of establishing order and truth in them, then this confidence takes on the character of dogmatism and, irritating the soul, gives rise to a passionate desire for power in it, in the name of the highest principle of truth and good, but in essence still in the name of its expanded self. I will command - another seeker of power dreams - and my word will work wonders; dreams, imagining that one powerful word, like a magic wand, acts by itself. But poor man! Before you give orders, have you learned to obey? Before uttering a word of power, do you know how to listen to both the word of command and the word of objection? Have you gone through the school of official duty, in which each person, at a certain place, at a certain time, must carry out correctly and accurately a known task, in connection with a network of many tasks entrusted to others? Have you learned to understand that an order is not Minerva suddenly emerging from the head of Jupiter, as you imagine yourself to be, but an extreme link, intelligently connected with a chain of other links, with a logical chain of cause and effect? Another well-meaning person’s imagination presents a picture of good deeds: he so wants to do good and serve as an instrument of good. Alas! In order to be able to do good, it is not enough to be a kind person. and the one who does good, according to the Gospel commandment, from his property, and he, finally, is convinced by his own experience that doing good to a person - good in the true meaning of the word - is a very tricky and painful science. How much more difficult is it when you have to do good from the fund of power with which a person is invested. It is good when, thinking about himself and about his power, he does not forget for a minute that power belongs to him for the sake of the public good and for the cause of the state; that in the sphere of his power, the reserve of power given to him cannot and should not turn into a cornucopia, from which generous gifts and varied rewards are poured in all directions, and that the right given to him by the state to judge the dignity of persons, the justice of affairs and the needs of those requiring help and assistance cannot and should not turn in his hands into the right of patronage. But the temptation is great both for a good person and, let us add, for a vain person, and both of these qualities are often combined: how sweet it is to be a patron, to meet friendly and grateful glances from all sides! Infatuation with this weakness can bring power to extreme relaxation, to the confusion of dignity and ability with stupidity and baseness of motives, to the corruption of subordinates by a common pursuit of places, a common lust for honors, rewards and cash distributions. The first law of power: “The righteous standard.” It gives the power to judge everyone according to their worth and to give everyone their due, neither less nor more than their due. It teaches one to observe human dignity in oneself and in others and to distinguish between vice, which cannot be tolerated, and human weakness, which requires condescension and care. It holds power at the height of its calling, encouraging people to think deeply about both the people and the affairs entrusted to them. It gives strength to the command emanating from power, and assigns creative power to the powerful word. He who has lost this standard through his indifference and laziness has forgotten that he is doing the work of God and does it with negligence. Happy childhood! Gracious nature, you are a good mother to everyone; and so you have prepared a cozy nest of love and endless hope for your young pet, and then he grows up and sleeps, lulled by sweet dreams! Under the parental roof is our shelter and our fence; here the father is a prophet, a priest, and our king, and in obedience we find freedom. The young spirit has just emerged from eternity, and does not yet know what we call time: time for him is not yet a stream flowing quickly, but a cheerful ocean shining brightly in the sun; years are like centuries for a child, he still does not know the secrets of bitter care, the secrets of the quick and slow aspiration of the universe rushing somewhere, and now, in this motionless world, he tastes what we are forever deprived of in the seething whirlpool of our world - he tastes the sweetness of peace. Sleep, rest for now, dear child! - ahead, and not far, your long and difficult path awaits you. A little more, and your sleep will end, and your very dreams will become a reflection of life’s struggle, and you will understand the words of the old sage: “What peace! There will be an eternity of rest." Heavenly nectar of sweet oblivion! Pyrrhus can conquer the universe, Alexander can destroy the whole world - and they will not get you; but here you, by yourself, quietly descend on the lips, and on the eyes, and on the heart of every baby, the son of his mother. both sleep and awakening are one for him! The beautiful Eden of life lulls him, without ceasing, with the rustling of its leaves, and around him everywhere is the aroma of heavenly dew and the luxurious color of hope... II. A simple rule of life A conviction, no matter how pure and sublime, means nothing if it is not put into practice by deed itself. and until then one cannot even recognize the reality of conviction, for one rational opinion, by its nature, is limitless, formless, an abyss in the midst of many abysses: the undoubted certainty of experience alone leads it consciously to the center, around which, turning, it is formed into a system. There is a true word of the sage: “All doubt is eliminated by action alone.” So, if someone languishes painfully in the dim flicker of an unfaithful light and prays from the depths of his soul for the light of day to illuminate him from the darkness, let him take to heart another, priceless and saving rule: “Do the work that is closest to you, and in which is your closest duty.” Do it - another, subsequent duty will appear behind it, and everything will become clear. Whatever schools and seminaries there are to educate people for activity, whatever courses there are for teaching, preaching, and missionary work, there is one rule for everyone: to teach young souls to be able to command and to be able to obey. The wisdom of command, the wisdom of obedience, the ability to do both - this is the true, true measure of culture and human valor for everyone, no matter who he is: all goodness lies in the possession of these two qualities; all evil, all failure and destruction are in the absence of these qualities. He who knows how to command and obey is a fit man; whoever does not know how is worthless. If our teachers, our preachers in their seminaries, academies, cathedrals educate people for these qualities, their word will be true, right and effective; if not, then there is no truth in it. Look and think about what kind of work you, exactly you, can do: the first task for every person is to find for himself what kind of work he can do in this world. For this very purpose every person is born, today and at all times. He is born in order to use all the strength that the Almighty God has given him for the work of which he is capable: to stand on it until his last breath and do it as best as possible. We are all called to this - and for that we all have a sure reward, if we deserve it, the reward is that we did our job, or at least tried our best to do it. This in itself is a great blessing, and one can say that we cannot expect a better reward in this world. “If we have food and clothing, we will be content with these,” and then does it matter what you spent on it - seventy thousand, seven million or seven hundred! in essence, for a wise soul the difference is not great. The main happiness that a wise person can wish for himself is the happiness of having something in his hands and doing it. “There’s nothing to eat,” the man cries, but his first cry is: “There’s nothing to do.” Man's misfortune lies in what he cannot do, cannot fulfill his human destiny. The day flies by quickly, life flies by quickly - night is approaching, night, no one can do anything in the nude. What were you doing, man, how were you doing? Your happiness, your misfortune - after all, it was your salary, and you spent all of it on your life, not a penny left. what's the matter, what's the matter? Where do you have it? and if a person were not such a hungry wanderer, he would not cry about his salary, he would rather cry about himself, what he did with his salary. A church rite is clothing, a form in which people at different times embodied a religious principle for themselves, expressed the idea of ​​the Divine in the world, putting it into a living and effective body, so that it could dwell among us, clothed in a word that is alive and life-giving. and it is impossible to express what this robe of life means for humanity, more important and necessary than all the clothes and decorations of human life. It is woven and worked by society: only where “two or three are gathered,” only there is religion, hidden in the spirit, indestructible, in everyone, appears in external expression and strives to embody itself in the visible communion of the militant church. Mysterious and miraculous is this communication of one soul with another - in the striving for heaven: only in this striving, and not in the striving downwards, towards the earth, does a union of mutual love become, and society is formed. A man will look into the face of his brother, meet his gaze, affectionate, friendly, loving, or inflamed with anger and hatred, and then the soul, hitherto calm, involuntarily lights up with the same fire, and, reflected from one to another, the fire grows into a boundless flame - either ardent love, or mortal hatred: this is the wonderful power that flows from person to person. and if this force acts in this way on the narrow paths of our earthly life, what should its action be in the aspirations for heavenly life, when one soul enters into communication with another soul in the very depths of its inner self. Healthy people do not think about health: sick people think about it; This is a medical aphorism, but its application is much broader than the medical sphere, not only in bodily therapy, but also in moral, and mental, and political, and literary. During this test, all vital forces are tested. All doctors agree on what is necessary for health: it is necessary for each organ to perform its functions simply, unconsciously. As soon as one organ declares its separate existence, shows itself, at least for pleasure, a special knot of sensation is already tied in the body - and a disorder begins. The height of bodily well-being is when the combined activity of all organs is unified, integral: a person is healthy on his own, “without a system.” Unity and agreement are always silently or quietly expressed: on the contrary, discord loudly announces itself. The very concept of health in other languages ​​is expressed by a word meaning unity, and when we feel completely at ease, we feel whole (in the Slavic language whole means healthy). Which of us is so happy that we live whole, “without a system”? Many, turning their thoughts to their youth, will remember what a time there was - light, clean air, lightness and complete freedom: the body had not yet become a prison for the soul, it was only its vessel and addition. We did not think about our members, but only moved, shouted and ran: clear sounds, rumors and news rushed into us from outside into our ears, and into our eyes, and into all open paths of feelings, and a vigorous, powerful force came out of us; we stood, as it were, in the center of nature, distributing everywhere and receiving from everywhere, in harmony with all of nature. Not like Virgil’s farmers, “we were too happy precisely because we did not know our bliss.” Our entire being was one, the whole person was the embodied will. This could continue to be our life if peace or happy work could be the property of humanity; life would be a pure, continuous harmony of sounds, the radiance of white light, illuminating everything for us, and invisible light to us, without any refraction of rays into colors and paints. The beginning of any research is already painful: any science, if you think about it, must be born from the consciousness of something incorrect, corrupted, and in it there certainly is division, fragmentation, private correction of some particular evil. Thus, according to ancient scripture, the tree of knowledge grows on the root of evil and bears fruit, both good and evil. Alas! the memory of the first state of freedom and heavenly unconsciousness has become an ideal poetic dream, and we stand in the world, filled with consciousness of many things, and knowledge - a sign of disorder - impels us to strive with all our might to establish order. Sometimes, on rare occasions, we hear a heavenly melody, but more often than not, life passes in struggle, in breakdown, in impetuous movements. Life is given to us for vital activity, for an external goal visible in the distance - and for this nature has provided us with reason and will. But the same nature has arranged it in such a way that the unconscious acts in us and through us. No matter how limitless the area of ​​human activity is, only a small and fragmentary part of it is controlled by consciousness and foresight: what a person can invent, what he can know and understand, all this, in essence, is only mechanical and small, but a great, essential vital mystery, and only its surface is subject to understanding. But nature, like a caring mother, hides from us even the fact that it is a sacrament; we rest on her beautiful and terrible bosom, as if in a safe house; we walk over the abyss, on which all human deeds and events hang so wondrously and so fearfully, we walk and build on it, as if it were not a thin thread that holds us on it, but an unshakable rock. Near, close, is inevitable death, and in such proximity to it a person can forget that he was born to die. about his life itself, which truly contains infinity and eternity, a person can frivolously imagine that it was given to him simply for daily work and food. So skillfully nature, the mother of all perfect art (which can only imitate it from afar), brings the finite out of the infinite and reliably leads man along his wondrous path, sending him not so much the gift of vision as the gift of blindness, where he needs it. in the deep foundation of all her gifts, of which the most precious is life, lies darkness, beneficially hidden from us. in life itself - its roots and inner paths, extending to the terrible region of death and night, lie imperceptibly in the depths, but the lovely stem of life, covered with flowers and leaves, showing off under the sun, grows and is visible. The same is true in the spiritual world. The spirit, truly strong and powerful both in mind and morality, is not aware of its strength: and here, as in the physical world, a sign of health is unconsciousness. and in the inner, as well as in the outer world, only the mechanical is open to us; everything dynamic and essentially vital is closed. in the realm of thought - perhaps only on the surface - we can express it definitively: above is the sphere of argumentation and conscious reasoning, but below it is the realm of mental contemplation, and here, in the mysterious depths, resides the essence of our life force, here every creation begins and grows; and in that sphere there is only the composition, production, dissemination of thought. Everything done is understandable, but base; what is created is great and beyond the concept. A rhetorician, a lawyer, no matter how skilled he is, is one of the last in the line of true thinkers - he knows what he can do and how he achieved it. but the artist does not know - inspiration operates within him. in the poet, in the speaker, in the researcher there is true power, unconscious power. True, sound understanding is not logical, demonstrative understanding, but intuitive, for the purpose of understanding is not to show and find reasons, but to know and believe. The same is true in the sphere of morality. It is said: “Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” Don’t whisper in your heart: “It’s so good what I did” - from that moment your work has lost all its value. A good person is one who constantly does good, for whom virtue is a natural state that does not excite surprise and does not require comment. Self-contemplation is undoubtedly a painful symptom, even with awareness of the disease and the desire for healing. An unhealthy virtue is one that is exhausted in embarrassment and in the consciousness of one’s sinfulness, or, even worse, inflated by self-indulgence and vanity; in both cases it is a search for one’s own; useless looking back at the path traveled, when you should only look forward and walk without stopping. in the moral sphere especially, as the innermost, most vital, integrity is required, and the sign of integrity is unconsciousness. The genius of morality, as well as the lower genius of the mind, is a mystery to itself. A sound moral nature loves goodness and lives entirely in goodness - without amazement at it. Unsound - she falls in love with goodness and tries to live in it, or, having lost faith in her courtship for him, she turns back and leaves him, not without contempt. These relations of the voluntary and conscious to the involuntary and unconscious are amazing in the human soul; but this is how we were created and this is our nature. and in whatever sense the vital existence of every mortal may appear to us, whether in the highest spiritual or in the animal physical, there is no doubt that in his healthy state his main vital energy is invisible and unconscious. In other words, in the words of the aphorism already cited: “Healthy people do not think about health - sick people think about it.” Gladstone on the Foundations of Faith and Unbelief (The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture) Unbelief refers to error, to inattention, to the failure of believers in people: it is true, and this serves as a grave difficulty in strengthening faith. When, carried away by the idea of ​​the grace and mercy of God, we forget His unchanging truth and justice; when, glorifying His ineffable mercy in the forgiveness of sins, we omit what is inextricably linked with forgiveness - its deep, penetrating effect on the forgiven soul, then by this alone we create dangers for the entire system of Christian teaching - more than those created by its enemies. But even worse. It is even worse when a believer in Christ holds His teaching without thinking of implementing it in his life; and the worst thing is if, while adhering to the doctrine, he not only gets carried away into the ordinary weaknesses or excesses of human nature, but despises or neglects such fundamental principles of natural morality, against which vice itself rarely dares to argue. The establishment of a family union, the moral connection between family members, the nature of man and woman, the relationship of each person to his soul, which is entrusted to him by God, to know it, honor it, purify and sanctify it - all this is established by the most ancient, most fundamental, most sacred laws. All progress is verified and tested in accordance with these inviolable, although unwritten, statutes: by this measure we can recognize whether it is real progress or deceptive, false, and Christianity itself would not be Christianity if it were capable of shaking these sacred statutes. Let's move on to the deniers of faith. Negation recognizes exclusively reason as its source; this is only partly true. They say, for example, about the reasons for unbelief, that such dogmas as the trinity, the incarnation, the sacraments, the Last Judgment, turn out to be positively unbearable for the enlightened thought of modern humanity. Everything leads me to the conviction that the main reason that has contributed to the growth of negative teachings in our time is not intellectual, but moral, and that it should be sought in the increasing predominance of the material and sensual over the supersensible and spiritual. Perhaps, such an opinion can be attributed a hateful character, called pharisaism, in the worst sense of the word; can interpret it in such a sense that the sublimity of moral character in each individual depends on the strength and firmness of dogmatic positions. Such an opinion would be completely incorrect and would contradict the daily experience of life. I mean something completely different. I'm talking about what applies not to this or that person individually, but to all of us. We have completely changed the measure of needs and wants; we have multiplied our desires and lusts extremely; we have established for ourselves new social traditions, traditions that unconsciously form and guide us, regardless of prior consciousness and choice. We have created a new atmosphere that we breathe, so that the action of it and the elements included in it unconsciously transforms our entire composition. This does not mean that the environment creates us, since we have the power of thinking and reasoning. But we use this power little, we little put it into action, so that the atmosphere surrounding us, this measure of life, is perceived by us naturally, without reasoning: with this reserve, each of us undertakes his wandering in the world, and it guides our life, with the exception of rare cases when the vile form of vice, on the one hand, or the type of Christian achievement, on the other hand, prompt us to choose for ourselves a special measure of life and activity. But both take place within the circle of accepted opinion, so that one gets confused with the other, and, looking at people in their way of life and behavior, one has to see people of high virtue with little faith, and people of strong faith but poor virtue. Thus, in the sphere of public opinion, it may seem that both freedom and truth are equally common to both true believers and infidels. The main reason for this amazing, even terrible inconsistency lies, without a doubt, in the fact that faith came to each of us personally not through struggle, sacrifice, strong conviction, but came, like almost everything we have, in an easy way - by birth and inheritance, through others, and not from ourselves, as a natural thing, and not as a matter of choice and effort, so that it sits on us, like an external garment, and does not penetrate us, like a beginning and an active force. But, on the other hand, it is undeniably true that the dominant tradition in our atmosphere is Christian tradition. He alone made possible what would have remained unattainable without him. It alone, this tradition, quietly and imperceptibly introduces into many souls and characters, not only among believers, but also among non-believers, ideas about virtue, self-sacrifice and philanthropy, along with the power of consistent action. Many people who do not deny the Christian faith do not know themselves where, when and how they learned to adhere to it; in the same way, many who have departed from the Christian faith do not realize that the highest in their thoughts, in their spiritual nature and in action is the fruit of Christianity. What does the newly invented word altruism mean? In its meaning, it is simply the second great commandment of the Christian law, “similar to the first.” In form, it is a mask that covers a borrowed thought, so that others will not guess where its true source is. and this forgery was committed not with understanding, but unconsciously, 76 in our heritage - the code of Christian morality, with which our institutions and customs were gradually imbued, and it so merged with our ordinary life that the very memory of its divine origin was eclipsed, as if it were a legitimate inheritance established for us long ago. We will understand what Christian tradition has done for us when we take a closer look at the moral code of those peoples who did not have this tradition. It is worth pointing out, for example, the Greeks in the fifth century before the birth of Christ or the Romans in the era of the birth of Christ: in both of them we see an amazing decline in morality, although at the same time we are struck by the brilliant intellectual development of some, and the superiority of organizational political genius in others. In our age we see before us the increasing dominance of visible things and, as it does so, the diminishing importance of invisible things. Throughout the entire history of mankind, the invisible and inseparable consciousness of the future life has been in constant competition with the things of the visible world. The current half of the present century differs sharply from all past centuries of the historical life of mankind in two respects: there has never been such a proliferation of wealth and at the same time a proliferation of pleasures delivered by wealth: both are separate phenomena, but joint and morally connected... It is obvious, to the point of mathematical certainty, that the intensified effect of all worldly charms upsets the balance of our being, until it is balanced by the intensified action of spiritual attractions and aspirations. Where will these spiritual forces come from? It is scary to admit that in those areas that are accessible to our gaze, there is no such increase in spiritual ideas and motives that could serve as a preponderance to the increasing worldly lusts and aspirations. and when the invisible world and ideas related to it lose their attractive power, then along with this, and without fail, the beliefs belonging to this sphere of invisible relationships fade, and their attractive power is weakened. Materialism as a positive system, I don’t think it has acquired dominant significance; this system, by its design, is deprived, in my opinion, of the intellectual power that is needed for a solid teaching. But the silent, secret, unconscious action of materialism is a completely different matter: its power is enormous. I remember Max Mullerk said that without language thinking is impossible, and this is true of all thinking, organized and conscious. But in human nature there lurks a multitude of undeveloped, rudimentary forces, impressions, perceived from the outside and falling on the native soil within: all this never grows to maturity, does not result in articulate speech and does not receive a definite form in our consciousness. And so, I think that at the present moment these unexpressed and unexperienced movements, not so much of the mind as of lust, or, to put it more simply, inclinations, all these not thoughts, but fragments of thoughts, act around us and in us; and if it were possible to translate them into language and express them in words, they would form into the well-known, vulgar idea that has existed since ancient times in all centuries, that, in the end, the visible world is one thing that we know, and that every matter worth labor, every care worth care, every joy that has value in this world, begins in it and ends with it for us... We know how strong the lower inclinations are human nature, and it is quite natural that whoever smiles at worldly life is too often, along with an increasing gravitation towards the earthly center, imperceptibly struck by the impotence of the desire for inner life. and it is clear that with this defeat of the spiritual aspirations of the soul, it is easier and more convenient to attack everything that undermines the authority of the word of God or the great Christian traditions, everything that in various ways removes, blinds the sense of the presence of God, drowns out the reproaches of the inner voice of conscience. So, it is in vain to look for the root of evil in science, real or imaginary, even in the errors and infidelities of believing people, to which unbelief wrongly refers. No, not that: the growing power of sensual and worldly attractions and impulses in us is what gives an invisible ally to every argument of doubt and unbelief, no matter what its worth in essence; This is what gains a lot of disciples of negative teachings. Man imagines that by giving vent to doubt he is pursuing the search for truth, but in essence he is only accommodating the lower inclinations of his nature; They have already mastered it, and he further strengthens them, admitting new allies to him without any verification of their title and rights. Ideas that are fundamentally weak are pushed forward by an inclination that is necessarily strong. So, it’s like a secret conspiracy begins in the soul, and two knights ride out into battle, one with an open face, and the other with a lowered visor. Christian faith gives rise to Christian tradition, forming ideas and a way of life and behavior. People do not deny the very rules of this legend - they only deny the source of origin of the rules. First, a great thinker appears, a man of high morality: he is pious and preaches piety, but does not recognize dogma. Another figure following him goes even further on the same field - he praises morality, rejecting piety. and the anti-moral, anti-spiritual force, secretly operating in all of us, seduced by the appearance of goodness, under which lies the beginning of destruction, helps to treat the new sermon condescendingly and even sing its praises in chorus. The argument of skeptical thought is in reality nothing more than a graft that has received life and strength from the powerful and strong tree into which it is grafted. So, in my opinion, there is no doubt that the main reason why skepticism in our time has become so widespread and so strong is the extraordinary development of worldly forces and impulses within us and in our environment. But this applies not so much to the officers and soldiers of the army, to people who, through serious work of thought, study subjects on which they themselves think hard, but to the masses who easily join the chorus of followers of new teachings. A person partly composes his opinions himself and partly borrows them from the environment. A thinking person develops them within himself, although hidden influences act on him unconsciously; the non-thinker draws them from the environment, either completely or for the most part. and the environment, as everyone knows, contains idols, images, shadows and ghosts of the passing day. But I must make a reservation. My remarks refer to a special and perhaps unparalleled state in which many people question the foundations of our faith and the authority of our sacred books, without experiencing either the timing of such a serious matter or their ability to do it. In all other subjects it is required that a person have a title or show it, but in matters of faith nothing of this is required, and everyone is assumed to be knowledgeable. The Christian faith is perceived with heartfelt sympathy and agreement: it is believed in the heart. on the other hand, every person, no matter what his position, bases rationally, even necessarily, the actions and events of his life, mainly on faith; no doubt, on a free and reasonable basis, but still on faith, sometimes on the traditions of one’s family and tribe. Anyone who occupies a responsible position in this world, great or small, consciously or unconsciously, acting for himself, at the same time acts for others; for others and instead of others, he acquires and experiences beliefs, verifies material facts that are important for human life, such beliefs and ideas that not every person, due to the conditions of his life, can establish and experience personally. It would be better, of course, if everyone could do this for themselves, independently, but not everyone has both the opportunity and the ability to do this. and where both do not exist, which happens too often, a person should not deceive himself that he acquired his conviction from other people’s words. But there is no doubt that in our time, perhaps more than before, many men and women, without any ability and without any need for themselves, question the faith that, according to the old tradition, they held. For some of us, according to the disposition and education of the mind, according to the nature of the title, according to the type of occupation, it seems reasonable and even necessary to subject the great historical revelation to study, in the historical setting and in its relationship to the character and condition of man. This process of inquiry in itself is straightforward and legitimate; and we know that its effect on great minds for many centuries led to generally positive results and, in the end, further strengthened the authority of Holy Scripture. However, when applied to the masses, human reason assures us that it is common for every person to adhere to tradition and assume it to be true, as long as there is no serious reason to doubt it. This is the rule of common sense accepted in ordinary life. in the subjects of legend, not faith, but doubt should in any case become a defense and present its documents, at least not in the sense of proof, but only in the sense of reasonable probability. But the untested doubt, which so often manages to build a nest in our minds, is an owner without a document, a dangerous and illegal guest. Imperceptibly and without any questioning, it suddenly enters into the role of proven denial, weakens action in us, casts a shadow on the sense of duty and on the consciousness of the presence of God in all our ways, weakens the pulse of our moral health. Doubt can set us free or it can enslave us; but it must certainly be either our friend or our enemy: it cannot be neutral. Those doubts that cannot be experienced, if given room for them, are reflected both in our faith and in our behavior. and insufficient, imaginary research serves only as a new temptation on the path of duty; If we are to undertake real research, then it should become a sacred duty for us. Imaginary research is nothing but seduction; under the pretext of it, we become a victim of prejudice, fashion, inclination, lust, crafty suggestions of the worldly spirit, all kinds of diverse temptations. Each man is called upon to set the standard of his conduct in his own sphere: a high task, but also a difficult one, so difficult that no one can perform it perfectly. Duty does not oblige us to draw conclusions and conclusions about the fate of the world, about free will, much less to plunge beyond these limits into the depth and darkness of reflection, which all boil down to one impenetrable problem about the existence and action of evil in this world. The Christian faith and Holy Scripture arm us with the means to overcome and repel attacks of evil from outside and within us. This is the only practical solution to the problem. The whole country surrounding us may be shrouded in fog, but we can make out our path hour by hour, day by day, step by step. Speculative reasoning, if it is aimless, becomes arbitrary, rising above the subject of speculation; and arbitrary, proud speculation about the works, about the providences of God, for people who believe in God, is in itself a sin. To abandon the duty that lies on each of us to manage ourselves and our behavior, turning the work of the mind and heart to such objects that are obligatory for us only insofar as they can be needed for our special work and calling, means in a moral sense, to run away from satiety into hunger. It looks as if someone, owning only a broken vessel, was going to feed and drink from it all his neighbors. But if we admit that no one frivolously, having neither the ability nor spiritual need, should enter into the study of faith, and that in any study such doubt has no right to demand proof from faith itself, we must at the same time remember that any religious study, although it arouses mutual bickering, cannot be compared with a process between equal parties to litigants or with a battle between two generals over a disputed territory. Our Savior Christ aroused surprise among the people by the fact that, leaving aside all the intricacies and growths of teachings that darkened the image of faith, he taught the people “as having authority, and not as the scribes and Pharisees,” he taught with authority, that is, having commanding right and commanding power. When God gave us the revelation of His will both in the laws of our nature and in the kingdom of grace, this revelation not only enlightens us, but also imperatively obliges us. It is just and necessary that, like the credentials of an earthly messenger, the credentials of this revelation should be tested. But if, having been tested, it turns out to be genuine, if this authenticity is confirmed by the same evidence that in ordinary circumstances of life our mind necessarily accepts, then we can no longer consider ourselves independent judges, immersed in free research; then we are already servants of the Lord, disciples of the Teacher, children of the Father, and each of us is bound by the bonds of these relationships. Then both the head and the knees must bow before the Eternal God, and man must embrace the Divine will and follow it with all his heart, with all his thoughts, with all his soul and with all his meekness. (Emerson. Society and Solitude) Our nineteenth century is the century of tools. Our organization produces them. “Man is the measure of all things,” says Aristotle, “the hand is the instrument of all instruments, and reason is the form of all forms.” The human body is a store of inventions, a storehouse of samples from which all sorts of mechanisms that have been invented have been removed. All tools and machines are nothing other than the expansion of the members and sensations of this body. A person can be defined as follows: “mind with service organs.” The machine helps the natural sensation, but cannot replace it. All measure is in the body. The eye perceives shades that art cannot capture. An apprentice does not part with a yardstick, but an experienced master measures without error with his finger and elbow, an experienced workman measures with steps more accurately than with other ropes and chains. A steppe Indian, throwing a stone from a sling, knows that he will hit the mark: in such sympathy his eye is with his hand; the carpenter cuts his log along the notched line, without retreating even a hair's breadth. There is no feeling, there is no organ that cannot be brought to the most subtle perfection in practice. Marveling is man’s favorite feeling, and in this feeling is the seed of our science. Such is the mechanical direction of our century, and our best inventions are still so fresh that the joy and pride from them have not yet worn out in us, and we are ready to feel sorry for our fathers that they did not live to see steam and galvanism, to sulfur ether and to maritime telegraphs, to photography and the spectroscope, as if they were poorer than us by half their lives. and it seems to us that these new arts open wide the doors to the future for us, promise to spiritualize the entire material world with form and raise human life from its poverty to a god-like state of contentment and strength. True, our century also inherited a rather meager supply. There was already a compass, there was a printing press, there were clocks, spiral springs, barometers, telescopes. But since then, so many inventions have been added that it is as if all life has been remade anew. Leibniz said about Newton: “If you count everything that has been done by mathematicians from the beginning of the world to Newton, and everything that Newton has done, the last half will surpass the first”; so we can say that the total of inventions over the past 50 years will be equal to the total of the remaining 50 centuries. What is new to us is the immense increase in iron production and the extreme variety of iron products; news - many of the most commonly used and necessary tools for the home and for agriculture; the sewing machine, the loom, the McCormick reaper, the mowing machine, the gas light, the phosphorus matches, the innumerable products of the chemical laboratory—all these are the news of the present century, and a portion of coal at the cost of one franc replaces for us twenty days' labor of the former worker. Is it necessary to remember about steam, the devourer of space and time, about the enormous and subtle force that in the hospital brings a cup of soup to the very bedside of the patient, bends and flattens thick iron bars like wax and compares itself with the forces that raised and turned out the geological layers of our planet. He will learn whatever you want, like a capable boy; whatever you want, he will lift it onto his working shoulders; but he is still far from having accomplished all his work. He already walks across the field like a man and does all sorts of work; waters our fields, tears down mountains for us where we need them. But he will also sew shirts for us, he will transport our carts and carriages; Babbage has already begun to teach him to count and will someday teach him to calculate percentages and logarithms. Lord Chancellor Turlot hopes that he will one day draw up pleadings and defenses for the Court of Chancery. Let us assume that this is a satire, but satire will not be far from reality, judging by the initial attempts to apply steam to mechanical actions combined with mental calculation. How many wonderful mechanical applications have been invented for the human body: for dental operations, for inoculating smallpox, for rhinoplasty, for lulling the nerves into the subtle sleep of a new invention. Our engineers, with the help of huge machines, like kobolds and wizards, are drilling the Alps, digging right through the American Isthmus, cutting through the Arabian Desert. in Massachusetts we conquer the sea, strengthening the unstable shore with a simple grass plant, strengthening the sandy desert with a pine plantation. The soil of Holland, once the most populated region in Europe, is below sea level. Egypt did not know what rain was for three thousand years: now, they say, there are showers thanks to irrigation canals and forest plantations. The ancient king of the Jews said: “Praise God and the fury of mankind.” and among the proofs of monotheism, the strongest is the enormity of the results achieved by the most ordinary deeds and means. It seems that there are no limits to new revelations of the same spirit that once created the elemental elements, and now develops them through man. Art and power will not cease to act as they have done until now - to transform night into day, space into time and time into space. From one invention another will be born. As soon as the electric telegraph appeared in the mind, the material needed for it was discovered - gutta-percha. with increased trade traffic, new gold reserves were discovered in California and Australia. When Europe was overflowing with population, a demand for it opened in America and Australia; and so, wherever an unexpected phenomenon happens, it happens at the right time, as if nature, having arranged locks everywhere, also arranged a key for every lock, which itself helps to find when necessary. Another consequence of inventions is the multiplication of relationships between people. It amazes us by opening new ways to solve difficult and complex political issues. These relationships are not new: only their dimensions are new. On our own, out of a sense of selfishness, we would seize on slavery, we would be ready to close off a quarter of the globe from everyone who was born outside it, on foreign soil. Our politics are disgusting; but what can it help, what can it hinder, at a time when primal instincts move the masses of the human race, when entire nations move with the ebb and flow of the tide? Nature loves to cross races: German, Chinese, Turk, Russian, Indian - everyone strives for the sea, everyone marries and encroaches; commerce begins to move and the sea is teeming with ships that are ready to transfer entire populations from shore to shore. The art of a thousand arms entered the life of the state as a new element. The science of power, willy-nilly, is forced to recognize the power of science. Civilization is rising, climbing higher and higher. When Malthus concluded that the number of stomachs multiplies in geometric progression, and the amount of food only in arithmetic progression, he forgot to add that human reason is also one of the factors in political economy, and that with the increase in needs in society, the power of invention will also increase. For the needs of public life, we already have a significant artillery of all kinds of weapons. We travel four times faster than our fathers rode. We travel, grind, knit, forge, plant, cultivate and dig much better than them. we have completely new boots, gloves, glasses, tools; we have a calculating machine; We have a newspaper, and through the newspaper each village can write a report about itself and present it to us at breakfast. we have money and a credit card; We have language, the most subtle of all weapons and the closest to the soul. A lot, and the more you have, the more you need. Man flatters himself that his power over nature will increase and multiply. Events begin to obey him. Aeronautics still awaits us, and perhaps we are not far from a war that will take place in the air. It’s no wonder that we will invent such water that the Negro will immediately become white. He already sees how the head type of the Anglo-Saxon race is changing under the influence of the conditions of American life. in the old days they saw Tantalus, how he, standing at the very depths, tried in vain to quench his thirst with a flowing stream, which ran away as soon as he leaned towards it. Old Tantalus, they say, has recently reappeared in the world. He was seen in Paris, New York, Boston. He is cheerful and confident: he thinks that he will soon be able to catch the stream, even fill a bottle with it. But it seems his confidence is in vain. Circumstances are still grim. No matter how many centuries of continuous culture have passed, the new man still stands at the very edge of chaos, and still does not emerge from the crisis. Who can remember a time like this, when they complained that there was no money, that time was hard? Who can remember a time when there were enough good people, reasonable people, and such men and women as were needed? Tantalus begins to think that steam is a fantasy, and that galvanism is nothing more than what it serves by nature. Much already makes you think, much suggests that our good lies somewhere deeper, that you cannot find it - in a couple, in photography, in a hot air balloon, in astronomy. All these are tools of dubious quality. All these are reagents. Many cars look menacing. The weaver himself turns into fabric, the mechanic into a machine. He who does not himself own a weapon is taken into power by the weapon. All the weapons have a sharpened edge and, therefore, are dangerous. A man builds himself a beautiful house: and then the ruler appears to him, the work of his whole life comes, and he must arrange his house, take care of it, show it, support and repair it until his last breath. A man has created a reputation for himself: he is no longer free, he must take care of his treasure, respect it. A man painted a picture, published a book: and the more successful the creation was, the worse it was sometimes for the creator. I knew one kind man: he lived freely, like a bird of the air, like a forest animal; but once he decided to decorate his office with elegant shelves for a collection of shells, eggs, minerals and stuffed animals. It was fun, but what was he really having fun with? By arranging elegant chains and shackles for his own members. The learned economist is also thinking. “It is doubtful that all mechanical inventions that exist have made the daily work easier for at least one person.” The machine unscrews and cuts up a person. The machine has been brought to the highest perfection, but who is the mechanic with it? nobody. Every new improvement in a machine reduces the mechanic’s activity and unlearns his skills. It happened that the machine demanded Archimedes for itself; Nowadays a boy is enough for her, as long as he knows the necessary techniques, knows how to move the handle, and watch the boiler; but when the car breaks down, he doesn’t know what to do with it. Look at the newspapers: they are filled with terrible details every day. Previous publications, like the Newgate Prison Calendar, have become unnecessary since fresh stories about crimes appear in the London Times and the New York Tribune, much more vivid, much more terrible. Has there ever been more self-interest, depravity, and violence in politics than in ours? and trade, this beloved child of the ocean, its pride and glory, this educator of nations, this benefactor involuntarily and in spite of itself, our trade ends all over the world in shameful insolvency, a fraudulent enterprise and bankruptcy. We list all kinds of arts, all kinds of human inventions as a measure of human dignity. But when, with all his arts and knowledge, he turns out to be cunning and criminal, it is obvious that mechanical art with all its inventions cannot serve as a measure of his dignity. Let's see if there is another measure. What has come from these arts and knowledge to the character and dignity of the human race? Has humanity become better? Many people ask with bewilderment whether morality has not declined as art has risen? We see, on the one hand, great arts and knowledge with little people, on the other hand, we see how greatness grows from baseness. We see the triumph of civilization and rejoice, but they show us such a beneficent hand that the soul does not want to acknowledge. The most important factor for success in the world is trade, the power of personal egoism and petty calculation. It would seem that every victory over matter should elevate the dignity of human nature in human consciousness. and when we look at our wealth, we have to wonder where it came from and who is responsible for it. Look at the inventors. each of them has their own focus in which they are strong. Genius beats in a certain vein, makes its way in a certain place; but where will you find a great, even, symmetrical mind, nourished by a great heart? Everyone has more to hide in themselves than to show; everyone is forced to limp by their perfection. It is too noticeable that moral success has lagged behind material strength. It is clear from everything that we have not invested our capital very prudently. We were offered things to do and days to choose from; we chose the cases. The latest studies of the Sanskrit language have revealed to us the origin of the ancient names of the Deity - Dyaeus, Deus, Zeus, Zeu pater, Jupiter, all solar names. In them, through the new clothes of the daily dialect, the word Day is still heard. Doesn't this mean that the day is for us a manifestation of Divine power? That the people of the ancient world, trying to express in speech the supreme power of the universe, gave it a name: day, and that all tribes accepted this name? Hesiod wrote a poem and called it Works and Days. in it the poet describes the seasons of the Greek year, teaches the owner when, under what constellation he should sow, when to begin the harvest, when to cut down the forest, at what happy hour a swimmer should go to sea to avoid a storm, and which celestial planets to follow. The poem is filled with economic instructions for Greek life: it specifies the age for marriage; it contains rules for household economy, for hospitality. This poem breathes piety and is filled with worldly wisdom: it is adjusted to all meridians, because the poet presents both deeds and days in their moral meaning. But the science of days was not deeply developed by him, although it is a very deep science. A peasant, working in his field, said: “It would be good if all the land adjacent to my field were mine.” Bonaparte had the same inclinations: he wanted to make the Mediterranean a French lake. They say that one earthly ruler extended his plans even further and wanted to call the entire Pacific Ocean his ocean. But even if he succeeded, even if he could take the whole earth as his inheritance and consider the ocean to be his lake, he would still be a beggar. He alone is rich who owns his day. That's power; There is no king, no rich man, no sorcerer, no demon in the world who has such power. Days for us are the same vessels of the Divine, as for our ancestors, the Aryans. Of all things, they promise the least, but contain the most. They come silently and solemnly, like a vision of an image, covered from head to toe with a veil, like dumb messengers, with a gift from a distant, beloved land; and they also silently move away, taking their gifts with them if we do not take them and use them. How the day suits her soul, how it wraps around her like a thin blanket, how it covers all her fantasies! Every holiday colors us with its own color. We wear his cockade, every greeting from him is reflected in our spiritual disposition. Let's remember our childhood: what was in our souls on a holiday morning, for example, on the day of the national anniversary, on the day of the Nativity of Christ? We rush, we run, and it seems that the very stars from the sky are blinking at us about nuts and gingerbread, about sweets, gifts and funny lights. Remember how at that time life was counted in minutes according to the calendar, concentrated into knots of nervous force, into hours of iridescent bliss, and did not flow out in an even and smooth stream of happiness. in solitude and in the countryside, what a celebration the holiday breathes with! The sacred hour of the holiday, the ancient Saturday, the seventh day, whitened by thousands of years of religious beliefs, rises from the abyss of time, a blank page is revealed, which the sage will write with the words of truth, the wild will scratch with the figures of his fetishes; and we hear in our solitude the universal psalm, the cathedral choir of the entire history of the human race. and how the weather matches the mood of youth! The wind, changing, changes its note into thousands of modes, changes a thousand times the pictures that it brings to the imagination, and each new mode of it is a new shell, a new dwelling for the spirit. It used to be that I knew how to choose the right time for each of my favorite books. One writer is at his best during the winter, another during the summer holidays. There are books (for example, Platonov's Timaeus) for which you wait, wait a long time for the present hour. Finally, the desired morning comes, the dawn breaks, a flicker of light appears in the sky, as if in the first minute of the universe and at the beginning of existence: and in this hour of space you boldly open the book... on other days great people come up to us, very close; on their face there is not the slightest severity, not the slightest condescension; they are our equals, they take us by the hand, talk to us, and we talk to them. On other days we feel that a holiday has come - every day of the year. Angels appear in the flesh, go away and come again. All nature comes to life, as if the imagination of all spirits and gods has awakened, and reveals living images from everywhere. Yesterday there was no bird voice to be heard, the world was dry, rocky and deserted; today everything is populated and full; all creation blooms, swarms and multiplies. Days are woven on a wonderful loom: its warp and its weft are the past and the future. The threads lie in a majestic row, as if all the gods brought a thread for the heavenly fabric. It’s strange to think why we are rich, why we are poor; somewhat more, somewhat less coins, carpets, dresses, stone, wood, paint; this or that cut, this or that shape; our lot is just like the lot of a red Indian: one is proud that he has a string of beads or a red feather, and the rest, having neither one nor the other, consider themselves unfortunate. But these are not the treasures that nature has exhausted for us: the subtle, complex anatomy of man, formed over centuries, on which all the previous layers of the universe, all the tribes that came before us, worked; all the forms and images of creation with which we are surrounded; the whole earth and its fulfillment; air that carries breath and a measure of life; the sea calling into the distance; the abyss of heaven with all its worlds; and the brain with its nervous composition responds to all this, and the eye, capable of penetrating the abyss and reflecting the abyss again in itself: the abyss calling upon the abyss. All this is given without measure to one and all - not like a bead necklace, like our carpets and coins. Isn't this amazing? and this is a miracle in the hands of the last beggar. The human market is teeming under the blue sky, and in the sky the cherub and seraphim hover above us. The sky is the radiance of glory with which the Great Artist clothed His creation, this is the limit line between matter and spirit. This is the edge of the universe: nature could not go further. When would our most blissful dreams come true, when the subtle force would open to us a new vision, and we would see how millions of spiritual beings walk on the earth, and then, it would seem, it would be revealed that the sphere in which they move is surrounded on all sides by the same fabric of heavenly blue that overshadows me now, on a city street, between the daily affairs of men. It is strange that in our rich English language there is no word to name the universe. There is an old English word kinde (kind), but it expresses only a small part of what is contained in the beautiful Latin word, which has a subtle connotation of the future, of further existence: natura, that is, not only born, but also having to be born, to which in German philosophy corresponds das Werden. But none of the modern languages ​​has a word to express the power that operates only in beauty. There was only one corresponding word for it in Greek: kosmos, and therefore Humboldt took the apt name Kosmos for his book, which presented the latest results of science. These are the days: the earth is a full cup, which nature offers us from its immeasurable bounties every day for our daily nourishment; and the cover of our cup is the vault of heaven. But we have also been given the power of a dream, which is born with us and remains with us until our last breath. She caresses us, flatters us, deceives us from early dawn to evening, from birth to death - and no experienced eye has yet had time to recognize the deception. Hindus represent Maya, the energy of dreams, among the main attributes of Vishnu. In a storm, sailors tie themselves to the masts and gear of the ship: isn’t it, in that storm of warring elements, which is called life, it is necessary to tie human souls to life, and for this nature uses, instead of ropes and cords, all kinds of dreams and fantasies: for a child - a rattle, a doll, an apple; for an older boy - skates, a river, a boat, a horse, a gun; for a youth and for an adult - there is no need to give examples, because they have no number and no limit. Sometimes the mask falls, the veil slowly lifts, and a person is allowed to see an ugly mass, stuffed, covered with paint, faked on the outside. Hume argued that only circumstances change, and the average share of happiness is always the same; that a beggar who sits on a bridge and catches flies at his leisure, and a nobleman passing by in a rich carriage, and a girl leaving for the first ball, and an orator when he triumphantly returns from parliament - all have different ways of emotional excitement, but the amount of it is the same. Imagination, with all its power, helps us hide from ourselves the value and meaning of the present time. Who among us is not aware at every moment that his present activity is lower and less than what he could do? "What are you doing?" - “Nothing; I was just doing this, or I intend to do this, and now I’m just...” Ah, the simpleton! Will you never break free from the snares of your magician, will you never understand that when today has disappeared, when between the present day and us the irrevocable years have already stretched out their radiant fabric, the past hours shine before us with seductive glory and pull us towards themselves, like a fantastic novel, appear to us as a kingdom of beauty and poetry? How difficult it is to look at them directly, without deception! Everything that happened in them, all the relationships, all the words and conversations, all the hot interests and hot deeds of the past days - all this throws dust in our eyes and entertains our attention. That strong person who can look at them directly, without embarrassment, without succumbing to seduction, who sees in them everything as it was, keeping his self-awareness to himself; who knows and remembers that there is nothing new under the sun, and what happened before always happens; whom neither love, nor death, nor politics, nor acquisition, nor war, nor pleasure can distract from the undertaking. The world is always equal to itself, and every person, in a moment of deep reflection about himself, feels that he is going through the same experience of life as people went through before him in ancient Thebes or in ancient Byzantium. The incessant now reigns in nature and decorates our bushes with the same roses that captivated ancient man in the hanging gardens of Babylon and Rome. The question involuntarily asks itself: is it worth learning languages, is it worth going around the universe in order to learn such simple and old truths? Before us are monuments of ancient art, dug out of the ground of the city, newly discovered manuscripts and inscriptions: truth is beauty, and it is worth knowing its history, and our academies converge to resolve the unresolved disputes of schools of ancient art. What expeditions, what labor of measurement, what efforts of minds - Niebuhr, and Müller, and Layard - in order to determine the location of Troy and the capital of Nimrod! How many sea voyages are there to honor the memory of Dante, and in order to clarify who discovered America, one has to set sail no less than what would be necessary for the discovery. Child man! After all, this soft mass, from which our elder brothers in ancient times fashioned their wondrous symbols, is not at all Persian, and not Memphis, and not Teutonic, and not at all local clay - it is ordinary lime, ordinary sandstone with water and with the light of the sun, with the gift of blood, with the breath of the lungs: you yourself held the same clay in your inept hands and threw it out of your hands when He ran to look for it in old tombs, in coffin wells, in old bookstores in Asia Minor, Egypt and England. This is still the same significant thing today, neglected by everyone; the same rich poverty, hated by everyone, the same verbose, loving solitude from which people flee to the cities, to the noisy market. This day is lurking and hiding, it must be found: in it is luck and victory, in it is reality, joy and strength. Everyone flatters himself, no one thinks that the present hour is a critical, decisive hour for everyone. But everyone needs to write in their hearts that every day that comes is the best day of the year. A person will never truly know anything until he feels that every day is a day of fate in his life, a day of visitation. From time immemorial, the deity has appeared on earth in mortal clothing, in a low and humble form: bad greatness is that which likes to appear to the world from an eminence, in diamonds and gold. Real kings and rulers leave their crowns in the storeroom and appear in simple and poor attire. in the northern legend of our ancestors, Odin appears in the form of a fisherman, lives in a poor hut, and repairs his boat. In the Indian legend, Gari lives among the villagers as a simple villager. in Greek legend, Apollo lives with the Admetian shepherds, and Jupiter shares rural life with the poor Ethiopians. and in our history, Jesus was born in a manger, and His twelve apostles were simple fishermen. in our science we see at every step that nature reveals its extreme greatness in small things; This was the rule of Aristotle and Lucretius, and in our times the rule of Swedenborg and Hahnemann. The age of the layers of the earth's crust is determined in the same order in which the development of the egg takes place. In our folk tales and legends, the most powerful fairy is always the shortest in stature. in the doctrine of grace, humility is higher than all virtues, and the living example of humility is the Madonna; in life, the secret of humility is the secret of human wisdom. The merit of a genius to humanity always lies in the fact that he removes the veil from the simple phenomena of everyday life, and we see what we did not suspect before, we see a deity in simple clothes, in the midst of a crowd of gypsies and peddlers. in everyday life, the method for work reveals to us the master; the master uses the material at hand, without waiting for someone to get him from afar what is considered excellent by others or from which others have worked with glory. “The commander,” said Bonaparte, “always has enough troops, if only he knows how to use his people and if he himself shares the campaign and bivouac with them.” Do not reject the business that the present hour has brought you for another, more tempting and glorious. The highest point on the horizon of wisdom is the same distance from everywhere, and if you want to find it, look for it in those ways that are akin to and characteristic of you. But our imagination is always more attractive to the thing that is not needed at this hour. Today exactly, and at the hour when we promised to come to work, to the meeting, how the distant hills and peaks attract us to themselves, how much they promise us! The main lesson of history is that it shows us the value of the present hour and its debt. My good, my business, is that which my homeland, my climate, my means and materials, my comrades point out to me. There is a belief that horse hair turns into hairworms in water. Scholars consider it a fable; but I often think that old things rot, and snakes will be born from the past. Worshiping the deeds of ancestors can become a deceptive feeling. Their virtue was not worship of the past; their merit was that they honored the present moment; and it is in vain that we refer to them to justify such an inclination, which would be disgusting to them, which they did not follow in life. and our favorite dream is that we have little time for work. But we could think that many creatures eat from one cup, and each creature, according to its composition, accepts and processes in it those elements that are characteristic of it - time, space, light, water, and bodily fluids. The snake turns all its prey into a snake, the fox into a fox; and Peter and Paul turn their entire being into Peter and Paul. in New York, someone once complained that there was not enough time. A simple Indian answered him smarter than another philosopher: “It seems to me that all the time you have is in your power.” There is also a dream: we cannot give up the thought of the great significance of a long time - a year, a decade, a century. But the old French proverb says: God's work is accomplished in a minute, "En peu d'heure Dieu labeure." We pray to ourselves for a long life, but a long life means: a full life, a life great in minutes. The true measure of time is a spiritual, not a mechanical measure. Life is long beyond measure. Minutes of spiritual understanding and providence, minutes of complete unity in a personal relationship, one smile, one look - this is how we penetrate eternity and draw full measure from it. at such moments life rises to its extreme point and becomes concentrated; according to Homer, “the gods once only and on one day only give mortals that share of reason that is assigned to whom.” I am of the same opinion with the poet Wordsworth that “there is only one happiness in life, and there is no other - happiness in reason and virtue.” I am of the same opinion as Pliny that “the more we delve into these truths in thought, the more length we give to our lives.” I am of the same opinion with Glaucon when he said: “O Socrates! The measure of life for a wise man is to speak and listen to speeches similar to what we hear from you.” He alone can enrich me, who gives me the wisdom of the day, who illuminates my path from sunrise to sunrise. The understanding of the day serves as the measure of a person. The poet, with only his poetry, the mathematician, with only his problems, does not completely satisfy us; but when a person comprehends with his soul both the fundamental principles of the universe and the festive grandeur of the universe, then his poetry is true, and his numbers resonate with music. For me, I am not the scholar of scholars who can unearth before me the buried dynasties of Sesostris and Ptolemy, and determine for me the years of the Olympiads and consulates; but the one who can reveal to me the theory of this Monday, this Wednesday. Does he have that knowledge of love (piety), which alone can unravel the vulgarity of everyday life, can he remove the veils from those bonds by which vulgar people, vulgar objects are connected to the first principle of being? Fifteen minutes flew by, in human opinion this is a fraction of time, not an eternity; a small, forced share - a share of hope or a share of memory, this is the road to happiness or from happiness, but not happiness itself. Can he show me this quarter of an hour in connection with happiness and eternity? This is the true teacher, this is the one who can lead us from a slave and beggarly life to wealth and confidence. with him, in the place where he is, there is honor and dignity. Our America, mendicant America, curious, looking everywhere, wandering everywhere, imitating everything, studying Greece and Rome and Germany and England - America will take off her dusty sandals, throw off her faded traveling hat and stay at home and sit in peace and in the radiance of joy. He will look around him: in the whole world there are no such views of nature, in the history of centuries there has not been such an hour, in the future there will not be another moment more favorable! An hour for poets to sing, an hour for the arts to reveal all their wealth! One more note. Life is only good when it is charming and musical, when it is in complete harmony, complete consonance, and when we do not dissect it. Keep your days in honor, turn yourself into your day, do not interrogate it like a professor of a student. Our world is a mysterious world; everything that is said, everything that is known and done is all a mystery, everything must be accepted not in the mind of the letter, but in the mind of the spirit. To truly understand everything, we must be at the top of our rank. When the bird sings its song, listen; but if you want to hear a song, beware of breaking it down into names and verbs. Let us try to restrain ourselves, to give ourselves, to submit. When the morning comes, let's give room to the morning. Everything in the universe moves in waves and curves. There are no direct lines. I remember now what the foreign scientist who came to our house for a week told me - to the joy of my youth. “The favorite pastime of the wild islanders,” he said, “is to play with the waves on the coastal surf. They lie down on the wave, which picks them up and carries them out, then they swim again, again surrender to the wave and enjoy this game for hours. All human life consists of the same transitions. You must be able to lose yourself, to surrender: whoever does not know how to do this cannot have greatness. and you have astronomy here as if to look after a person. You don’t dare leave the house and look at the month and at the stars: it all seems that they are counting my steps and asking how many lines and pages I have written and read since I saw them... This is not how we lived in our land: all our days were different from each other, and they all came together - with a single love for what occupied and filled us. To feel your hour full is happiness. Fill, gods, my hour, so that when it has passed, I could say: I have lived an hour, and would not say like this: behold, another hour of my life has passed.” We do not need people who do things, masters of any literary or artificial work, those who know how to write a poem, defend a lawsuit, carry out this or that measure for money; those who can, with a strong effort of will, turn their ability anywhere - to this or that object, in this or that direction. No, everything that was accomplished best in the world - the work of a genius - was accomplished for nothing, cost nothing; came to light without heavy effort, through the free flow of thought. Shakespeare created his Hamlet like a bird builds its nest. Other poems poured out unconsciously, between sleep and awakening. Great artists painted pictures for their own joy and did not feel the power leaving them. So they couldn’t write in a cool mood. and the masters of our lyrical poetry also wrote their songs. A wonderful power bloomed in them with a wonderful color of beauty, and their creation was, in the words of the famous letters of a French woman, “a charming accident of a most charming life” (le charmant accident de l'existence encore plus charmante). Not a single poet becomes exhausted or suffers a loss from his song. and there will be no song until the hour has come to sing it freely and in beauty. If the singer sings because he has to sing, and because the song cannot be avoided, then it is better not to have it at all. Sleep comes by itself to those alone who do not care about sleep: this is what they say, and those who write best are those who are not forced by concern: how it will be expressed and how it will be written. in science it’s the same. Our scientist is often an amateur. His feat consists of some kind of note for the academy - about strange fish, about tadpoles, about spider legs; he makes observations, sits over a microscope like other academicians; but when his note is finished, read, printed, he enters again into ordinary life, which goes on for him on its own, completely separate from the life of a scientist. Newton is not like that: his science was as free as breathing; in order to determine the weight of the moon, he used the same mental ability that served him to fasten the hooks on his dress; his whole life was simple, wise, majestic. This was Archimedes - always similar to himself, like the vault of heaven. Linnaeus and Franklin have the same smooth, simple integrity; no stilts, no stretching; and their deeds are fruitful and memorable to all people. Freeing time from all its illusions, trying to find the core of the day, we dwell on the quality of the minute and put aside concern about its length. At what depth our life stands is what is important for us, and the breadth of its extent is not significant. We strive for eternity, and time is a transitory shell of eternity; and in fact, from the slightest acceleration of thought, from the slightest deepening of mental power, our life expands, deepens, and we feel its length. There are people who do not need to go through a long school of experiments. After many years of activity, they can say: we knew all this in advance; they love and disgust at first sight, being able to immediately distinguish between what is related and what is not related. They never ask about conditions, because they themselves are always in the same condition with themselves, and live to their heart’s content; order others without taking orders from anyone; Conscious of their right to success, they are always confident in it, and always neglect general techniques and methods for success. They live by themselves, behave by themselves, behave by themselves. In any society they remain themselves: they are allowed to do so. They are great in the present; They do not have talents and do not care to have them, because in them is the power that was before the talent and will be after the talent, and they use the talent itself as an instrument. This strength—character—is the highest name that philosophy has reached. It doesn’t matter how such a person does this or that thing: what matters most is who he is, what he is. Who he is, what is in him - this is expressed in his every word, in every movement. Here the minute merges with the character: you cannot distinguish one from the other. The advantage of character over talent is perfectly expressed in the Greek legend of the contest between Phoebus and Jupiter. Phoebus began to challenge the gods to a competition and asked: “Which of you will fire at Apollo the arrow-thrower?” Zeus responded: “I will fire.” Mars drew lots, put them in his helmet, and the first turn fell to Apollo. He drew his bow and threw an arrow far away, to the edge of the far west. Then Zeus stood up, took up the entire space in one movement and said: “Where to shoot? There's no room left." and the gods awarded a reward for shooting to those who did not pick up a bow. And here is the path of ascent for the spirit seeking wisdom: from human affairs and all the work of human hands - to the enjoyment of those forces that govern the work; from reverence for deeds - to wise reverence for the mystery of time, in which the human spirit is placed to do; from local arts and from economy, which calculates the amount of productivity by the hour, to that highest economy, which seeks to see the quality of the work, the right to the work, faith and fidelity in the work; seeks to penetrate through the matter into the depth of the thought that appears in the matter, thought in its universal meaning, that thought whose root is not in time, but in eternity. The source of such deeds is character - the highest principle of spiritual integrity. Before him all minutes are equal; he gives a man greatness in every rank; it contains the only definition of freedom and power. If you want me to cry, you must first of all experience pain yourself (lat.). Crescit indulgens sibi (lat.) – Arises from self-indulgence. Thucydides (c. 460–400 BC) – Ancient Greek historian. This refers to the Great French Revolution of 1789–1794. Napoleon I Bonaparte (1769–1821) – French statesman and commander, first consul of the French Republic (1799–1804), Emperor of France (1804–1814 and March–June 1815). Maine Henry James Semner (1822–1888) - English lawyer-historian, founder of the historical and comparative study of law. (The translator apparently transcribed the name James as Charles.) factor (obsolete) – intermediary, commission agent. augurs - in ancient Rome, one of the oldest priestly colleges that interpreted the will of the gods on the basis of auspices (fortune-telling). Over time, the activity of the augurs turned into a formal procedure, during which, according to Cicero, the augurs could hardly restrain themselves from laughing, since they themselves did not believe in it. Spencer Herbert (1820–1903) - English philosopher and sociologist, one of the founders of positivism. Francis Bacon (1561–1626) – English philosopher. See: Gospel of Matthew. Ch. 20. Art. 26–27; Gospel of Mark: Ch. 9. Art. 35. The Ptolemaic astronomical system is a geocentric system of the world, developed by the ancient Greek astronomer Ptolemy Claudius, according to which all visible movements of the heavenly bodies were explained by their movement around the motionless Earth. Copernicus Nicholas (1473–1543) - Polish astronomer, creator of the heliocentric system of the world. Gnostics are followers of a religious and philosophical movement that arose in the 1st-2nd centuries. on the basis of the unification of Christian ideas about the divine incarnation for the purpose of redemption, Jewish monotheism and the pantheistic sentiments of pagan religions - ancient, Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian and Indian. Arianism is a movement in Christianity that arose in the 4th century; It received its name from the name of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius, who taught that God the Son is not like God the Father in everything, but was created by him, that is, he is the creation of God, but not God. At the First Ecumenical (Nicene) Council in 325, Arianism was recognized as a heresy. Pashkovites are followers of a sect that arose in Russia in 1874 and was named after its founder, Guard Colonel V.A. Pashkov. According to the teachings of the Pashkovites, as a result of the Fall, man is powerless to achieve salvation through his deeds. Salvation was accomplished on the cross and all who believed in Christ were saved; everyone who believes immediately receives remission of sins and is delivered from death. The one who believes and sinned should repent, and he receives immediate forgiveness. Anyone who believes can understand the entire Bible and interpret it to others; he certainly does good deeds as the fruits of faith. The opinion that works are also necessary for salvation detracts from the merit of Christ. Based on these provisions, the Pashkovites reject the veneration of icons and saints, the sacraments and the church hierarchy; their worship is reduced to prayer, preaching and the singing of poetry. Syutaevtsy (Syutaevtsy) - a religious sect, the founder of which is the peasant of the Tver province V.K. Syutaev. The beliefs of the Syutaevites are based only on the New Testament. The main thing, in the eyes of Syutaev, is mutual love among people: “True Christianity is in love - where there is love, there is God, and where there is no love, there is no God.” All the disorders of life, according to V.K. Syutaev, come from a lack of love among people; The greatest injustice—war—depends on the same thing. People must achieve happiness on earth; “What will happen there,” said Syutaev, “I don’t know, I haven’t been to the next world.” V.K. Syutaev strove to realize his ideal through self-improvement. Like Syutaev himself, his followers try to live impeccably, always speak the truth, and share everything with everyone. The Syutaevites do not go to church, do not recognize the sacraments, do not venerate icons or saints, do not recognize relics, do not fast, do not celebrate any services, prayers or services at home, and deny the oath. Tolstoyism is a religious-utopian trend in social thought and social movement in Russia at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries, which developed on the basis of the teachings of L. N. Tolstoy. Followers of Tolstoyism preached universal love, non-resistance to evil through violence, religious and moral improvement as a means of transforming society, organized productive agricultural communities, and called for refusal to pay taxes and perform military service. nihilist is a term introduced into widespread use by I. S. Turgenev, who applied it to the hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons” Bazarov. Through the mouth of another character in the same novel, Arkady Kirsanov, Turgenev gave the following definition of this term: “A nihilist is a person who does not bow to any authority, who does not take a single principle on faith, no matter how respected this principle may be.” Opponents of revolutionary democracy began to use the word nihilist when speaking about Russian revolutionaries. In 362 BC. e., according to legend, a huge chasm formed among the Roman forus, and the soothsayers announced that the state was in danger and that to prevent it, Rome must sacrifice its best treasure; Roman citizen Marcus Curtius, exclaiming “What could be more valuable to Rome than weapons and military art,” rushed into the abyss on horseback, and the abyss closed. See: Gospel of John. Ch. 13. Art. 34. According to the tenets of Islam, the road to Muslim paradise goes along the thinnest Sirat bridge, stretched over hell, and only the righteous will overcome it. Carlyle Thomas (1795–1881) - English publicist, historian, philosopher. See: Book of Genesis. Ch. 3. Art. 5. Jonathan Swift (1667–1745) – English writer and politician. This refers to the fact that J. Swift's last will, dated May 3, 1740, provided for the creation of a hospital for idiots and the insane at his expense: “... and I wish that all my fortune should be converted into cash, and that money would be spent on renting land, and that the annual rental income would be used to purchase a plot of land near Dublin, large enough to build a hospital on it, and that this hospital be large enough to accommodate such a number of feeble-minded and insane people, for the maintenance of which there will be enough income from the said lands... and I further wish that this annual income will be used to supply the feeble-minded and insane placed in the said hospital with food, medicine, clothing, services and for the repair and expansion of the said hospital that is needed from time to time” (quoted from: Levidov M. Yu. Travel to some distant countries thoughts and feelings of Jonathan Swift, first a researcher, and then a war in several battles, M., 1986. P. 26). In August 1742 a specially formed commission found that J. Swift “is not able to take care of himself and his property as a person of weak mind and lack of memory.” tabula rasa (lat.) – a smooth board, i.e. a blank sheet; something pure, untouched. Helps Arthur (1813–1875) was an English writer who wrote extensively on political and social issues. Taglioni (Talioni) is an Italian family of ballet dancers and choreographers, among whom the most famous were Filippo Taglioni (1777–1871), Salvatore Taglioni (1790–1868), Maria Taglioni (1804–1884), Paul Taglioni (1808–1884), Maria Taglioni Jr. (1830–1891). We are talking about a newspaper published in Moscow in 1756–1916. The newspaper adhered to conservative positions. This refers to a newspaper that was published in St. Petersburg in 1866–1901. She joined the liberal trend in Russian journalism. We are talking about a magazine founded by M. M. Stasyulevich, which was published in 1866–1918. The magazine adhered to liberal positions. ad astra (lat.) – to the stars. Goethe Johann Wolfgang (1749–1832) was a German poet, thinker and natural scientist. Quel est mon nestier? (French) - What is my business? Montaigne Michel de (1533–1592) - French philosopher and writer. Danton Georges Jacques (1759–1794) – leader of the Great French Revolution. Robespierre Maximilien Marie Isidore (1758–1794) - a figure of the Great French Revolution, one of the main leaders of the Jacobins. Marat Jean Paul (1743–1793) – figure of the Great French Revolution, scientist, publicist. Noah is the hero of the Old Testament story about the global flood - undertaken by God in the prehistoric era to flood the entire earth to destroy sinful humanity. Tulsi (Tulchi) Das (1532–1624) is a poet of Hindi literature. brahmanas (brahmins) – priests of Brahmanism; in ancient India - the highest of the four class groups - varna. The Vedas are the sacred books of the ancient Indians, constituting a collection of hymns, liturgical formulas and explanations for various features of the ritual. Baumgartner A. Die Literaturen Indiens und Ostasiens. Freiburg, 1897. de omni re sciblli et quibusdam aliis (lat.) – about all things accessible to knowledge, and about some others. See: Gospel of John. Ch. 1. Art. 1. See: Goethe I.V. Faust. Part 1. Scene 3. Goethe Johann Wolfgan (1749–1832) was a German poet, thinker and natural scientist. Prometheus is a titan in ancient Greek mythology, the protector of people from the tyranny of the gods. According to the oldest version of the myth, Prometheus stole fire from Olympus and gave it to people, for which, by order of Zeus, he was chained to a rock and doomed to incessant torment. Zeus is the supreme god in ancient Greek mythology; identified with the ancient Roman god Jupiter. We are talking about an ancient Greek myth, according to which the Sphinx is a monster with the paws of a lion, the body of a dog, the head and chest of a woman, and wings. Typhon is a hundred-headed fire-breathing monster in ancient Greek mythology. Echidna is a monstrous creature in ancient Greek mythology, half-woman, half-snake. Tartarus - in ancient Greek mythology, an abyss in the bowels of the earth, where Zeus imprisoned the titans he overthrew; kingdom of the dead. See: Acts of the Holy Apostles. Ch. 12. Art. 6–7. Alaric I (c. 370–410) - king of the Visigoths from 395. On August 24, 410, he took Rome and subjected it to a three-day defeat. This first (after the Gallic invasion of Italy in the 4th century BC) capture of Rome by barbarians made a huge impression on contemporaries; it was the beginning of the final takeover of the Western Roman Empire by the Verbarians. Augustine Blessed Aurelius (354–430) - Christian theologian, the most prominent representative of Western patristics. See: Gospel of Matthew. Ch. 16. Art. 18. See: Gospel of Matthew. Ch. 23. Art. 10. Moses is in the traditions of Judaism and Christianity the first prophet of the god Yahweh and the founder of his religion, legislator, religious mentor and political leader of the Jewish tribes in the so-called exodus from Egypt to Canaan (Palestine). Aaron is in the Old Testament legends the first in a series of high priests, the ancestor of the priestly caste. When Moses ascends Mount Sinai to communicate with Yahweh, he entrusts the people to Aaron and Hur; At the request of the people, Aaron makes a golden idol in the form of a calf, thereby violating the prohibition of idolatry and incurring the wrath of Yahweh, from which he is saved only thanks to the intercession of Moses. Jalaluddin (Muhammad) Rumi (1207–1273) - Persian mystical poet. We are talking about the Persian poet Rumi Jamuddin and his poem "Mesnevi", considered a classic monument of Sufi poetry. We are talking about the French writer Alice Durand-Greville (1842–1902). Seely John Robert (1834–1895) was an English essayist and historian. Sedet aeternumque sedebit (lat.) – sits for eternity and sits in eternity. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) was a German philosopher and scientist, the founder of German classical philosophy. Eliot George (pseudonym; real name Mary Ann Evans (1819–1880) - English writer. Comte Hauposte (1798–1857) - French philosopher, one of the founders of positivism. Marley (Morley) John (1833–1923) - English statesman and writer. See: First Epistle to the Corinthians of the Apostle Paul. Ch. 8. Strauss David Friedrich (1808–1874) – German theologian, philosopher and publicist. John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was an English positivist philosopher, economist and public figure. We are talking about the treatise of Marcus Tullius Cicero “On Duties”. Socrates (c. 469–399 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher. Howard John (1726–1790) was an English philanthropist who did a lot to transform criminal detention facilities and the prison regime. Washington George (1732–1799) was an American statesman, commander-in-chief of the American army during the Revolutionary War in North America in 1775–1783, and the first president of the United States (1789–1797). Antony Pius (86–161) – Roman Emperor from 138 I remember a story about this by the late Professor Lyaskovsky, an excellent Latinist. In some Hungarian town, about fifty years ago, he had the opportunity to convey an order to an unfamiliar lady. Approaching her house, he asked himself in what language to start a conversation with her. A little girl opened the door for him, and after her the voice of her mother was heard: “Claude Januam.” “Clausa est,” answered the girl and led the visitor into the living room. The conversation immediately began in Latin. It turned out that in many areas of Hungary, inhabited by a mixture of Magyars, Germans, Romanians and multilingual Slavs, the spoken language of an educated society was Latin, and all well-bred children were taught to speak this language. By the way, it should be noted that in our habit of using new foreign words, this word “altruism” has already come into unreasonable use, and is used haphazardly, even when applied to Christian love. Given the prevailing debauchery of speech, young spiritual writers are also using this term, which is completely unforgivable. It is gleaned from reading new philosophical works (Spencer and others like him), translated into Russian; but we must not forget from what source it comes and with what system of thinking this term is associated, which is completely inapplicable to the concept of Christian love.