Letters

Contents Letter to A. A. Elagin, March 1834 Letter to A. V. Venevitinov, June 2, 1854 Letter to A. V. Venevitinov, con. 1855 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, June 1, 1854 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, June 10, 1851 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, November 11, 1855 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, Oct. 13 1853 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, October 15. 1853 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, June 17, 1855 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, 1832 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, February 20, 1851 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, July 26, 1855 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, July 4, 1828 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, August 43. 1855 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, July 6, 1833 or 1834 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, spring 1851 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, October-November 1853 Letter to A.I. Koshelev, Jan. 1831 Letter to A.P. Elagina, 1836 Letter to A.S. Khomyakov, April 10 1844 Letter to A. S. Khomyakov, May 2, 1844 Letter to V. A. Elagin, 1842 Letter to V. A. Zhukovsky, January 28 1845 Letter to V. A. Zhukovsky, October 6. 1831 Letter to V. A. Zhukovsky, spring 1849 Letter to M. V. Kireevskaya, March 17, 1847 Letter to M. V. Kireevskaya, Aug. 1830 Letter to M.P. Pogodin, con. 1844 or early 1845 Letter to M.P. Pogodin, March-April 1848 Letter to M.P. Pogodin, beginning. 1830 Letter to M.P. Pogodin, beginning. 4846 Letter to Moscow friends, March-April 1847 Letter to an unknown person. Letter to Elder Macarius of Optina, 1852 Letter to the Optina Elder Macarius, 1852 Letter to the Optina Elder Macarius, November 23, 1854 Letter to the Optina Elder Macarius, July 28, 1853 Letter to the Optina Elder Macarius, October 8. 1853 Letter to Elder Macarius of Optina, July 9, 1854 Letter to P.V. Kireyevsky, March 16–21, 1830 Letter to A. A. Elagin, March 1834 1 Dear friend Papinka, I am so full of feelings and thoughts that I would like to convey to you that I don’t know where to start the letter. “I saw Natalya Petrovna,” we explained to her, Mommy agrees, and for our happiness the only thing missing now is your blessing. For God's sake, send it quickly and in such a cordial, fatherly, friendly manner as I expect from you, and which is necessary for me as one of the first conditions for happiness. - Happiness! this is a word from which I was unaccustomed, and which suddenly resurrected for me with full, deep meaning. Share it with me with your sympathy - now your friendship is more necessary for me than ever. “I’m not able to tell you all the details now.” When we meet, maybe I’ll have time to get my head in order. Maybe I’ll write to you next mail. Now I look like a blind man who suddenly saw the light, and still does not know how to distinguish objects separately, but only sees that everything together is light and clear. That’s why even now I can only share with you this general impression and I can’t even find words for it. – I look forward to your letter with lively impatience and without any anxiety. Yes, I am sure and did not doubt for a minute that my happiness will be a happy feeling for you, that you will share it completely, and bless us as your children and friends. I hug you tightly, both for myself and for Natasha. Letter to A.V. Venevitinov, June 2, 1854 2. We hope to see you on your way through Moscow, when you, as they say, go to inspect your departments. It would be very good if your wife went with you and if you stayed longer in Moscow. Especially now is the time to leave St. Petersburg, with its cholera air and non-Russian spirit, trembling from the Austrian fist. – The cigar woman scared the bear. Here, almost all classes are driven to despair by the news of our concessions, but among you, they say, without hiding, they are afraid of war and ask for peace. If true, is it possible to remain healthy in such air, which is so healthy for the Germans? I imagine how indignant Apollina Mikhailovna is at the actions of these non-Gogol dead souls. her wonderful intolerance for nasty things must suffer incomparably more from moral nasty things than from artistic nasty things. Therefore, leave quickly deep into the depths of Russia, at least for a short time to rest among the noble souls of the revisionists, from the stuffiness of the dead souls that rule the living, without blushing. Meanwhile, on the way, stop by Moscow and give us the opportunity to see you and the pleasure of expressing in person how much and how wholeheartedly we love you. “When I say we, I especially mean me and my wife, and when I say you, I mean you and your dear wife.” Letter to A.V. Venevitinov, con. 1855 3 My God, what terrible news A. I. Reinhardt told us! Mikhail Mikhailovich, this pure, noble being, fell victim to this damned war! 4 – I confess to you that I felt as sorry for few of the fallen heroes of Sevastopol as I did for him. Others gave their lives with selflessness, but also with the fervor of passion. The pure fire of self-conscious, high self-sacrifice burned within him. Russia, thank God, will find military heroes. But where can one find such a person as he was, thoroughly imbued with the holiness of duty, the nobility and sublimity of his convictions? “Everyone who takes part in the common cause followed his actions with some special love. How will Mikhail Yuryevich bear this loss? 5 In him he came to life with new life. It's hard to even think about his situation. For Matvey Yuryevich 6, this loss, I think, will be almost as sensitive. They say he loved him almost like a son. When I saw them together, it seemed to me that sometimes, looking at Mikhail Mikhailovich, his eyes expressed so much involuntary love and tenderness that this remark of mine then added many wonderful feelings to the concept that I had about the inner happiness of your rare, friendly family. And so, how this happiness of family love was cut short! Anna Mikhailovna 7, they say, was more friendly with him than others. May God give her strength and faith to endure this difficult test! But for Apollina Mikhailovna I am most afraid of all. Her health is already upset, and besides, she knows no boundaries in the movements of her beautiful heart. Therefore, let me remind you that Fr. is now in St. Petersburg. Matthew, whose word is not without spiritual power. If you send for him, he will surely not refuse to visit you. “I am sure that a conversation with him will keep a believing soul in Christian balance, which is often the more capable of losing this balance, the more natural love and self-forgetfulness it has. Carried away by grief, we forget what, perhaps, we know better than others in ordinary moments, we forget that the Lord loves us more than a mother loves her child, so that if He, the Merciful, sends us a loss, then it is clear that this is not a loss, but a gain - it is clear that this is the best that can only happen for us and for the lost. And who knows, maybe this short separation is a necessary condition for later to be more fully and internally united. And who told us that he who leaves earthly life is separated from us? If in our heart is the feeling that constitutes his mental life, then it is obvious that our heart becomes the place where he resides, not mentally, but essentially intertwined with him. You will understand my mysticism, dear friend, despite the fact that you are called a businesslike and positive person. For you, the life of the heart is your real life. I remember how deep, what a long-lasting and penetrating grief took possession of you at the death of your brother 9! “But after that, you were the only one who stood firm in the faith, when almost all of your friends wavered and fell. The Lord, Merciful and Almighty, is faithful. He will not destroy the pure love of our heart, no matter what appears in visible life. Forgive me, dear friend, if my letter is inappropriate. After thinking, I feel that it is not enough to say a word of comfort. But the need to talk to you at that moment was stronger than other considerations. I hug you. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, June 1, 1854 10. Dear friend! I am enclosing Wrede’s receipt and would very much like to find out from you as soon as possible whether I did so, that I gave him the money without receiving from him your safe receipt, which, as he says, he forgot in the village. This is written down in his receipt, and therefore I did not dare to make it difficult to issue him, thinking in this way to fulfill your desire. If you have any doubts, then write as soon as possible before he goes abroad. What are you doing in the village? I have done almost nothing since you left. Now my wife has moved to Sokolniki for a month, to breathe the tar air and drink kumiss, on the orders of the doctor, and I travel between Sokolniki and the Red Gate. There is nothing new in Moscow, except that Countess Rostopchina screamed so loudly that the government finally believed her, which, just between us, for all its qualities, has the important drawback that it is almost completely devoid of literary education, and therefore cannot distinguish what is harmful to it in literature from what can support its strength. And as a result of this, Khomyakov, who, as you know, was always a defender of autocracy and Orthodoxy, who was even attacked for this by the so-called liberals from 1828 to this time, who was generally attacked because he alone of all poets always praised Russia, was now called to Count Zakrevsky, and according to the instructions of the 3rd Department, they took from him a receipt that he would not communicate his works to anyone before they are approved by the censor. This is because in his poems to Russia he said that we do not have the truth in the courts. This measure, of course, is a very effective means of killing the poet’s inspiration. What is it like, while writing poetry, to think about the officials of the Main Censorship Committee! Khomyakov tries not to show that this upset him, but it could not have been otherwise. When you put some facts together, it becomes very strange: the works and memory of Gogol, who stood for autocracy, are persecuted; they are persecuting Khomyakov, who also stands for autocracy; and shameless praise, which the entire public takes for ridicule, the government accepts as pure money, and gives awards and rings for them. What can we conclude from this? In addition, people with talent are persecuted, and people without talent are protected. Hugs to you and hope to have a quick response. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, June 10, 1851 11. This, one might say, is a truly friendly act, my dear friend! To write three letters, not to be smugly consoled by my superiority, but to write another fourth in order to wake up a sleeping or procrastinating sloth - this is such a thing, such a feat that, perhaps, only I can fully appreciate. However, I’m not as guilty as you might think. Your first letter was short, in which you only promised another, long one. I waited for this long one for a very long time, and finally, when I received it, I saw that answering it by mail would be too long and I would have to pay too much for postage. Soon after that I received your third letter, at the very time when I went to meet my son in Kaluga, where my wife became ill, and I returned, if not from illness, then at least with a severe toothache that tormented me almost until that day. – July 20. I was interrupted for a whole week by some business and worries. I hasten to return to the letter I started. First of all, I will tell you, my dear friend, that the current mood of your spirit pleases me more than I can express. I thank God for you and hope much from you. I have long known that you would follow this road, and I was waiting for you all the more impatiently because a person like you is needed in our time. You ask me for advice on what to read. But from what you are reading, I see that you do not need this advice and gather your own real food. If you find pleasure in reading Basil the Great, Chrysostom and Tikhon of Voronezh, then there is no doubt that you will read all the holy fathers translated into the Slavic language, for in Western languages ​​they are distorted and, for the most part, in those very places that are most essential for establishing on the straight path of a person who strives for the Rising from the West. But you ask me who to read first, who after, and I must admit to you that this simple question has made me difficult. This reading, in order to be of real benefit, must be in accordance with the special disposition of each person. It happened to me that before I had mastered the basic and general, I grabbed onto the highest, befitting only perfect and experienced men, and I confess to you that with this conceit I paralyzed my powers, cultivated in myself precisely that duality, the destruction of which is the main goal of spiritual speculation. Repairing a crack in an existing building is more difficult than building a new one. Therefore, dear friend, it is not for me to give you advice, but, on the contrary, you should support me with your sympathy, or, better to say, that reciprocity of sympathy that doubles your strength. Of our entire circle, your thoughts and deeds are closest to each other. This is precisely what we lacked before you. However, precisely because of this property of yours, the slightest deviation is all the more dangerous for you, just as a mistake in war is more dangerous than a mistake in maneuvers. Therefore, it is more important for you than any books and any thinking - to find a holy Orthodox elder who could be your leader, to whom you could communicate your every thought and hear about it not his opinion, more or less intelligent, but the judgment of the holy fathers. Such elders, thank God, still exist in Russia, and if you search sincerely, you will find them. They exist in Moscow, but, of course, not in the white clergy. As for the history of the church, unfortunately, we do not have a single satisfactory guide. Innocent, as you rightly noted, is more suitable for reference than for reading, although it is not quite complete for reference either. Fleury distorted a lot of things, like a papist, with intent, and distorted even more out of ignorance, because in the West even the most conscientious scholars do not know the history of the Orthodox Church - so it has been distorted by the biased testimonies of the papists. Neander is a man who is a believer at heart, but is led astray in mental terms. He wants to be impartial and presents the facts fairly correctly, but draws false conclusions from them. However, when verified by others, he can provide real materials for compiling the history of the church in his mind. Gfrerer is simply not a Christian. He writes, it seems, only in order to distinguish himself by the originality of his views - the German Polevoy. For this reason, his book is easy to read, intelligent, eloquent, but confusing. Get Mosheim too: he is an old Protestant who is deaf in one ear, but learned and intelligent. His book, in its external form, served as a model for Innocent. The Haase Concise Manual Book can also be used for reference. About 20 years ago, she was very loved by many of our clergy, especially those who came from the St. Petersburg Academy, despite the fact that Haase himself is almost an unbeliever! Muravyov's brief history of the first 4 centuries is easy to read and quite convenient for an initial review. There are, of course, more monographs than stories. Get Athanasius the Great, Möhler, John Chrysostom, Neander, “The Truth of the Russian Church” by Muravyov (a very good book), the history of the Council of Florence, which is very praised, but I have not read it yet. The theology of Macarius is not completely known to me, i.e. I know his Introduction and the first part of the Theology. I don't have the second one yet. In the first part there are precious things, namely the refutation of the Filioque, especially precious according to the extracts of Zvernikav, whose book cannot be obtained, although, they say, it was published by us. But I really don’t like the Introduction of Macarius, both because of the dryness of the school style and because of some opinions that disagree with our church - for example, about the infallibility of the hierarchy, as if the Holy Spirit appears in the hierarchy separately from the totality of all Christianity. Get the Theology of Anthony of Kyiv. The language there is worse and there are also many errors, but there are also good things. However, to tell the truth, we do not have a satisfactory Theology. The best introduction to it can be the Spiritual Alphabet, published in the works of Demetrius of Rostov under his name, and also the sermons of Metropolitan. Philareta. There are many diamond stones there that should lie at the base of the Zion Fortress. However, it seems to me that in the present time, when Christian concepts are so confused by Western distortions that have grown into the true teaching over the course of a millennium and have blinded not only our minds, but also our hearts, so that we, even reading the ancient holy fathers, put our own concepts on them and do not notice what is not in accordance with Western teaching - in our time, I say, the closest thing to the goal would be to compose such an introduction to Theology, in which would explain all the differences between Orthodox teaching and Roman teaching, not only in the main dogmas, but also in all their conclusions. Knowing this difference, we would read the holy fathers with full consciousness of their truth. Farewell, dear friend! I hasten to finish so as not to make you wait even longer for my letter. My wife bows to you. The son bows to yours. We are going to Moscow in early August to see Vasya off. If you're passing through Moscow, maybe I'll see you. Of course, I will participate in our collection, if it ever takes place. But it seems to me that you were counting without the owner, i.e. without a censor, who, as they say, smears from the shoulder, and smears everything, but especially where there is thought, and especially thought that could be useful. Try it though. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, November 11, 1855 12 Dolbino. November 11 (probably 1855). Your letter dated October 23. I received it on October 30, but I only received the article, which I was looking forward to, on November 7. I read it with great interest and am returning it at the first post. I really wish it would be published, because it will undoubtedly be very useful. Her thought is true, and it is said with animation. If there is a flaw in it, it is that it is not quite condensed and there is repetition in it. However, this may not be a hindrance for most readers, but will help them understand and be convinced. Then, it seems to me that your main idea, briefly said at the end, is not well developed, i.e. that Western enlightenment only in its harmful side is contrary to the Russian Orthodox spirit, but its essential side is not only not contrary to the Russian spirit, but is also necessary for its fullest development, just as the Orthodox direction is necessary for the fullest development of Western enlightenment itself, that the beginnings of Russian basic education are special from Western ones only because they are their highest level, and not because they were completely different. For this reason, the Russian peculiarity can, through its development, stifle the harmful side of Western education, which will direct it in the true direction; for the same reason, Russian peculiarity itself can be strangled by Western enlightenment if it is not allowed to develop in time before the false direction of the West completely takes over the Russian peculiarity in Russia. That’s why you say quite rightly that missing a favorable time would be a mistake, perhaps an irreparable one. The insufficiency and even harmfulness of prohibitive measures is obvious from the fact that the Russian peculiarity is not a developed and ready-made enlightenment, but only its basis, only its direction, the yeast that must ferment in flour in order for bread to come out. If it were possible to stop the entry of Western enlightenment into Russia, then the consequence would be that the Russian mind would become even more subordinate to the West, whose influence would become even stronger. Allow everything, you can’t and shouldn’t say. There are definitely harmful books, namely those that excite and ignite violent passions. The antidote to false reasoning is reasoning itself. But passion is wine. Passion excited by a book is false wine and harmful to health. If its sale is not banned, people may get poisoned. There are not many strong stomachs and there may be exceptions for them. Here, dear friend, are my thoughts on your article. I repeat, she is very good, and interesting, and lively, and efficient; but I think that it would be even better if you shortened it a little, eliminating repetitions, and spread your thought a little about the general properties of Russian enlightenment, because, really, this thought is unfamiliar to almost no one, and your article is written in such a tone that it should be read by the entire mass of Russian readers, and not five or six of your friends. Usually, in our country, the Russian spirit is understood only as a lack of education and some characteristic features of morals, without suspecting that these features are associated with some positive principles of higher education. I would very much like these comments of mine to be of some use to you. If you don’t find them useful, then I’m sorry. I speak to you, as if to myself, directly, whatever comes to mind. It’s no wonder that nonsense will come to mind. The author must listen to all criticism, and accept from them only what is to his heart. But by proxy, or by friendship, nothing should be changed, especially in an essay that was written con amore. I ask you to inform me about the fate of your magazine. Does Khomyakov want to go to P-burg, and when exactly? I am not only interested in knowing this, but also need it. If he doesn’t go, or doesn’t go soon, then I will write to Norov about myself. I'm really bored of being mute. What's our business? What did the Chamber do? Olga Feodorovna wrote to her wife that the Chamber had done something. It would be very desirable to find out about this in more detail and as soon as possible. Although I am completely calm about this, knowing that in your hands it will go better and more successfully than it could go in mine, I am still curious to know. You wrote to me several times that you dressed up in Russian dress. – I’m very happy for you if this dress is comfortable and beautiful. But I don’t know whether to be happy about the dress. It seems that it would be healthier for him if Pisemsky and Surkov dressed up in it first. It would not be a bad idea to outfit Princess Odoevskaya in it as a model. It seems like it wouldn’t hurt for you and me to wait until we see what effect they will have. I wrote to you this summer about a threshing machine and asked for advice on which one to take. You advised me to wait until Petrovsky invents a machine with a new device. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, October 13. 1853 14 I received your letter, friend Koshelev, and although I have not finished my letter to you, I am sending it unfinished so that you do not reproach me for not paying the debt. I hope to write a continuation after finishing another urgent matter. I read your letter with great pleasure, because it is very well written, and because I promise myself great pleasure in answering it. You touched upon such a question, the answer to which should be consistent with the entire depth of Christian philosophy. I would not dare to talk about it, due to my insufficiency for this spiritual speculation, to talk to anyone but myself, and that’s it. you. My mistakes in looking at this subject will not harm you, because you will look at them as one of the movements of your own thoughts. But first I would like to finish the letter I started about Vinet. – As for Polit. Econ., then I ask you to spare me for now from this subject, the pursuit of which would be completely inconsistent with my current studies. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, October 15. 1853 15 I read the book Vinet, which you gave me with the condition of saying my opinion about it in detail, indicating definitively: what I agree with it and what I disagree with it. But I admit that this would be very difficult for me! I can neither agree with Vinet nor reject what he says. It seems to me (forgive me for speaking frankly and without ceremony about such a book, which you call your composition), it seems that he himself did not give himself a clear account of his thoughts before he began to present it, and that is why a very eloquent, very sincere confusion of lies and truth came out. What is he worrying about? What does he want to say? – It seems that the church should be completely separated from the state, so that neither the church should know the state, nor the state the church, but each of these two agreements should exist and act not only independently of the other, but also without any relation to the other. Is this his thought? But what church and what state should act like this? And what should they be? What law will they fulfill by acting like this: the law of the church, or the law of the state? And what church and state exist with what dominant thought? Or does the word must not refer to any law of any church, to any known state, to any known philosophical idea of ​​the state, but is only a postulate of those concepts that Vinet formed for himself about the best structure of the Protestant church and about the ideal of the state? In this case, before resolving the question, it was necessary to clearly define: what was the best church formed in Vinet’s head and what was the ideal of the state? Then, from these concepts, their consequence, the law of their mutual relationship, would naturally emerge. Then the thought of Vinet would enter its natural boundaries: then it would be impossible to argue with it, as with a thought that forms part of his personal religion and his beloved dream of the state. But then, instead of 550 pages, the Vinet book would turn into a very small brochure, which you and I probably would not notice as a thing of too relative interest. But that’s why false thoughts make noise, because they stretch particular truths into the volume of universal truths. Vicke begins his book by talking about religious beliefs in general and the responsibility of every person to freely express theirs. Here he takes as his subject not only all Christian confessions, but also all non-Christian faiths, Jewish, pagan, Mohammedan, and even philosophical convictions, and even a system of unbelief, and puts them all in one category of convictions of conscience about the truth, and from the laws of conscience itself deduces for everyone the obligation to openly and freely confess their convictions. In this case, I completely sympathize with him, as a Christian, for this law of conscience about the open and fearless confession of one’s faith is a Christian law. But I doubt whether all types of paganism and all systems of unbelief will find this law in their conscience. “But there is only one conscience,” you say. Yes, as one truth. This does not, however, prevent a person from often accepting a lie as the truth. Conscience is faith. Demanding one conscience from all people is the same as demanding one faith. Of course, in this particular respect, the consciences of most faiths agree with each other, however, if there are societies of priests or philosophers who keep their beliefs in secret and think that for the very triumph of their truth it is necessary to hide it under the guise of generally accepted error, then I can disagree with them, I can regret them, I can argue with them, but I cannot think that my concepts of conscience and faith must necessarily be their concepts of conscience and faith. Consequently, wouldn’t it be more prudent to distinguish here: which belief belongs to which mode of action, and send each demand directly to the address where it is accepted. To console myself with the thought that the whole world recognizes those laws that I consider obligatory for myself is Chinese, from which conclusions can lead to error. From this proposition that every belief has a moral duty to express itself frankly in words and actions, Vinet deduces a moral duty for every state not to hinder any belief from expressing itself and preaching itself in words, deeds and life. Since he is talking about the state in general and about conviction in general, it is natural that in his reasoning there is such vagueness, such exaggeration, such inconsistency of one thought with another, that the first hundred pages of the second part seemed to me like Don Quixote’s war with windmills, or the exercises of a talented student on the course of some Swiss Shevyrev. Who is he knighting against? - against Rothe, about whom even Protestants even doubt whether he is a Christian or not. His concept of the state, that it should itself be completely human, is one of the systems of which thousands arise daily in Germany. To accept this system as representative of the general opinion and to think that you have done everything when you have overcome it is rather ridiculous and childish. If Vinet had also fought with Rothe’s father, Hegel himself, dismantling his view of the state in its primitive form, then his objections would have some general interest; but to object to one of the semi-Hegelians is good only for those who really want to write. In addition, no philosophical concept of the state stands on its own, but is derived from the general principles of the system, as a necessary consequence. How can one refute a conclusion without touching the beginning? In general, philosophical conclusions are not refuted; they are simply rejected when a system contradicting them is built. But Vinet undertook to talk about the state as a philosopher, and yet did not pose any philosophical truth. Therefore, no matter what he says, truth or lie, everything will be without foundation, just one phrase, more or less a plausible dream. It's another matter when he wants to speak like a Christian. Here he is based on the convictions of the confession to which he belongs. Here, therefore, his word has a voice. Little by little, turning his thoughts from side to side and chewing the same thing, Vinet finally reached this consciousness and feels that what he said was not as generally applicable as it seemed to him at first glance. As a result of this consciousness awakening in him, Vinet first limits his exclamations about beliefs in general to the fact that what he says cannot apply to Mohammedanism, nor to ancient paganism, nor to Judaism, but only to various types of Christianity. Then another hundred pages later he says that what he said cannot apply to Roman Catholicism, which would cease to be entirely Catholicism and the Roman Church if it refused to unite spiritual and secular power. Therefore, his demand for the separation of two powers can only apply to one Protestant confession. The book would have been much clearer if the author had defined the boundaries of his thought from the very beginning. However, it is also necessary to distinguish between Protestant confessions. If, for example, the English church is considered among the Protestant ones, then it is obvious that the inviolability of secular and spiritual authority demanded by the author cannot apply to it. For, as a direct product of secular power, the English Church, with the separation of powers, must itself disintegrate into its component parts and, therefore, be destroyed. The Reformed, too, could not (at least at the beginning) follow the admonition of Vinet, for, according to the teachings of Calvin, the state itself must come from the church and be organized by it. But the historical mill has wiped out this part of the dogma from Reformation, and therefore for this sect the question of the relationship to secular power can still be considered unresolved. Quakers do not directly and purely recognize a state outside themselves and above themselves, and by their dogma they cannot form part of the Vinet audience. Although the Gernhuters are not in a hostile relationship with the state, within another political society they form not only a church society, but also a civil one, with special arrangements for mutual relations. Consequently, if they constituted a separate people, they would certainly form a state, emanating directly from the church and one component with the church structure. Therefore, the word Vinet cannot apply to them either. There remain the Lutherans, who recognized in the Augsburg Confession that the structure of the secular state should not depend on the church, that spiritual and secular powers are different and should not be subordinate to one another, but both should be revered and preserved with equal reverence, as the two highest graces of God on earth (als zwei höchste Gaben auf Erden). But, having placed the church in equal rights with the state in dogma, they in reality immediately subordinated the spiritual structure to the patronage and supervision, and order and even management of secular power. But since this teaching of the church for Lutherans is not a dogma, but an ingrained historical fact, then the Vinet requirement can actually apply to them; for Vinet probably does not want to change religions, he only wants to correct the ideas of some about one foreign subject of dubious nature. The same sects of the Protestant confession to which the Vinet question refers - i.e. for whom it is not a dogma, but also a question - one can count Christians of all confessions who waver in their convictions, and, then, non-believers and philosophical Christians. But these latter, even if they had political power in their hands, can they be considered legitimate judges in the matter of church relations? Meanwhile, the author has them in mind more than others, because he primarily relies on the requirements of modern education. In his opinion, the Christian Church, soon after its appearance in the world, deteriorated and began to go astray. One of the consequences of this error was the rapprochement of state and church under Constantine. Then all the troubles of Christians and Christianity were a necessary consequence of this rapprochement, and only in our modern times it becomes possible for the church to open its eyes and see its mistake (p. 350 and many other places). In other words: the Holy Spirit, soon after the times of the apostles, left the church and returns to it only through the preaching of Vinet. Or, perhaps, the Holy Spirit did not leave the church, but while living in it, he was mistaken until Vinet brought him to his senses. Poor Western man, who can get such nonsense into his head!... Or maybe this nonsense is not in the head (which has not reached the consciousness of its transformative demands), but only in the heart, which inspires the desire to transform and correct the church. This feeling, after the retreat of Latinism, became dominant in European education. Despite the fact that the book Vinet has neither foundation nor possible applicability, there is a lot of beauty in it, a lot of bright thoughts, a lot of correct comments, a lot of heartfelt, precious words, and reading it is very pleasant and, perhaps, not uselessly arouses the need for a clear consciousness about this issue in the Orthodox reader. For this question in the Orthodox Church does not have the logical definitive answer that it received in the West from the combination of spiritual and secular power in one person. There, from this circumstance, a whole system of political relations between states emerged, which entered theological dogma as part of it. There the church was the visible foundation and constantly visible support of worldly power and rose into all branches of worldly government as one of its visible elements. The Latin Church discovered exactly the same material dominance in the field of science. Instead of spiritually penetrating the very thinking of man, the very root of his thinking, she derived visible, literal positions from her teaching and imposed them on science. Galileo, renouncing his system, and Henry IV, performing penance, express one sense of ecclesiastical predominance. That is why the Reformation, having separated the church from Rome, equally severed the connection both between the government and the church, and between secular science and theology. And in both areas the consequences were the same. As soon as the spiritual principle ceased to dominate the secular, so the secular began to dominate the spiritual. Protestant churches found themselves under the orders of secular governments, and Protestant theologies became a conclusion from philosophical systems. For a state that is completely independent of the church is just as impossible as a philosophy that is completely independent of the teachings of faith. If the substance does not obey the spirit, then it cannot remain in equal rights, but must inevitably gain the upper hand. The example of the American States, which Vinet gives, does not prove anything. This is not a state, but a random coupling of several heterogeneous masses, constantly ready to disintegrate. They hold on only because they have not come to self-awareness. As soon as self-awareness penetrates them from the heart into parts and from parts into the heart, they will scatter into many pieces. Meanwhile, now the government in them cannot seize power over religion because they do not have one religion. The mutual contradiction of many religions is a condition for their independence. But if the people, in any state, had any one faith, then it is impossible to assume that this faith would not determine - indirectly or directly - its relationship to the state and would not require certain relationships from it to itself. Unity in the way of thinking cannot but require unity in the way of action. The same faith requires the same morals, the same system of all relationships - family and social. Will a state structure be correct if it is not a direct consequence of this inter-civil system? Or a government that will restrict the expression of national beliefs, under the pretext that this expression may be offensive to some foreign beliefs? Or which itself will offend people’s beliefs with its devices compiled in the spirit of foreign beliefs, for example. government of the Mohammedan people, which will require the troops to drink wine for courage? Or when it allows other sects with impunity to offend the morals of their people by clearly performing customs that are contrary to universal beliefs, for example. in a Christian state, public bacchanalia of paganism, or public ridicule of the faith and morals of the people? Or the distribution of seductive books? Or should a government, generally speaking, pay any attention to the moral conceptions of its people? Should laws remove that which interferes with the free expression of these moral concepts, or remove that which tends to offend or destroy them? The United States, says the author, has no laws to protect public morals or public beliefs. But for this reason, social beliefs there, in each special state, are protected illegally, by a special social willfulness, which, it seems, is no better than the law that the author fears. The crowd acts arbitrarily and with impunity against those who insult their beliefs. If such disorder is part of the general order of things, is it easier because it is produced not according to the law, but without the law? The author says very rightly that in most states where there is a state religion, the government uses it as a means for its own private goals and, under the pretext of patronizing it, oppresses it. But this happens not because there is a dominant faith in the state, but, on the contrary, because the dominant faith of the people does not dominate in the state structure. This unfortunate attitude occurs when, due to some fortuitous historical circumstances, a gap occurs between the beliefs of the people and the government. Then the faith of the people is used as a means, but not for long. One of three things must certainly happen: either the people will waver in their faith, and then the entire state structure will shake, as we saw in the West; or the government will reach the right self-awareness and turn sincerely to the faith of the people, as we hope; or the people will see that they are being deceived, as we fear. The author says that the Orthodox Church has always been under oppression by the government because, being the official state religion, it was under the protection of the government, which, under this pretext, used it as a means. But the injustice of this is proven both by the history of Byzantium and the history of Russia. In Byzantium, the Orthodox Church was very rarely protected by the government, which for the most part was heterodox - either Arian, or Latinizing, or iconoclast, which finally destroyed Greece with its apostasy into the union. In Russia, on the contrary, all governments - both princely and popular - were Orthodox, from Vladimir to Grozny, and we see whether the church prospered and whether the popular belief triumphed. Ivan the Terrible acted oppressively because he was a heretic; this is proven, firstly, by the Council of the Stoglavy and, secondly, by the desire to place Byzantineism on the same level of dignity as Orthodoxy. From this came oprichnina, as a desire for heresy of state and church power. And that his concept of the boundaries, or, more correctly, of the limitlessness of his power and its separation from the people, was not Christian, but heretical, this is still publicly testified by the holy relics of Metropolitan Philip. For a believer, the relationship with God and His Holy Church is the most essential thing on earth, while the relationship with the state is secondary and accidental. It is obvious that all the laws of truth must be violated when the essential is subordinate to the accidental, or is recognized on equal terms with it, and does not dominate over it. Do I need to stipulate that I do not understand the domination of the church as an inquisition, or as persecution for faith? This Mohammedanism, these forced conversions are just as contrary to true Christianity as conversions through deception. If the Latin Church was carried away, and perhaps even now is carried away by the delusion that the end justifies the means, if some members of the Orthodox Church were ever infected with this false teaching, then this mistake of some people does not apply to the church itself. And the state should not agree with the church in order to search for and persecute heretics and force them to believe (this is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and produces an effect contrary to the intention, and harms the state itself almost as much as the church); but in this it must agree with the church in order to set itself the main task of its existence - to constantly become more and more imbued with the spirit of the church and not only not to look at the church as a means to its most convenient existence, but, on the contrary, to see in its existence only a means for the most complete and convenient establishment of the Church of God on earth. The state is a structure of society that aims at earthly, temporary life. The Church is a structure of the same society, with the goal of heavenly, eternal life. If a society understands its life in such a way that the temporal must serve the eternal, then the state structure of this society must serve the church. If a society understands its life in such a way that in it earthly relationships go on their own, and spiritual ones on their own, then the state in such a society should be separated from the church. But such a society will not consist of Christians, but of non-believers, or at least of mixed faiths and beliefs. In this last case, of course, it would be very harmful for one party, having seized political power, to crush others, as in Austria. But such a state, artificially or forcibly cobbled together from different religions and, consequently, from different popular consents, tending by their nature to be mutually destroyed and, therefore, to disintegrate into various original structures - such a state cannot have claims to harmonious normal development. All its dignity must be limited by its negative character, so that the less it exists as a state, the more it achieves its goal, as in England. In such a state, citizens can look very indifferently when Jews sit in their legislative chamber and make laws for them. But where a people is bound internally by the same convictions of faith, there it has the right to desire and demand that its external connections - family, social and state - agree with its religious inspirations and that its government be imbued with the same spirit. To act hostile to this spirit means to act hostile to the people themselves, even if these actions bring them some earthly benefits. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, June 17, 1855 16. I received your letter, dear friend, from which I see that you are spending your time rather unpleasantly, due to the poor harvest, which threatens to leave people without bread for next year, and their difficult situation this year, due to which they are already without bread. It is obvious that it is not accidents, not human foolishness, but the Lord Himself who punishes us for our sins, and with punishment he wants to awaken the dormant moral forces in us. “If so, then great is His mercy towards us.” If only we wanted and were able to come to some sense. – They also write to us from the Tambov village that almost everything was lost, the earth was hot from the heat, and there was no rain until June 13th, when the last letter was written. Meanwhile, in our case, our antagonists have already filed a petition for appeal in Shatsk on June 1, and probably now the case is already in progress in Tambov. Can you find out about his situation and talk to the secretary through your friends? “In Dolbina, our harvest is bad, but not completely insignificant. It rained here and there; but the harvest should also begin around Peter's day. An unprecedented circumstance. We haven't left yet, but we are at the departure point. We visited Trinity with the whole family, and upon returning from there Natalya Petrovna became ill. She is better now and we hope to leave soon. Due to this trip to Trinity and my wife’s illness, we still have not responded to Olga Feodorovna’s sweet letter. Give her our friendly regards and tell her that one of these days we will write to her. There is no one in Moscow. Mother left last week, Hamster. and Himself. Also. Most of the houses are covered with chalk or are rented out. You will rarely see a carriage on the streets. If anyone remains, they live in their dachas. I have never seen such an empty Moscow in my life. – Our son came to us for a summer job, and we are taking him to the village. “It’s empty, stuffy, and boring here; and melancholy takes over, such as I have not experienced for a long time. I hug you and hope to write to you immediately upon arrival in Dolbino. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, 1832 17. And Odoevsky and I also constantly remember the time spent with you so friendly and so warmly, despite the bad weather around us. This time should resonate with us in more than one memory. Just as three candles on the table are an unhappy omen, three friends at the table are a happy omen, especially when they are surrounded by people they love. This is not superstition. Kiss Darya Nikolaevna’s hand for me and thank her well for our Ilyinsky life. What's her leg, and when are you going to Moscow? I am very glad to hear that you are continuing your studies. Here's Schelling's Idealism, but I don't have Kant's now. I'll try to get it. I would like you to come here with a completed essay, although I don’t know if it’s possible to work on something so difficult so soon. I looked for Dupin in all the shops, and in vain. It is necessary to write out from Riga or Lubeck. Will we have time? About Helvetius, I think I myself would be of the same opinion as you if I read it now. But about 10 years ago it had a completely different effect on me. I confess to you that at that time he seemed to me not only distinct, clear, popularly convincing, but even moral, despite the preaching of egoism. This egoism seemed to me only an imprecise word, because it could mean patriotism, love for humanity, and all the virtues. Moreover, the idea that virtue for us is not only a duty, but also happiness, seemed to me extremely convincing in favor of Helvetius. In addition, the example of his own life contradicts accusations of immorality. What you say about '89 doesn't seem entirely fair to me. The movers of opinion and the crowd were then not only moral people, but enthusiasts of virtue. Robespierre was no less a fanatic of goodness. Of course, this was not a consequence of the philosophy of that time, but perhaps contrary to it; however it was. Perhaps it only arose from strong fermentation in the minds and destinies of the people, for even a person in critical moments is higher than usual. Russia, we hope, will not go through this turning point; Perhaps there will be no bloody coups in it, but all the more carefully it is necessary to take care in it about the morality of systems and actions. The less fanaticism, the stricter and more vigilant the mind should be. And I will conclude the same as you: we must have a strong morality characteristic of young souls, and the desire for it must be the main, the only goal of all activity; it contains patriotism and philosophy, it contains the basis of religion, but you must be able to understand it. So write, I’ll do the same, and then we’ll see. Yours I. Kireevsky. September 17, the day of Faith, Hope, Love and Sophia. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, February 20, 1851 18. In your last letter, dear friend Koshelev, you announce to me about your departure abroad, and yet you did not attach your address to me there, although you write that you are expecting a letter from me in Genvar. Now I have just learned that you have already returned, and I hasten to answer your letter with a question: what new impression did Germany make on you? Every lively remark of yours would be precious news for me, buried in the Belevsky snows and listening only to the whistle of the Belevsky riot, to the music of which the priest discusses the moral qualities of his sexton and deacon. It seems to me, however, that in the West there must be some signs of a new, beginning era: new needs of minds, a new way of looking at things, new expectations - in a word, a change in beliefs of a kind that did not exist the year before. Thank God that you consider the present time unfavorable for worrying about your favorite question. God forbid, God forbid, that it not be touched until the direction of our minds changes, until the Western spirit ceases to dominate in our concepts and in our lives, so that what stands still remains Russian, and everything that moves moves towards the Nemechin. While we are walking and being led along this road, God grant that we make as few changes as possible, especially significant changes. I say this from the full conviction of my mind, with a living love for Russia, with the hope of such greatness and prosperity that Western peoples have never dreamed of, but at the same time with a painful fear that some premature and self-indulgent re-formation will ruin the cause of self-born development. What do you hope to accomplish with your cries? Do you really think that any important thing can be done well when it is done in the Western spirit? Of course, by shouting and pushing, you can cause a deed, but not the one you want, but the one that will make the Russian people and you and the government itself cry. If the government is deceived to the point that it takes your cries as an expression of general opinion, then it will make a change, but not the one and not the way you want. If you want the emancipation of the peasants, they will give you equipment, and the matter will be ruined forever. An unprecedented antagonism between classes will be born, and then it’s scary to think how it will end. When the controversial principle lies at the base of the building, the crack will not stop until the entire building collapses. God forbid from this! All the more ardently do I say: God forbid! that I think, or to say frankly, I am completely convinced, that within ten or many fifteen years the direction of our minds should change completely. I'm talking about lower and higher minds. Instead of the German rational, transformative spirit, the Orthodox-Russian spirit will permeate all our beliefs and actions. And then the government will be more confident in its strength, and the people will move more directly and calmly in their development - and then God’s blessing will be on every matter of improvement. Meanwhile, now every attempt at improvement produces only new chaos. Therefore, now, for now, my desire is one: that we be left in the situation in which we find ourselves - whether it is good or bad - as long as we are not disturbed by changes and, what is even more important, we are not disturbed by threats of changes that produce a moral disorder worse than an actual disorder. And that the way of thinking of our entire educated class must change in the shortest possible time and turn from the German rational spirit to the Russian Orthodox spirit, this truth can be clearly proven to anyone who has delved into the development of Western enlightenment and Russian history. Of course, this cannot be stated within the confines of a letter. I've already said a lot, and it seems too much. I hug you and wait for your answer. My wife bows to you. Inform us about the health of your wife and your children. At this time we are somewhat worried about Vasya, from whom we have not received letters for a long time. P.S. Protasyev still hasn’t sent any interest money. If you have relations with him, then remind him. – Kudryavtsev’s dissertation, when you read it yourself, please come. I will be very curious to see it and will return it soon. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, July 26, 1855 19. Finally we arrived in Dolbino, dear friend Koshelev, and I hasten to inform you about this so that you address letters to Belev. I haven't been here for four years. I found the farm in fairly good shape, that is, what is usually called a farm. But he found the peasants extremely impoverished. For two years in a row they had a crop failure, and on top of that, in one part of the estate there was a loss of livestock, so that they had neither a cow nor a sheep left. The current rye harvest, thank God, is decent; but the oats are below mediocre. Prices for oats are rising, for buckwheat even more, but for rye they are weakening. Please let me know how it is with you so that we can think a little about the sale. In addition, I ask you to tell me whether you are satisfied with the Wilson thresher and what it costs? If you are pleased with it, and it is not very expensive, then I ask you to send me Wilson’s address and a letter of recommendation from you to him so that he does not deceive me. He respects you and will be more careful if he knows that you are participating in this. I ask you to send this to me by first mail. I arrived here on the 22nd, and until now I have not seen either my mother, my aunt, or the newspapers, which for some reason are not sent to us. I haven’t opened any books yet. I was just looking at the farm, tired of the heat, and lazy. There is something stuffy and sad about village life, at least for me. It’s like driving a cork across glass. There can be privacy in Moscow; here are the driest concerns, without the slightest hope of any satisfactory success. If I had your convictions about the possibility and benefits of early emancipation, then I would be happier; but, unfortunately, I see so clearly that only enormous harm can now come from this, without any real benefit, and perhaps even irreparable harm - I see this so clearly that I cannot deceive myself with comforting dreams, no matter how pleasant it may be to indulge in them. What is your political economy? and do you agree with me in what I say about Rossi? Did Khomyakov receive a response from Norov? Do you have any news about our case? And are you thinking about visiting Optina? It's very good there. We passed through it and stayed there for two days. There the soul truly rests. I hug you and bow in friendship to your wife. Devoted to you I.K. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, July 4, 1828 20. Your letter gave me the same pleasure that a miser gets when he examines his treasures, and, although I never doubted their integrity, I still feel an inexplicable pleasure to count them constantly and again become convinced of their integrity. Those who do not know the secrets of friendship, who say that it shuns words, and of course they have not experienced the charm of friendly assurances, simple but strong, like a handshake. When time clears our feelings, and memory separates joy from grief, delight from boredom, poetry from prose, then words of friendship will gather in one corner of the heart's memory along with the best events of life. Your illness does not bother me, but you seem to consider it something important, and in vain: all the trouble of nettle fever is limited to the boredom of scratching, and then no more than three or four days, after which it passes without any consequences, except for greater health. I would like that during your trip to Ryazan you would limit your studies to thinking alone, that is, without trying to add to the concepts new information from new books that you have already received before, you would distill them through a cube of rethinking, and distill the vodka of thoughts into alcohol. Their quantity may decrease, but the quality will come and involuntarily force you to write. And now this is necessary for you. It seems to me that the first successful experience, showing you your strengths, will decide you to become a writer. This title does not hinder anything, but, on the contrary, it also helps to make two hits with one stone. Besides, don’t forget that you promised Pogodin. By the way, to Pogodin: he has conceived a very funny thing: he wants to write a special pamphlet about how the political balance of Europe is one of those thoughts that, together with beliefs about sorcerers, ghosts and devils, are the products of ignorance and superstition, and in our enlightened age should emerge and disappear in the light of true thinking. No matter how much I explained to him, I could not convince him; for to do this you need to understand what Political equilibrium is, and this is where the comma comes in. However, I still hope to stop him from this prank, which is worthy of the publisher Mosk. West. However, don’t tell him about this when you see him, or anyone else. Let it die along with all its nonsense. In my opinion, this last one is worth the Ostankino Cossacks. There should be no doubt about my answer to your future promised letter. I am willingly ready to resume the paper exchange of thoughts with you: be my wallet again, in which I will begin to put all my gold. Say my respects to your mother, and also from all my people who hug you. My mother has not been well since you left; she's better now. Farewell, your Kireevsky. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, August 43. 1855 21 Dolbino (1855) August 13. I don’t know whether this letter will find you in Moscow, dear friend Koshelev, but just in case, I hasten to tell you a few words in response to your writing in order to warn you, if possible, from rash action. You are thinking, as it seems from your letter, to support Moskvityanin, or even buy it. But buying a Moskvityan will be decidedly harmful for you. A new magazine, completely new, with a new thought, with new people and with a clear, pure conviction, may alone be useful to you and a real instrument of your intentions. At the age of ten, a Muscovite will not extricate himself from his mixed reputation. In the new journal, each thought will be independent; everything left unsaid will be supplemented with fresh thoughts from readers. In the old magazine, even a new thought will be interpreted in the same spirit of the publication. Pogodin himself, I think, is the kind of employee who will certainly paralyze your originality, not only in terms of money, but also in many other ways. As for his letters, although I conveyed to you his words that he was giving them to the magazine, I did this without notes because I believed that you would understand the unrealizability of such a bait with which he wants to attract you to his magazine. But remember their contents, and you will see that there can be no thought, much less effort, about printing them. Besides, I don’t know how it can be useful to the magazine. If the documents are old, then it does not support the journal. As for Filippov, it seems to me that you are mistaken in thinking that in his hands the magazine will be sluggish and one-sided. Filippov in your circle will be imbued with your spirit and outlook on literature, etc., for your spirit is also a believer, like his, but only more developed in relation to external education. He writes not only not sluggishly, but with remarkable talent. And his activity and ease of work are remarkable. I witnessed how he translated the entire book in a few days, despite all his other activities. This year he fasted in Optina, and during these days, between services, he also copied an entire Greek book. This is a treasure trove for magazine activities. However, of course, you will need, if you want to get permission, to go to St. Petersburg, and there to bother and insist. Without this, nothing will be done. Here's my opinion. My Vasya is now in Moscow until the 14th, that is. see you tomorrow. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, July 6, 1833 or 1834 22. July 6 (1833 or 1834). Yesterday I wrote to you, friend Koshelev, because there was an opportunity, and I wrote hastily; Today I am writing without an opportunity, only because I want to talk to you, and I don’t even know whether my letter will find you in Ilyinsky. But still! Somewhere, someday you will get it; and if not, it doesn’t matter: I write this way, not having anything to say to you, although I have the desire to talk about a lot. I am now from under the soul that I have finally obtained; a glorious evening: both fresh and warm together; I'm sitting under the window; on the window there is tea, which I drink like a drunkard, little by little, with pleasure, with voluptuousness; in one hand there is a pipe, in the other a pen, and I write as I drink tea, with a sigh, with the Turkish bliss of laziness: it is good and gentle to live for this moment! Some kind of music in the soul, causeless, Aeolian music, not connected with any thought. Why am I unable to believe! I would have thought then that this causeless feeling in my soul was someone else’s influence, that this heartfelt music was not my mood, but an echo, sympathy, a physical sensation of someone else’s thought; but I don’t think so, because I don’t believe such miracles; and for many other reasons. It’s strange: this feeling passed while I was talking about it. Apparently I killed him with a word, or clumsily hooked him with some inappropriate thought. But all the same: let’s enjoy the evening and tea, and talk about how we would be together. Here is a report on my activities since you left. I won’t talk about some of the troubles, the senseless movements of the mind, body, and tongue that fragmented my time and crushed my thoughts; talking about them and remembering them means continuing their power. But in other moments, when I could be with myself, I was in one of two positions: either I gave my head to the mercy of fate (and this is too often) and then built for myself in the air various kinds of Italy; or he was master of his thoughts, and then he thought and wrote about the education of women - a subject that I don’t know how to limit, since it takes over so many other subjects. In order to show that the education of women does not correspond to the needs of time and enlightenment, it is necessary to show the nature of time and enlightenment, to separate the accidental from the essential, to show thought from under events, to bring fragmented figures to one result, and to present all this in a common language, equally recognized in living rooms and in schools; to present them in the simplest forms so that a woman can understand them, and despite this clarity, to present them in such a way that the censorship has nothing to complain about, despite the signature of my name - this is a task that is so difficult to accomplish that this one difficulty can make you feel like doing the work, like pistol shooting. But this is not enough. Having presented time, depicted the human heart as it was created by enlightenment and the moral order of things, it is also necessary to show what kind of relationship between man and woman follows from all this. To do this, it is necessary to present the general history of these relations, from the beginning of history to our times, and to show in what correspondence the moral order of things has always been with the fate of women; then discover the general law of this correspondence; then, having carried it out both speculatively and actually through all moments of enlightenment, show its application to the present; This result is as much to be derived speculatively as it is practical; finally, for all the requirements, for the entire system, find, create one word, a name that would separate it from all other systems, so that in the minds of readers excerpts from one thought are not confused with excerpts from another inappropriate thought; so that all my words are not attributed either to the meaningless demand for Sensimonious emancipation, or to the flat repetition of belated concepts; and all this needs to be worked out by September, and if we succeed, I’ll be great! July 7th. I had to interrupt my letter yesterday because my candles burned out and my man had already gone to bed. Yesterday I said goodbye to Trubetskoy, who is leaving today. Skaryatin Vlad. I still could not deliver your letter because he deigns to have fun hunting and has not yet returned home. Here is a note from Chaadaev, to which I replied: I don’t know, and promised to ask you. Goodbye. Your I.K. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, spring 1851 23. (Probably spring 1851) Your letter, dear friend Koshelev, aroused in me the most lively curiosity, so despite my daily visible successes in diligence (my wife says that I stole this word from her, but I consider it my property, because, although it was invented by her, it was dedicated to my own person), despite my diligence, I am writing to you specifically to ask you to explain to me in more detail your plans and actions regarding the undertaken you new measures of economic transformation. I know that if you undertake anything important, it will not be thought through lightly, and therefore the communication of your thoughts on this central issue of our time will not only be interesting to me, but may also be useful. I will gladly hasten to learn from you what I find easy to implement and agrees with my ideas about this subject. Starting with the servants, I would like to know whether they pay you off, or do you let them go on contracts? In the first case, I would like to know, since they are paying you? and in the second, what kind of contracts are these, and what guarantee do you have for their performance? I also ask you to tell me how you deal with those who do not want to go free or cannot, due to age, health, etc.. In relation to the peasants, I completely share your idea that it is easier to make them free than obliged. And not only easier, but also more profitable for both sides and for the whole state. The rights will be clearer and the consequences of the change more significant. But on what basis do you think to do this? My opinion in this case is that since the government or the Trustee Council will not allow them to be released without land, and giving them a fifty-fiftieth proportion of the land would be the complete ruin of the landowner, then there is only one remedy left: to give them a certain amount of land along with the transfer of a certain part of the Trustee’s debt to them. Sov. The tithe proportion per capita seems in this case to be a very sufficient amount, for it will be quite an important support for the peasant, and at the same time it will put him in the need to look for outside work, without which all the fields of the landowners would remain uncultivated, according to the well-known property of the Russian people, to look for work only as long as it is necessary for his food. What part of the Guardian's debt? Sov. Should this be the responsibility of the peasants? It seems to me that the fairest thing to do in this case would be: firstly, to take into account the prices for which a soul is usually sold for import in one or another province, and then to this price add a fifth of the debt issued in a fifty-fifty proportion. For example: The Guardian Council issues 75 rubles per capita with five acres of land in N province. ser. In the same province, a soul for export is usually sold for 25 rubles. gray; therefore, add 1/5 of the debt to 25, it will be 25†1540 rubles. ser. This amount must be transferred by the Guardian Council to the peasants, or given to the landowner when the estate is not mortgaged. But here another question arises: will the peasants be able to pay annually to the Guardian Council 6 percent of 140 rubles, i.e. 8 rubles. 40 k. in banknotes? And what means can the Guardian use? Sov. in case of non-payment? I would be very curious to hear this from you; and I confess to you, I am at a loss. Moreover, who will bear the capitation and zemstvo duties in this case? The most just thing would be on earth; but how to do this before the cadastre? In another respect, this matter seems to me no less difficult, that is, in relation to the general order of things in Russia. For there is no doubt that the liberated peasants will not only be ruined, but also corrupted in a very short time, with the help of taverns, clerks, etc., etc. Then who can guarantee you that your forests will not be cut down, your meadows will not be poisoned, your grain will be taken away in heaps, your horses will be taken away from the pasture, etc., etc.? it would be possible for a tax farmer like you to constantly relate to the Zemsky Court; but for the landowners in general, this would be the same as making the policeman their master, that is, ruining themselves and completely ruining the peasants. Moreover, when not one, but all the landowners in the district free their peasants, then 50 police officers will not have the physical opportunity to investigate all the matters that will arise every minute between the peasants and the landowners. At the same time, we must not forget the fact that if such a transformation becomes general, then the liberated peasants will probably come under the jurisdiction of some special ministry, and therefore, in every case with them, a special deputy from this ministry will be needed; and what these deputies mean and how easy it is to deal with them, we can see from the deputies of the State Property. I give you a friendly hug and look forward to your speedy response. I received 828 rubles from the Novosilsk office. and sent a receipt there. I sincerely thank the gracious Empress Olga Fedorovna for her friendly note, kiss her hands and am glad to know that she returned safely from foreign lands. But I would be especially grateful to her if God gave her the good idea to write something about herself this time, but only in a little more detail than what she attributed in Koshelev’s last letter. My wife bows to you both. Vasya is awaiting the promised letter from Vann, about whose health you said nothing. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, October-November 1853 24. In order for our discussions to have any reasonable consequences, we must constantly fulfill two conditions: 1) not for a moment lose sight of the very grain of the subject about which we are arguing. Otherwise, we will scatter to the sides and will not be able to collect everything we have said into one general result; 2) we must not forget for a minute why we are arguing. If you want to have the pleasure of challenging each other, then it’s better to learn to play chess and let’s argue on the chessboard. If we argue in order to agree, then this goal is worth the effort of writing. But for this, we need to look in each other’s thoughts and words not for what disagrees with our thoughts, but, on the contrary, for exactly what we have in common regarding the subject of the dispute. From this generality we must try to draw conclusions that would be accepted sympathetically by both sides. Then the subject of disagreement will be resolved by itself, attached to these conclusions. If, instead of what is common and in agreement with it, we look in the words of the enemy for something with which we can argue, then neither our dispute will ever end, nor will we draw any conclusion from it. I wrote this dissertation because, it seems to me, you were too argumentative in your response to my letter, and I myself am afraid of being infected by your manner. What is the use, for example, for us to argue about what meaning the word “Chineseness” should have? Does it mean to consider one’s particular concepts as the only universal ones, or does it mean to stagnate in the old and resist the new? In any case, reasoning about this and similar things can only lead us to the result that you use this word correctly, and I wrongly; but what follows from this? What is important to us here is not how I reason or how you reason, but only the subject of our reasoning is important to us here. Re-reading your letter, I can hardly restrain myself from arguing about each point separately. However, this desire of mine - to prove that I am right and that you are wrong - completely disappears in me when I listen with my mind to another desire - to agree with you in unanimity. Before I argue, I will try to find what we agree on in order to thereby remove the causes of misunderstandings. When I say that the statehood of a people must be imbued with its faith, i.e. the church he professes, this does not mean that the state should patronize the church. They patronize the inferior. The Supreme One can only be served and, while serving, it is true that he can protect, but only according to his will. If you say that, under the pretext of protection, the state sometimes seeks to dominate the church, then abuse does not destroy the possibility of good use. The first (abuse) must be noticed, revealed, exposed to general view and thereby destroyed. But the second (the correct use of state power in favor of the church) cannot but be considered a good deed. I also do not consider it a good thing for the state to serve the church in an inquisitorial manner. The Inquisition corresponds logically only to the Roman Church, mixing temporal and spiritual power into one non-Christian dominion. But in the Orthodox Church, the inquisitorial mode of action should be considered heretical, like monastic orders of knights, cavalry bishops, etc. Therefore, in Orthodox lands, inquisitorial actions harm the church; in the papal states, on the contrary, the Inquisition maintains the church building. In southern Europe after the 16th century, only the Inquisition could maintain the Roman faith and strengthen the Reformation. In our country, on the contrary, schisms were born directly from inquisitorial measures and may still be strengthened by them. I also consider it contrary to the Orthodox Church to forcibly compel citizens to accept grace, the mysterious gifts of God. The Church, on the contrary, at all times was afraid to hand over the sacraments to the unworthy, as if to hand over a shrine for desecration, or to tell the secret of the Lord to His enemies. If this is done, it is done as contrary to the church, and not as in agreement with it, or useful to it. It is also not beneficial to the church, but disgusting to it, when it is used as a means for state or worldly purposes, abuse of the oath, etc. It is also disgusting for the church when it is made to be in any way dependent on the worldly structure of states, when the clergy turns into bureaucrats, etc. But all this is disgusting to the Christian Church only when it is in all the purity of Orthodoxy. For the Roman Church, as I said, this is not only not disgusting, but is directly required by its secular-spiritual character. From her, from the Roman heresy, these mixed concepts, along with many other errors, spread in some Orthodox countries. But zeal for the purity of faith must require, along with many others, the purification of these concepts concerning the relationship of the church to the state. But now the time has come when this cleansing of our concepts from heretical impurities is especially necessary, because the onslaught of heterodoxy and unbelief is so strong that there is almost no social, political, moral, legal or even artistic thought left that has not been more or less soiled and crushed by the non-Orthodox hands in which it has been. Therefore, if we consider the book Vinet from this point of view, i.e. as a counteraction to those false concepts about the relationship between church and state that spread from the Roman Church, even to many people of the Orthodox confession, then, of course, one cannot help but say that in this regard, reading this book can be very useful. Also, I think, reading this book can be very useful for us because it will arouse in our minds a question that is sleeping and for which it is high time, it is high time to wake up. But this should be the end of what I can say in favor of Vinet. It seems that this is not enough, and you can be satisfied. I hope that you, seeing how willingly I give justice to your friend regarding practical application, will want to give me justice in the fact that I cannot agree with him in those fundamental principles from which he derives his demands. Or, better to say, I cannot agree with him, not because his fundamental principles contradict mine, but because I do not find any fundamental principles in him, solid, definite, clearly in agreement. I find in him a mixture of all sorts of principles, depending on what seems more effective to him for his recitation at that moment. Thus, without providing a clear definition of either the church or the state, as I said in the last letter, he sometimes speaks, as a general Christian thing, of something that may relate to one type of Protestantism. Sometimes a state in general refers to something that can only be attributed to a state cobbled together from heterogeneous pieces, like the United States. In many places he declaims about how faith should penetrate all relationships of people, and then, next to these exclamations and, as if forgetting them, he declaims against the state being in any definite relationship to the faith that prevails among the people. You, defending him and refuting me, make your own construction of concepts about the relationship of the state to the church, but also, following the example of your friend Vinet, you speak very passionately, often witty, but you do not look for solid material for your construction. You say: “The state is not the structure of society, but society itself.” And having said this, you immediately reproach me for Louis-Blancism and ask: “Is the state obliged to provide me with bread, wealth, information - in a word, everything necessary for earthly life?” This is followed by a joke that “the state should not be entrusted with fatherly, mentoring, or any kind of managerial responsibilities in relation to citizens.” I will not argue against this trick, but I do not know how to reconcile it with the proposition that the state is not a known structure, but society itself. The Church, you say, is not a structure of society, for the social element enters into it as a secondary one. The first thing in it is man, i.e. face. In the state, everything is society; in the church everyone is human. But if for her a person is everything, if she embraces him completely, then how can she do this without determining the nature of his relationship to society? Will a society of Mohammedans or Jews really have the same morals as a society of Christians? Or does the Quaker society have the same morals as the Latin society? If Lutherans, Latins, Calvinists and Anglicans had organized their lives - each - completely consistently with their convictions, then would not each society have its own special morals and customs, consistent with the peculiarities of its convictions? An Orthodox society would be different from all of them, that is, of course, in agreement with its basic teaching. – But if the faith of a people is so closely connected with its morals and customs, then how will its laws have nothing to do with them? - Of course, by conquest, or some similar unfortunate circumstances, they can and, for the most part, actually impose laws on the people that are inconsistent with their morals, customs and faith; but is what happens a law for what should be? Against this relationship of the state structure to the morals and beliefs of the people, you say: “Where is such a state (where the people are bound by the same beliefs)? Not only does such a state not exist and never existed, but you cannot even create it in your imagination.” – But I think that until the 16th century all the states of Europe were such that the people in each were of the same faith. – But especially ancient Russia in this regard can serve as an example of the unanimity and like-mindedness of the people, embodied in the morals and customs of the people, and if it did not have time (due to external historical conditions) to be expressed in its governmental statehood, then at least expressed its demands in many respects of state legislation. However, I also think that even now no one has the right to look at Russia otherwise than as an Orthodox state, and if Biron, or any of the Germans, ever looked at it differently, they never dared to admit it. - Empress Catherine, in her manifesto, with which she announced the overthrow of Peter III and her accession, says that Emperor Peter III went so far as to even intend to make the Lutheran faith the dominant faith in Russia, from which every loyal subject of the state had to think about shedding his blood. “Of course, I can’t approve of her words; but they, however, show how she understood the unity of Russia and her faith, and although she herself was not a believer, she never dared to admit it. – And how can the character of Orthodox Russia change from the fact that it has subdued several million Catholics and several million Protestants, Jews, Mohammedans and a large number of pagans under its rule? – If they had conquered Russia, then only she could have lost the dominance of the Orthodox spirit in her legal system and in her government. “If, God forbid, something ever happens in Russia that is contrary to Orthodoxy, then it will still be as hostile to Russia as to its faith.” Everything that hinders the correct and complete development of Orthodoxy, everything hinders the development and prosperity of the Russian people; everything that gives a false and not purely Orthodox direction to the people's spirit and education, everything distorts the soul of Russia and kills its moral, civil and political health. Therefore, the more the Russian statehood and its government are imbued with the spirit of Orthodoxy, the healthier the people's development will be, the more prosperous the people and the stronger their government, and, at the same time, the more comfortable it will be, for government improvement is possible only in the spirit of popular convictions. – If it is not in the spirit, then it will certainly constrain its free expression in life and word under the pretext of tolerance and, constraining it, it will itself be embarrassed by it and assert itself against it only by force, fearing every shadow of the public spirit, like a ghost from another world. You say: “Church and state are one and identical only in man, and then only in his mysterious center. In their manifestation in the world, they are completely different and have nothing in common. - But we have now seen what they have in common - the morals and customs of the people, which come from their beliefs, faith, and with which their legal structure must be consistent. But, in addition to the morals and customs of the people, all its social relations also constitute a common middle ground between church and state, emanating more or less from one and demanding from the other the main affirmation, or at least free development, not constrained by contradictory laws. “The Church, you say, is a guest on earth; the state here is the resident, the ruler.” “But if the church is an invited guest, then it is precisely she who should be treated so that she does not leave the owner who does not care about her!” “Its entire goal is the future life, its rules are eternal and unconditional.” This is true, but that is why she cannot submit to the demands of life here; That is why the state must submit to it, “the goal of which is local life, and the rules are temporary, conditional.” Isn’t it good to arrange life here in accordance with our concepts of the future? “Faith,” you say, is a gift from above and, at the same time, the freest, most original action of a person, therefore it cannot be transferred to the state; Therefore, how can a Christian state be Orthodox?” But how do you understand this? The state can be pagan, it can be Jewish, Mohammedan, but it can’t be Christian? “For the state, you say, public opinion serves as faith, which is the sum of human faiths in their mediocre, temporary manifestation.” Why do you want the state to conform better to this temporary, often erroneous manifestation of popular beliefs, and not to their very source? Moreover, when you say “the sum of faiths” and not “faith,” you certainly want to mean by the word state either the United States or Austria, i.e. a random or forced casting of discordant nationalities. But such a combination of differences, which fight when they meet each other and try to break apart at the first opportunity, cannot serve as an example of a harmonious structure of the state. You continue: “public opinion establishes public morality, which is essentially temporary and conditional—the only rule for the state; therefore, it must be moral. I do not understand the syllogism here. Why should the only rule for the state be only temporary morality, arising from random and temporary public opinion? Why not that - not temporary and not accidental - morality, arising not from the random whim of public opinion, but directly from the faith that dominates the state? It may be, however, that this is precisely where the whole difference between our opinions lies, at least in relation to their practical application. For you, the main basis of the state, the reason for its such or such direction and formation - in a word, its soul - is public opinion, or the opinion of the majority. For me, the soul of the state is the ruling faith of the people. But think: the right of the majority to rule will not, in the final result, be reduced to the right of the strong? Of course, both your and my concept of the state must assume in it the possibility of such a turn of affairs in which brute egoistic force dominates the mind and beliefs of the people. But under my assumption, this can only happen by deception or obvious violence, i.e. lawless, Under your assumption it will be the legal domination of a party superior in number or strength. As a result of this, it will inevitably be necessary to recognize Hegel’s concept that every government in a state is equally legal, as long as it stands, and every revolution is equally legal, as long as it succeeds, and that government is lawless, which is overthrown, and the revolution is lawless, which does not succeed. It was these immoral convictions that led Europe to its present situation. But on the question of the relationship of the state to the church you go much further than Hegel. He sees a close connection between them that you do not recognize. You end your letter with the words: “in the real world, between these opposites (between church and state) there is no reconciliation, so to speak, a bridge; and therefore they cannot sit together on the same throne, nor subordinate themselves to one another.” Do these words not contradict what you yourself said just now that public opinion and public morality serve precisely as these conciliatory bridges between faith and the state? First of all, you say: “for society nothing is eternal; everything for him, like himself, is temporary and accidental; eternity exists only for man - not as a citizen, but as a person. A state that wants to serve eternity must accept either the charter of Basil the Great, or another similar institution, but in both cases it ceases to be a state.” I think there is some mistake in your expressions. For it cannot be that you really think that the purpose of the state should only be temporary and accidental, and that everything eternal does not apply to it. Then for him and in him there would be neither justice, nor morality, nor the holiness of laws, nor the dignity of man, nor the spirit of the people, etc., but only what is convenient and useful for temporary purposes. Then, while promoting by all means the development of physical well-being among the people, it must also, by all measures depending on it, suppress spiritual development, as it can sometimes be directly contrary to these temporary goals of earthly well-being. Although there may have been rulers of states who had similar convictions, it seems that no one dared to pronounce them loudly. If you say that against such an oppressive direction of governments, you have protected yourself with another requirement, namely that “the state, as you say, should provide us with one thing: the opportunity to acquire everything we need for earthly life, and to use this acquisition calmly, i.e. freedom." This is good in words; but why do you think that the state, which exists for some petty earthly purpose, will obey your demand for freedom? The concept of political freedom is a relative and negative concept, and only on it would society be based and for it would exist. How and with what will you maintain this freedom in a structure that does not recognize any other legality than the rule of the majority, i.e. preponderance of power? If we want to put an essential and positive meaning into this relative and negative concept of political freedom and call it respect for moral freedom and human dignity, then such a concept directly comes from religious principles; and if you want the state to recognize it, then it must also recognize the principles that produce it as its legal basis. It is impossible to recognize the holiness of a moral person without recognizing the holiness of eternal moral truths, the source and focus of which is faith. Therefore, only by arising from faith, and submitting to it, and being animated by it, can the state develop harmoniously and strongly, without violating the free and legitimate development of individuals and just as freely and life-givingly consistent with the spirit of the people, imbued with the same faith. Here I end my letter, dear friend, but not an answer, for I hope to continue in Kaluga. But this letter reached the point where the first one ended and from which it was pushed back by your attack. Trace. these 3 letters (2 mine and 1 yours) make up one half of the question, i.e. about the relationship of the state to the church in general. The second half will look at these relationships in particular, i.e. which belief system corresponds to which state structure. This is where the real kernel of my thought lies. Therefore, if you write an answer to this letter, do not tell it to me before finishing my letter. I'm staying and so on. Letter to A.I. Koshelev, Jan. 1831 25. At half of January, you write, maybe we’ll see each other! If this had really happened, then my failed journey would have been less annoying to me. I'm afraid, however, that you're just rubbing your mustache. Meanwhile, in any case, that is, whether we manage to see each other so soon or not, we should all take advantage of the closing distances between us and at least let our letters prove that there is no border between us. I won’t promise to write often, because you are unlikely to believe such promises; but I will try to implement it in practice, if your answers are not shelved, as you did with the answer to my letter, which I sent to you with Tyutchev. By the way: did you receive it? If not, then don’t complain that I didn’t write to you from abroad, because I forgot your address and in the letter with Tyutchev asked you to send it to me. But you proved to me that there is a person even lazier than me. Whether I will ever be able to fulfill my travel plan, or whether I will remain forever in this unbearable Moscow, I do not yet know. I only know that I will use all my strength to escape from here, anywhere, and I will either go crazy, or I will stand my ground. This desire, or better to say, this passion, became stronger in me, the more unsuccessful my trip was. But it was unsuccessful in all respects, and not so much because of the shortness of time, but because I saw nothing but Germany, boring, insignificant and stupid despite all my learning. But we’ll talk about this in more detail when we meet. Here's Norova Mor, which completely lives up to its name. From the censor's comments you will see why Pogodin did not publish it. May God grant that you have no more success. 1st January. I am very glad that I have not yet sent you a letter, and without starting a new one, I can congratulate you on the New Year. Even now I have not yet sent my letter to you (8th January); Can you imagine what an active life I lead here? - Taking up the pen is so important for me that I must first get ready for it. Now, when my inner feeling tells me that you will soon be in Moscow, my hands are taken away from writing to you. And why, really, would I bother writing when I can tell you the same thing in a few days without offending my laziness? – Letter to A.P. Elagina, 1836 26 Please thank our good Zhukovsky. Therefore, here, between dogs, maps, horses and police officers, we can live independently and calmly under the wing of this guardian genius of our family. Please write more about him, his words, his opinions, everything where his soul splashes.... We sent you poems under the name Benediktov. However, this was a hoax, in which I ask you to participate, keeping all possible secrecy. Here's the thing: on the eve of our sending of poems, we laughed at how our public and Shevyrev's party admire Benediktov and other rhyming, where poets without thoughts pretend to think only because they read several Germans, not understanding perhaps half of them, similar to how the late IL, having spent several years near Yermolov, learned several of his words, adopted his bookish language and an important figure and amazed everyone post office with his intelligence and subtle insight. As proof of how easy it is to write such poetry, the three of us, my wife and brother, began the play at dinner and finished without even leaving the table. Moreover, until the very last verse we did not know where we would go, or what we were writing about. In addition, we were further complicated by Natasha, who certainly demanded to insert aspen, as never before sung. Now, dear mother, since you have been deceived, therefore everyone will be deceived. Is it possible for you to fulfill our wish and deceive Shevyrev, so that he puts her in the first issue, but without a name, but only puts V. V..., it will be Varvara Borovkova, your former laundress, on whose behalf we will send him more poems if he gets tired of them. Please tell me to copy it in an unfamiliar hand and pass it on to him through someone. Please try about it. If the epigraph seems too stupid to you, then instead of Goethe, sign Tieck, under whose name all nonsense will pass. Letter to A. S. Khomyakov, April 10. 1844 27 Dolbino. 1844. 10th April. I received your letter, dear friend Khomyakov, sent from Moscow on March 21st, on April 5th, probably because it went through Tula. “Your proposal gave me true, heartfelt pleasure, because I clearly saw in it your friendly feeling, which, in the end, is almost the most essential aspect of any matter.” As for this matter itself, if there is another side to it, the business side, it is so overwhelmed with difficulties that it is unlikely that even your friendship will be able to dig it out. However, I present my complete and detailed opinion on this subject for the judgment of you, brothers Peter and Vasya, 28 and those who are interested in this matter with you. I think that it is better and more useful, and brilliant, and most efficient to publish a magazine for you. Then you would find in me the most faithful and active employee. Because although I was forbidden to publish the European, I was not forbidden to write and participate in magazines. If you absolutely do not want to leave your doll Semiramis 29 (because hares would not interfere: for a while the powder could manage the magazine for another), then why not publish Shevyrev? There is no person more capable of journal activities. Besides Moscow. stuck with them, and the next thing. Now, when Pogodin leaves, the best thing to do is for the magazine to go to him. But since you don’t write about it, there are probably some insurmountable difficulties, i.e., his decisive refusal, etc., etc. In this last case, here’s what I will say about myself: publishing a magazine would be the most pleasant activity for me, and maybe the most rewarding, because through misfortune I became convinced that external and even urgent coercion is necessary to stimulate my activity. But there are many difficulties against this: 1st, I promised Semyon History; 2nd, the magazine was forbidden to me, and it is unknown whether they will allow it now. The example of Polevoy, who was banned from one and allowed another, I don’t know if it will apply to me. Will 12 years ago serve as a substitute for other merits? But I will not publish without clear and formal permission, precisely because I was already prohibited once. 3rd. Even if they allow me, is it possible to find guarantees against the fact that St. Petersburg journalists will again slander me, inform me and force a new ban? To be subjected to being a victim of the Bulgarins for a second time would be too stupid of me and at my age! What seems more well-intentioned than Pogodin and his Moskvitian? I think so, although I haven't read it. Meanwhile, there were so many denunciations against him, and how many times he risked being banned if the minister had not saved him. I will not have this support, and none at all, and meanwhile the Bulgarins and their brethren will be even angrier at me than at Pogodin, because back in 1929 I had the imprudence to offend the pride of most of the St. Petersburg writers and make them my personal enemies. There could be one salvation against this: if a well-intentioned and incorruptible, and at the same time strong, person took the magazine under his protection, that is, when I say patronage, I do not mean a relaxation of censorship, but on the contrary, an increase in its severity, but not stupid, and at the same time protection from denunciations and intercession from prohibition. I mean Strogonov as such a person, but I don’t know whether he will agree to this. This is how I imagine this matter: if one of our mutual acquaintances had told him the following: Your Excellency knows that P. is going abroad and selling his magazine. K would like to buy it, hoping that after 12 years of silence he would be allowed to speak, especially since when he inquired about it through his friends, he was told that the European was banned, not he, and they set Nadezhdin and Polevoy, who were in the same position, as an example. But K. naturally does not want to suffer the same fate another time, and therefore does not dare to ask permission before he finds out whether, if granted, he can hope for your patronage of the magazine. You know his way of thinking. By patronage he means one thing: the confidence that, under the strictest censorship you wish to impose, the responsibility will then lie with her, and not with him. If Strogonov promises this, then Valuev must be allowed into negotiations with Semyon. If Semyon does not consider himself offended because I do not write History, then in this case it will be necessary to come to an agreement with Pogodin in such a way that he does not make the slightest sacrifice, but calculates what it costs to publish the magazine, how many subscribers it covers, allocates in addition 50 copies for cashless distribution, and then assigns himself such a number annually as he considers sufficient. It will be necessary to make a formal condition about this when and if I receive permission, which, however, he will have to apply for me, that is, first find out by private letters through his friends whether this is possible, and if they say yes, then submit a petition to the minister so that he is allowed to transfer Moscow. to me. Or maybe I myself will need to submit a petition for this, in which case send me a form on how and to whom to write, also by writing to people who know and talking with gr. Strogonov. I think, however, that this petition will have to reach the Sovereign, because on his behalf a ban was announced on me. But is it possible to ask the Emperor about this? and how? I think in this case I will need to write to gr. Benckendorf. It would be inappropriate to make excuses for the past now. But then you know that I did not justify myself (my justification, which was then circulating in Moscow, was not written by me, and not according to my thoughts, and was not dissolved according to my desire). Now I could only say one thing: that 12 years have passed since then; that, examining my way of thinking according to my conscience, I do not find anything outrageous in it, neither contrary to the government, nor to order, nor to morality, nor to religion, and therefore I dare to think that I am not unworthy of the silence imposed on me since 1932 finally being lifted, etc., etc. What may be the consequence of this, I do not know; but you see at least that I am not stubborn to refuse, but, developing the thought, I involuntarily encounter so many difficulties that you yourself are unlikely to find them surmountable. I’m in a hurry to finish so as not to be late, although I would like to talk to you about a lot. The wife bows to you, Katerina Mikhailovna, and Marya Alekseevna. Me too. I’m waiting for your answer not through Tula, otherwise it’s taking a long time. Your I.K. Letter to A.S. Khomyakov, May 2, 1844 30. Yesterday I received your letter, dear friend Khomyakov, that is, on your birthday, when I drank to your health. Now I hasten to answer you at least a few words, and on Saturday I will write in more detail. I would be very happy to agree to your proposal if it were possible. But judge for yourself if, without sounding the ground, I suddenly become a publisher, and if suddenly, based on the previous situation, they act from Moscow. just like with the European), then won’t I deprive Pog. his property, and will I not acquire for myself the right to be called at least a frivolous and unfounded person? When I spoke about the name in a previous letter, it was certainly not in order to reap laurels alone; but I wanted to have the right to answer alone. If the ownership of the magazine remains with Pogodin, then how can I reward him in case of failure? If the government knows that I publish, and this will not harm the magazine, then in this case I don’t care about the name, just to have the right to express my way of thinking autocratically. If, however, a name of literary fame could be added to my name, it would not only elevate the magazine, but would also give me more courage. Would Shev(yrev) agree? Everyone would be responsible for themselves. And if you agreed, then you could give a receipt in advance for success. As for the names of the unknown, I don’t understand what they are for? Is it in order to take away the public’s power of attorney in advance? If the committee is needed only for me to passer inaperçu, then this seems to me a bad calculation. Someday I will be the same, and then again the same relationship. Besides, publishing by committee means making a mess without butter. I wrote about Str(ogonov) because 1st, he is a noble and good man, 2nd, he is the head of the Moscow Enlightenment, 3rd, he knows my way of thinking from two articles that I told him. Based on this, I thought that he might undertake to protect the magazine from sudden death by restricting its life through censorship. But I don’t actually need his patronage, just as patronage. The result of all this is as follows: without my name being known and authorized, I cannot publish, especially since the magazine remains the property of Pogodin. If this can be, that is, completely safe for the magazine, then arrange it as you wish, I agree to everything. One more thing: you write that opponents are publishing Galatea. Who are these opponents? Is that really what you call Granovsky, etc.? If so, then aren’t you mistaken about me too? Maybe you consider me a sworn Slavophile, and therefore offer me Moscow... Then to this I must say that I share this Slavophile way of thinking only from the cup, and I consider the other cup further from me than the most eccentric opinions of Granovsky. I was extremely happy to hear that you and Yazykov began writing. This only makes me subscribe to Moskvit. Notify me when you're leaving? Our general bow to Katerina Mikhailovna. Your I.K. Letter to V. A. Elagin, 1842 31. Dear brother Vasya. You will receive this letter from Prince Gagarin, who has undertaken to deliver it, and whom you should definitely meet. This is one of the rare people in terms of internal and external qualities. I’m not talking about his opinions, you will see and appreciate the good for yourself, and if you don’t agree on something, you will of course excuse him for the sake of purity of intentions. “I love and respect him, and I would only like that certain peculiarities do not prevent us from fully sympathizing with each other.” “Write to me about him and please don’t put it off like me, who still hasn’t gotten around to writing to you, although there’s a lot to talk about.” Now I’m in a hurry and therefore I’ll leave it until the next letter by mail. “I think it is only necessary to say now, not by mail, that you advise Popov and other Russians to be more careful in their conversations.” - Popov said something about the movement of minds in Moscow, about some new aspiration, about some kind of spirit, etc., all things that frighten here and could be harmful to him and his friends here and there. The Germans were already going to talk about this in magazines, which would have turned out to be absurd, funny, and not harmless. Reason with him and bow to him for me. Today is Mama's birth. I congratulate you and hug you with all my heart. Until next time, hopefully soon. Please don't skimp on news about Schelling. Letter to V. A. Zhukovsky, January 28. 1845 32 Moscow. January 28 (1845). Indeed, how can I answer you? Even out of politeness, after everything you do for me, it seems to me more decent to remain completely silent than to speak without expressing all my gratitude, for which I would have neither words nor skill. Back in November I wrote a long letter to you, but it was not finished and therefore was not sent. Then some circumstances changed, and it was necessary to write something else. Meanwhile, your gift arrived to the Muscovite, who, the more deeply he touched me, the more tightly he tied his tongue. I don't know why this happens to me. This is some kind of psychological flaw, which I ask you to forgive me because I don’t know how to deal with it. Today is the 29th of January. Congratulations to you and all your people, there and here. I also congratulate you on the new Zhukovsky. We received this news with the liveliest joy. I am sending you the 1st issue of the Moskvitian. It came out late for many reasons, some external, typographical faults, censorship, etc., some internal, failure, incompetence, etc. Mama probably already wrote to you about our loss. Brother Andrey promised a lot. But it seems that it was precisely the excessively intensified development of his inner life that came into conflict with outer life, and killed him with this disharmony. Of course, the One who controls the fate of the world and everyone knows better what life is for and what death is for; but I admit, sometimes it is difficult to understand and no less difficult to tear your thought away from understanding the incomprehensible. Mom’s health is now, thank God, beginning to improve. Yesterday she went out for the first time to visit me, who had a slight cold. My wife is also not healthy. She is in the 8th month and is very afraid of the ninth. In general, we have some special diseases in the air, coupled with severe nervous breakdown. Some of the best doctors say that it is necessary to change the previous systems of treatment, because diseases are taking on some new character. My wife wanted to write to you herself, but is now unable to do so. She instructed me to tell you that your severity with your little Sasha can very easily be replaced by another means that she knows from many experiences. Instead of punishments, which in this case are rarely, and very rarely, beneficial, all that is needed is the vigilant supervision of a nanny or someone who looks after the child... In my unfinished and unsent letter, I outlined to you in detail about the Muscovite, and the reasons that prompted me to take him into my own hands, and my goal, and plan, and hopes, and fears. Now I will try to state one essential thing. About three years ago, I asked K.V. 33 to inquire where I should whether I could write and participate in magazines: they answered him that I was prohibited from Heb. (this one is now 13 years old), but it was never forbidden to write where I want, and that Paul. and Above. 34 not only write, but also publish other magazines themselves after their own were banned. Now, before the condition with Weather. I asked advice from Mr. Page 35, and he believed that he considered my participation possible. But Pogodin's name (and) responsibility cannot be removed without special permission, which requires time. At the same time Weather. notified the Minister of the transfer of the editorial office to me, from which it is clear that although I publish under someone else’s name, it is not by deception, not on the sly, but with the knowledge of the government. Meanwhile, in your poems they did not miss my name, because you are talking about my journal. The reasons which induced me to undertake this work were partly personal weaknesses and partly mental convictions. The personal ones are that first I made sure that my activity requires an external incentive, a period not dependent on me. 2nd, magazine work is after my heart. 3rd, in solitary work I am such a hunter of grübeln that my every thought goes like cancer. In a journal, an external goal gives her boundaries and shows her the way. In addition, there is a lot in me that has matured into an article that is far from matured into a book. Expressed in fragments, it will bring me closer to a complete understanding of what I lack. In addition, activity excited by external causes may turn into a habit (although I strongly doubt the latter). On top of all this, I also had in mind that if the magazine were published, it would give me the opportunity not to live in a village, which I cannot love despite many years of effort, and would allow me to live in Moscow, which, also despite many efforts, I cannot separate from water, from air, from light. These were personal reasons. More important than this was the fact that many of my Moscow friends announced to me that my editorial office was Moskvit. will be the reason for their activity. But over all this hovered that thought, or perhaps that dream, that now the time had come when the expression of my sincere convictions would be both not useless and possible. It seemed to me likely that in our time, when Western literature does not represent anything particularly dominant over the minds, no principle that does not contain an internal contradiction, no conviction that its preachers themselves believe, that now the hour has come when our Orthodox principle of spiritual and mental life can find sympathy in our so-called educated public, who have hitherto lived on faith in Western systems. The Christian truth, which has hitherto been preserved in our church alone, not distorted by the secular interests of papism, not broken by the pride of self-understanding, not distorted by the sentimental intensity of mysticism - self-existent truth, like the vault of heaven, eternally new, like birth, inevitable like death, unthinkable, like the source of life - has hitherto been preserved only within the boundaries of spiritual God-thinking. The development of rational man, the so-called enlightenment of mankind, was dominated by a more or less distorted, semi-pagan principle. Because the slightest deviation in the sight puts the bullet in a completely different direction. The relationship of this pure Christian principle to the so-called human education is now the main vital question for all our thinking people who are familiar with our spiritual literature. Everyone who studies ancient Russian history in our country is brought to the same question, further or closer. Track. I could hope to find sympathy in the development of my conviction. That is why I decided to try magazine work, although I know that failure in this case would be almost beyond my power. I say morally impossible, because financially I don’t take risks. Pogodin remains the publisher, with his expenses and profits, as long as there are such a number of subscribers that I can pay him a certain amount for the right to publish without loss. But if the magazine does not take off and does not meet with sympathy, then this mistake in hopes will probably be the last of my experiences in literary activity. Imagine what my position was when, at the end of December, I saw that for the 1st issue, which was to decide the fate of the magazine, I had nothing but Yazykov’s poems, my articles and my mother’s translations. Sending your poems revived and encouraged me. I felt new life. Then he received the Metropolitan's Word. Three years before the book was published, Pogodin revealed Lugansky’s fairy tale, which he had hidden under a bushel. Please tell me in detail your opinion about this issue: it will be a guide for me for others. It was impossible not to print an excerpt from your letter about Odysseus. This is one of the most precious pages of our literature. Here every thought carries the seeds of a completely new, living view. Your Odyssey must make a revolution in our literature, turning it off the artificial road onto the path of immediate life. This simple-minded sincerity of poetry is exactly what we lack and what we seem to be more able to appreciate than the old cunning peoples looking into the cut mirrors of their pretentious writers. The living expression of the Greek people will awaken the concept of ours, who are barely breathing in silent songs. By the way, speaking of songs, from the collection made by my brother, one volume has been living in the St. Petersburg censorship for almost a year, and its fate is still not decided. They themselves knew only foreign songs, and they think that Russians are a secret for Russia, that they must not be missed. Between Russian songs and the Russian people - St. Petersburg censorship! It’s as if people are going to ask Nikitenka what song to sing over the plow. My brother recently arrived from the village and is helping me with the magazine. My address: In Bolshoy Znamensky lane, near the Church of the Rzhev Mother of God, in the Bernhard house. Mother's address: Opposite the Fire Station in the parish of the Intercession in Levshiny in the house of Mrs. Voeikova. The Moscow rolls ask me every day, when will Vasily Andreevich eat us? What do you order them to answer? How long did Gogol leave you for? If you write to me, if you give me this true joy, then say something about him. I would especially like to hear from you about the strong religious trend that now seems to have taken possession of him. Where it developed from, where it is going and where it has reached. It's scary that the Jesuits in Paris won't flatter him. Did he particularly study our Church? Baron Cherkasov is here, and his brother, not the baron, is in the village near us. We saw each other quite often. He is a very wonderful person, purely moral, a serious believer, and lives by conviction. The mother-in-law gave him her estate. And out of gratitude, he devotes his life to her and her children, takes care of her household, removes plans from her lands and works from morning to evening, as soon as his frustrated health allows him. Moscow is now occupied most of all by balls, incessant, very, as they say, decent, that is, expensive, and rather indecent, and also, as they say, not very fun. Now they have stopped due to mourning. You will read about Shevyrev’s lectures in Moskvityanin. The new philanthropic society of ladies, the result of the Mystères de Paris, occupies almost everyone. They are looking for des pauvres honteux, but cannot find it. Meanwhile, the former Russian alms are disappearing. They even stop filing for the Church. Yake-bellied 36's health seems to be improving, but is still poor. He writes a lot, and his verse seems to have become even more brilliant and stronger. Khomyakov writes more in prose (more is said as opposed to very little in the billiard sense). In the second No. Moscow. You will see his article. Chertkov published the second Addendum to his catalogue, a magnificent thing. My wife is preparing to publish an addition to the family of the Kireyevsky gentlemen. She bows to you and your wife and congratulates you. Letter to V. A. Zhukovsky, October 6. 1831 37. (Postmark: 6 Oct. 1831). Dear Sir, Vasily Andreevich, Publishing a magazine is such a great era in my life that it would be physically and morally impossible for me to decide on it without your approval. Neither a hand will rise to write, nor a head will be illuminated by a decent thought when they do not receive your blessing. Give it to me if you think I am capable of this important task; If you think that I am not yet ready for it, or that in general, for whatever reason, I would do better by refusing to publish the magazine, then still give me your blessing, adding only to the magazine not to be! - If my plan comes true, that is, if you tell me: publish it! (because everything now depends on this word), then I hope that the next year of my life will be useful for our literature, even because my journal will force Baratynsky and Yazykov, who promised me an active participation, to write more. In addition, journal activities would be useful for myself. They would force and train me to do certain activities; mit der Welt des europäischen wissenschaftlichen Lebens would surround me, and this distant world would be given over me the power and influence of close materiality. In some way this could replace travel for me. By subscribing to all the best non-political magazines in three languages, delving into the most remarkable works of the first writers of our time, I would turn my office into an auditorium at a European University, and my magazine, like the notes of a diligent student, would be useful to those who themselves do not have the time or means to take lessons first-hand. Russian literature would be included in it only as an addition to European literature, and with what pleasure I could talk about you, about Pushkin, about Baratynsky, about Vyazemsky, about Krylov, about Karamzin - on pages not stained with the name of Bulgarin; in front of a public that doesn't buy a magazine for the fashionable pictures; keeping in mind only those readers who think and feel in words, whose participation elevates their activity, and forgetting that there are others in the world. But of course, all this can be good only for lack of something better. Once upon a time I wanted to publish a Pushkin magazine; If it happens this year, then of course mine will be superfluous. Then, just as in the case of your disapproval, I will look for other activities, another field of activity and will try to focus my thoughts on non-literary subjects. Decide the fate of your I. Kireevsky. Letter to V.A. Zhukovsky, spring 1849 38. When I received and read your letter, my soul was not filled, but filled with feelings of living and sweet gratitude. However, I don’t know whether to call this feeling that way. It seems to me that it would warm my heart no less if I knew that you did for someone else what you did for me. You interrupted your favorite work on the Odyssey, which was already approaching its end, in order to fast during Holy Week, free from all extraneous activities. But at this time, having received my letter, you did not hesitate for a minute to break your holy Sabbath in order to ask for my son. I thank the One who gave me the happiness of being close to you, and with all my heart I ask Him to pay on your children what you did for my son, and that my son, for whom you interceded as your own, remember throughout his life to be worthy of this. I sent your letters the next day to St. Petersburg and, on your advice, wrote to Bronevsky. Now I have already received an answer from him that the Prince agreed to your request that my son not be considered 9 months old as an obstacle to entering the 4th grade of the Lyceum, but as for accepting him to the state budget, this depends on the Highest will and belongs [only to the children of generals and officials not lower than the 4th grade. The first is the most important for us; and the second one seems better the way it happened. Feeling all the kindness of your request for this, I think, however, that although our fortune is certainly limited, it will be easier for us to pay for our son like others than to use this kind of mercy undeservedly. However, your letter was not useless in this regard either. Having received it, I gave it to my son to read: he was deeply touched by it and will probably forever retain the consciousness that by asking for mercy for him, you seemed to be vouching for him, therefore, in addition to other reasons, for this reason he was obliged to honestly match your voucher with his inner mood. The random result of a request is already a matter extraneous to his internal duty. Who knows? Perhaps the time will come when this consciousness will serve to reinforce his internal quarantines against that moral infection from which Europe is now rotting, this French disease from which the poor Western man has already lost his mind; although I hope that this disease will not affect us, or, if it does, then some insignificant part of our society. It is sad to see what evil, but inevitable and righteously sent madness people in the West are now suffering from. Feeling his darkness, he, like a moth, flies towards the fire, considering it the sun. He screams like a frog and barks like a dog when he hears the Word of God. And they want to reprimand this spoiled one, this clique, according to Hegel! Now it is even twice as difficult as before to know you there, under the weight of the heavy necessity of living among these people and far from the fatherland. I understand that no chains of exile can be more painful than the chains of illness of that being, in which not only everything dear to the heart is united, but together with all the immediate responsibilities of the sacred duty to protect and cherish. I ask God with all my heart to quickly console you with the health of your wife and thereby give you the opportunity to return. Here, not only your word, but your very presence would be useful at this significant moment. It is almost impossible for you to act from there. Your brochure and letter to Elm. no matter how beautifully they were written, no matter how much they were praised in magazines, they certainly would not have been written like that if you were here, and therefore they could not have the effect that your word should have on Russian readers. The Odyssey is a completely different matter. It is timeless, and your translation of it is an important event in the history of our literature. It is timeless, because it belongs equally to all times, excluding ours, however, because ours is outside the ordinary order, and outside all mental and literary life. That is why she could not appear to us in the power that belongs to her over the normal state of the human mind. Its effect on our literature should be great, but slow, and the stronger, the less new it is, the more it is read. This is the very nature of her beauty. This is not the brilliance of passion, not the electric and dazzling lightning on a dark night; but a clear view of a high and experienced mind on a rich and deep nature; a bright and quiet evening, mysterious by the remoteness of the horizon. The news that your translation is almost finished surprised and delighted us all. I confess to you that I did not imagine Homer in that simplicity, in that unstilted poetry in which I recognized him from you. Each expression is equally suitable for beautiful verse and living reality. There is no outstanding verse, no boastful epithet; everywhere there is the even beauty of truth and proportion. In this regard, I think it will affect not only literature, but also the moral mood of a person. An immoderate, unbridled word in our time, it seems to me, expresses as much as it produces the unbridled movements of the heart. There are, however, some things in your Odyssey that seem to me to be below its general level. I noticed them in order to talk to you on a date, and I could notice them because you can notice the slightest speck of dust on white paper. These specks of dust consist not in expressions, which seem to me to be amazingly perfect, but in the rearrangement of words, which sometimes seems to me more artificial than it could be, especially and only in comparison with the general naturalness. However, having written this, I feel that it is rather strange: I should tell you about the shortcomings of your style. I am consoled only by the thought that maybe you, having listened to all the talk of invited and uninvited judges, will find something practical among the heap of nonsense, and in this case the second edition of your Odyssey will be even more perfect. If from all the comments you do not find anything useful for yourself, then it will be all the more useful for me to hear your opinion. I hug you with all my heart, for myself, for my wife, for my son and the whole family. I haven't heard from my mom for over a week. According to her last letter, her health was quite good. Letter to M.V. Kireyevskaya, March 17, 1847 39 You write, dear sister, that you have long been haunted by the thought of liberating the peasants, that you pray to God that He will allow you to realize this sweet dream, that you think we too 16 In this case, we will approve your desire and ask for our advice on how to actually bring your intention to fruition. – Thank you for telling us your thoughts and wanting to know our opinion. I consider it my duty to tell you with complete sincerity. But before I tell you my opinion about your case, I also consider it my duty to tell you my convictions about the liberation of the peasants in Russia in general, so that you do not assume in me an opinion that I do not have, and would not give my advice more weight than they deserve. True, we are now constantly talking about emancipation, Koshelev, Khomyakov and others. But I don’t share their opinion. Not because I consider it good and useful for Russia to leave serfdom forever; not even because I considered it possible; the serfdom should be destroyed over time, when other changes are first made in the State, the legality of the courts, the independence of private individuals from the arbitrariness of officials, and many others that do not need to be counted here; - but at the present time, I think that such a comprehensive change will only produce unrest, general disorder, the rapid development of immorality, and will put our fatherland in a situation from which God will save it! – And what is freedom without legality? – Dependence on a corrupt official, instead of dependence on the landowner. – But the benefits of the landowner are more or less related to the well-being of his peasants; but, generally speaking, the worst landowners have more conscience than officials; besides conscience, they have, more or less, a sense of honor, which prevents them from abusing their power; there is a dependence on the opinions of others, which was the reason that their relations with the peasants improve every year, and since then, as I remember, they have changed completely. The official is not bound by anything except his own benefit and other officials, who are also corrupt. You know yourself what the situation of the State peasants is, and if you don’t know, then ask brother Peter, or the priest Alexander Petrovich, or any neighbor or merchant who knows their situation, and then tell me whether this situation is worth carrying out a revolution in Russia? But I’m talking about the general emancipation of the peasants in Russia; which does not in the least prevent private people from freeing their peasants if they think of giving them a better position. But think honestly (without being carried away by the desire to do an act that people can praise; without being carried away by the arrogant pleasure of saying to yourself: I freed my peasants, I acted according to my conscience! when in fact your act will bear a great name without changing anything in reality), think: in fact, it would be better for your peasants to pay 100 thousand for themselves and receive the right to be called free, having fallen under the authority of officials, than not to be called free to be like this in practice, and without paying 100 thousand rubles (which they do not have, and the acquisition of which will certainly confuse them), pay you annually the smallest rent, which does not embarrass them at all and never gives rise to the slightest complaint in them? - Think about this honestly and ask yourself in the depths of your heart: is it not vanity before yourself that makes you want to change their situation? - If you think that they want this, then you are mistaken: several people who are richer than others may want this, but in general this news frightened them. At least that's what I heard from them. They say that they live under your wing, like Christ in the bosom, they are afraid of any change and it is very difficult to pay money for their ransom. Most of all, they are most afraid that you will not sell them, because, as they say, the amount for their ransom you have set is so small that other landowners will willingly give you much more, and then they may fall into the wrong hands. Some landowners have already heard about your intention there, and want to buy them from you, and are thinking of giving you more than 100 tons, believing that you are doing this in need of money. Of these, there is one in particular whom the peasants fear as a bad and evil person. But I’m sure you won’t sell them, and that’s why I’m not talking about it. To this I will also add that I knew some extremely respectable people, among them I will name K.F. Muravyova, who also wanted to conclude a condition with their peasants under which they would have the right to buy themselves as free cultivators; but having examined the matter closely and consulted with knowledgeable people, although they did many preliminary steps for this, and took a lot of trouble, and the peasants agreed and the government allowed, but they were convinced that this condition would be to the detriment of both parties, and left the matter as before. In addition to this, I will also tell you that the government is now destroying free farmers and turning them into State peasants. Yesterday I heard that the huge Demidov estate (6 thousand souls, it seems), which was free cultivators, has now been turned into State peasants under the general management of district officials. - How will it feel for your peasants, having paid you 100 thousand, to suddenly find themselves under the power of an official who will force them to pay double the rent they pay you? Because the government quitrent, together with the salary for officials or managers, is more than 8 rubles. silver from the soul, while they pay you about 4 rubles. ser. from the heart. – But how many more illegal exactions are being exacted from the State peasants, and how many injustices are being done by drunken and authorized clerks, from volosts, from districts, etc.!! – How many temptations to lawless action through bribery! - What is the danger from tax farmers who can set up taverns and taverns for them, give them temptation against their will, etc. Take also into account that by paying you the ransom amount they will certainly become dependent on the moneylenders, who usually suck out all the moral blood from the peasants; and you yourself, meanwhile, receiving their ransom not suddenly, but according to deadlines, will certainly spend the money as you receive it and then you will be left with nothing, and will not be able to be useful to anyone, having also done harm to the peasants. – Here's my opinion. Discuss it without passion or partiality. If, having considered it, you remain with your intention, then please write to me, and I will immediately go to the people who know this and send you the form of the condition, etc. I think it’s not superfluous to tell you one more thing: If you are afraid that after your death the position of your peasants will change, then you can make whatever will you want and put it in the Trustee Council for the sake of fidelity, so that your peasants, in any case and regardless of any heirs, will be either obliged after you on these or other conditions, or completely free, depending on what you consider best. “But for this it would be good for your will to be made in secret, so as not to arouse among the peasants thoughts that could be harmful to them ahead of time.” - And while you are alive, continue to manage them as you have done until now, take an easy rent from them, give them freedom to govern themselves, do not betray them to the offense of officials, and they will always bless you as they bless you now. I hug you. Your brother I. Kireevsky. (Copyright from P.V. Kireevsky). I also wanted to write to you today about this matter, but my brother read me his letter and since I completely agree with this opinion, as I already told you before, I don’t consider it necessary to repeat it either. Most of all, I want you to think about this as much as possible and not rush. I hug you tightly. We are all, thank God, healthy. Having written this letter, I gave it to Koshelev, and at the same time I told him what situation your peasants are in. He told me that although he is an ex officio emancipator, he would not advise you to free him in any way, but to leave him as is. Then he wrote the attached letter, which confused him quite a bit, I think from the desire to preach on his favorite topic. After that I saw him, and he also says that you should not and have no reason to emancipate, and that you will only do harm, and not benefit, to your peasants. But in his letter this is not so clear. Letter to M.V. Kireevskaya, Aug. 1830 40 8th/20. - My friend Masha! Today is your birthday and to sanctify myself for this day, I begin it with a letter to you, dear sister. It is wise and sad to begin your birthday with a letter. A year ago, when I was with you - Evening. This is what I managed to write to you today, I just woke up, that is, at 7 o’clock in the morning. But instead of continuing my letter, I stared at these 3 lines as if at a Raphael picture, and until my brother and Rozhalin entered my room to congratulate me, that is, until 9 o’clock, what did I do in these 2 o’clock, you won’t ask. Maybe you yourself were thinking about us at the same time, and knew that even if we didn’t come to you this morning to kiss you and congratulate you, then our thoughts were with you even before you woke up, even before we woke up ourselves. Do you know that I am with you in every dream? Since I left, not a single night has passed that I have not been in Moscow. Just how! “Imagine that until now I haven’t even learned in a dream what a date is, and every dream I’ve had has been a repetition of separation.” It still seems to me as if I returned a long time ago, and I’m already on my way again. These dreams haunt me so persistently that once, getting into the carriage, also in a dream, to go away from you, I was consoled by the thought that now that my dream had come true, at least I would stop seeing it every night. Imagine how surprised I was when I woke up and saw that it was juice too. - This is a kind of sleepy madness, une idée fixe, qui est devenue un rêve permanent. Mais pourquoi fallait-il que cette idée fixe soit la séparation, et non le revoir? - At least try to send me a dream with a date. Think it over. Just one, and I’ll cling to it with all the power of my imagination, and from it I’ll create a whole series of such dreams. This will be a seed from a flower: Ivan and Marya, which I will plant deep in my thoughts, and I will begin to follow it, and I will warm and cherish it until it takes root so far that no storm will tear it out, no burdock will crush it. - Don't laugh at this. Dreams are not a trifle for me. My best life was in a dream. Don't laugh when I talk about them so much. They are nonsense, but this nonsense reaches the heart. Besides, who better than you can I share it with? - Meanwhile, so that you know how to send a dream, it is necessary that I teach you to know the properties of dreams in general. This is an important science, and I can speak about it avec connaissance de cause. At least I'm more experienced here than in reality. Listen: the first property of dreams is that they are not free, do not depend on those they are about. So, if I absolutely need to see you every night, then my dreams will be bright when you are happy, and sad when you are sad, or unhealthy or worried. Therefore, if you want to be my sorceress, you must constantly maintain within yourself such clarity of soul, such calmness, such contentment, which, if communicated to my sleep, would put into it a feeling incompatible with the thought of separation. Of course, you all have to do magic like this together. And for your gaiety you need the gaiety of everyone, and the flower Ivan and Marya grows between Mashka’s darling, Cornflowers, Lilies, etc., etc. The second property of dreams is that they are children, and constantly grab everything that is in front of their eyes. And since before my eyes there are all Germans and Germans, then in my dreams they also mix with you. Therefore, in order to drive the Germans out of my Russian dreams, send me your portrait as soon as possible. Having looked at him, at his brother, at Rozh during the day. and for everything that came with us from Russia, I hope, at least in a dream, to be freed from Germany, which, however, I do not dislike, but hate! I hate it like a chain, like a prison, like any coffin in which the living are buried. – From your Russia, you cannot understand what this Germany is. Everything that travelers say about it is almost all nonsense. If you want to know what it is, then listen to the Germans themselves. Some Germans speak the truth about it when they call it the land of oaks (das Land der Eichen), although there are almost no oaks in Germany, except for the Germans themselves. Because of this, these are the most wooden of all. Yesterday my brother caught his umbrella on one of them, and so carelessly that the umbrella broke. The brother apologized in Russian, with his usual: ah! Sorry! “The German felt the blow only after twenty steps, suddenly he stood rooted to the spot, his eyes widened and he was silent. After thinking carefully, he finally took off his hat to answer his brother: Ich bitte rechtsehr, Herr Baron! es thut nichts! “I don’t know what you would call such liveliness, but for me there is no word for it except: German.” “But,” it’s better to return to our dreams. - They are children; everything they say is almost as much nonsense as this letter; but they are noble children, from whom nothing can be done either by threats or abuse, but who are sensitive to affection. That’s why they need to be pampered and treated sometimes. But the caress, pampering and delicacy for my dreams are your letters. Each word of them, having changed my mind in reality, turns into a dream, and my dreams, like well-bred children, obey every word. Therefore, so that they do not become capricious and frown, you caress them more often, and more and more carefully. In addition, dreams, like children, are influenced by many good examples. Especially present this to Mama for consideration, and ask her to correct her dreams, at least so that mine do not spoil. - Until then, sleep. It’s 2 o’clock in the morning and it’s time to sleep and I want to. This letter will reach you in a month. I'll probably be in Italy by then. The first dream about a date will be a sign to me that you received my letter. September 5/August 24. Did you guess, dear Masha, that this letter was written after 3 bottles of champagne, drunk by the three of us for your health? I wouldn’t send you this nonsense if I didn’t want to prove in practice that you’re not the only one who gets drunk. To Papinka, forgive me for this senseless waste of postal money by saying that I won’t write ahead drunk! – Now you’re a big girl! - Now you are already responsible for every action, for every word! -Will you put on your boots? – I wrote to Mama about horse riding. - Do you write a magazine? - Goodbye! - Be healthy and look after your mother’s health. “I instruct you to send for Ramikh at the slightest ill health, même au risque d’étre grondée.” – I hug you with all my heart. Yours Ivan. Scold Petrukha well for the shortness of his letters and tell him to write a week before the post office. - Otherwise, I’m ashamed to send such huge letters with his such small ones. Letter to M.P. Pogodin, con. 1844 or early 1845 41 . (End 1844 or beginning 1845). What do you want to do with the Muscovite, advising him to reprint the official vulgarities of Privy Councilor Sturdza? Although he is Sturdza, he is only good as a Christian writer; and as soon as he begins to be a Privy Councilor, he becomes like Sushkov, only a few degrees more official. It will simply kill the magazine if you print and reprint such vulgar flattery, uttered in an enthusiastic voice. Write to him whatever you want; come up with an apology if you need to apologize; but it seems to me better to quarrel than to get dirty. Innocent's sermon is also cold nonsense. It seems there is no need to reprint it, especially since the Sunday Reading is everywhere where the Muscovite is, and is sold in much larger quantities. Is it possible, through Lobkov, to ask the metropolitan for another sermon on Good Friday, in which Plato wrote to him: You are the prince of preachers. Be sure to submit an article about ancient Russian trade here. This is not what is called a dry object. Without such articles, the Muscovite will become vulgar. They can give him real character. I just read the inscription on the tickets now, and I don’t understand what is written there. Something very dark. In addition, it is necessary to change the fact that no. will be published not on the 1st, but on the 20th. Letter to M.P. Pogodin, March-April 1848 42. ... You write to me that it wouldn’t be a bad idea for writers to submit an address to the Emperor about the unnecessary and restrictive actions of censorship. At first I left this thought without further attention, as unrealizable. Then, however, when I thought about your character, and that you often take half a step from your first thought to action, then I was afraid both for you and for the case. Think about it: with the current stupid upheavals in the West, is it time to give us addresses about Literature? Of course, censorship restrictions are harmful to education and even to the Government, because they weaken minds without any reason; but all these relations mean nothing in comparison with current important issues, which we need to want the right solution from the Government. – It won’t be a big deal if our Literature is killed for two or three years. She will live again. Meanwhile, submitting petitions at the present time would mean putting the Government in a hostile or at least distrustful attitude towards writers, which is much worse, because it can lead to incorrect and harmful consequences. The government should no longer fear any right-thinking people. It must be sure that at the present moment we are all ready to sacrifice all secondary interests in order just to save Russia from unrest and a useless war. We should only wish that the Government would not interfere with us in the war on some whim or out of friendship for some Swedish or ... king; so that it does not go to crush our Slavs together with the Germans; so that it does not outrage the people with false rumors about freedom and does not introduce any new laws until things calm down and are explained in the West, so that, for example, it does not make inventories for landowners’ estates, which excites minds with unrealistic assumptions; so that it does not allow factories to be set up unnecessarily inside cities and especially capitals, when they can stand with the same benefit several miles from the outpost, etc., etc. However, you can’t recount everything in a letter. Letter to M.P. Pogodin, beginning. 1830 43 . (Petersburg, early 1830). Thank you, dear Pogodin, for your letter. You want me to express my opinion about your person in detail, and therefore it is necessary to expand. First of all, however, I must thank you for your trust in my truthfulness, a trust that, however, is more of a compliment to you than to me. But tell me, please: what kind of idea is it to confess to each other in a letter, when two days ago we could also talk to each other more fully and freely. No matter how briefly you know a person, it is increasingly easier to tell him the truth to his face than to write it in absentia. Or maybe you think that I will praise you; in the latter case you were very mistaken. Everything good that is in you is so spoiled, suppressed by the bad, or better yet, by the immature, undeveloped, wild element of your being, that it is impossible to repeat to you enough about your shortcomings. Incoherence, thoughtlessness, eccentricity, combined with a very kind heart, with a mind that is very often one-sided, here you are, both as a writer and as a person. One thing can correct you: look for and find a circle of people whose opinions you would value as if it were a sacred thing, for you cannot be quite sure that a person is formed only by a person. If you remain the current person, then of course you will do a lot of good, maybe something knightly and beautiful; but you will probably do a lot of things that are simply called unclean acts. Be afraid of this! And do not be offended by the rudeness of my sincerity. You think you have done everything when you justify your action by the purity of your intentions, but this is an important fatal mistake. In addition to the conscientious court, for our affairs there is another instance where opinion presides. You don’t value them, because you believe too much in your own. But this opinion, don’t forget, its name is honor. You can be right in one instance and guilty in another. But for true dignity, for beauty, for happiness, for the respect of a person, it is necessary that every action satisfies both the court and the other. This is possible because it must be. Here is one rule that I have always considered true, which I still believe in now, for I understand it clearly and necessary; Here it is: if today I suffer innocently, then surely yesterday I was guilty of the same thing with impunity and was capable of becoming guilty tomorrow, and punishment only warned me, cured me in advance, like a bitter dish, correcting the stomach, prevents its impending disorder. For Providence cannot be unjust, and the ability for good or bad for it is equivalent to an actual action. For the time that separates the seed from the fruit is for it a transparent mirror, air. That’s why, if you want to know yourself, then analyze your destiny and change it into the desired one, by internally transforming yourself. But I repeat, only people can educate a person! Look for them, and know that every step that brings you closer to the unworthy moves you away from the worthy. I haven’t talked about your essay and won’t tell anyone. Pushkin really liked your Ivan 44 and he promised to write and send you something. Everyone here bows to you. Zhukovsky thanks for the memory. By the way, as long as you have not learned all the subtleties of that feeling that is called decency, then you will never be of any use. It would be bad to end up like this, but there is no paper. Letter to M.P. Pogodin, beginning. 4846 45 Dear Pogodin! Honor and glory and gratitude to you from all who value the memory of Karamzin and the glory of Russia. I read your Word 46 with true pleasure. For a long time nothing literary made such an impression on me: Karamzin appeared to you in his true form, and thus your speech erects a great monument to him in the reader’s heart, better than the Simbirsk bronze. I didn’t make many of the comments you demand from me. Whether it’s because the great beauties obscured the minor flaws from me, or because they don’t exist, this is all I noticed: No. 1. Your fellow citizen. He is not Simbirsk, but a Russian citizen, and therefore a fellow citizen of us all. We cannot give up this honor. Isn’t it better to say: your fellow townsman, our common fellow citizen... No. 2. Simbirsk was not the only one to erect a monument to Karamzin; therefore, the one expressing his feelings on this occasion could not be the organ of the Simbiryaks alone. Is it possible to say with an organ that I melt the feelings... No. 3. Karamzin did not care about the bookstore. His works were sold without his efforts. Would it be more incorrect: between the printing house and the desk? No. 4. In previous centuries there were no unconditional loyal subjects. How many princes were expelled for violating the conditions! One suspicion of Boris’s crime turned all of Russia against him. One disrespect for Russian rituals and customs destroyed the Pretender. And those letters on which our rulers kissed the cross upon their accession to the throne from Shuisky to Anna? – No, that’s the peculiarity of our former allegiance, that it was not unconditional, but, on the contrary, conditioned by legality. The very word loyal subject somehow does not fit the character of previous centuries. He has the spirit of a new time. It is from the vocabulary of Feofan and Yavorsky. In addition, the entire end of this period smells too much of rhetoric, although its beginning is wonderful. No. 5. Is it possible to say: which, following the example of ancient, forgotten centuries... No. 6. Is it possible to say: honor and glory to lice and the state, where is the serf peasant, etc.?.. No. 7. Isn’t it more correct: forgotten in the past century 2. Because in previous centuries, without comparison, we valued moral and internal, religious virtues more than external, visible ones. No. 8. What are the rules of your art? and why think about them? – Everything that leads to rhetoric leads to yawning. No. 9. What is the Russian God? – In general, this manner of speaking about Lomonosov has already become very vulgar. There, on the shores of the White Sea and so on. Isn’t it better this way: God wanted that during the life of the Autocrat, the transformer of the State, that peasant was born who was destined to transform our word. Fifteen years later, etc. No. 10. After all, something is not in the tone. Isn’t it better to replace moments with steps, or at least periods? No. 11. This seems to be the place to mention Novikov and present his influence on Karamzin in a real light. You actually mentioned it elsewhere, but you just mentioned it. Novikov should occupy a different place in the memory of Karamzin. Of course, Karamzin was guided by his own genius and inner voice; but who revealed this genius in him? Who freed this voice from the noise of petty life? Who breathed in life-giving thought and provided the means for a high direction in life? – It would be nice to imagine here this society of unnoticed workers, working in silence and without glory, without benefits, for the benefit of humanity and the Fatherland. Karamzin could bring language closer to naturalness and to real life because real life had already received that high meaning that it had lost, and without which it could not have an educated word. Karamzin resolved the question because the question had already been proposed and the data was ready for a solution. No. 12. Having calmed down - unnecessary. Perhaps the writer was very excited, but the reader is still calm, although interested. No. 13. Making an impression on yourself in the government is not the Russian way. No. 14. Grandmother Ekaterina Afanasyevna Protasova, in whose presence we read your speech, noticed on this occasion that along with the extraordinary success that Poor Liza had, along with extraordinary delight she aroused strong, ardent detractors, who said then that with this decline in art, one can only expect that writers would also call their heroes by their patronymics! “You’ll see,” they said, “they’ll name it!” right to be called by your patronymic! All Karamzin’s admirers were angry at that time for this malicious prophecy. No. 15. Excellent passage: here all Karamzin is in embryo. Novikov can also be heard here. Isn't this the place to talk about it? No. 16. Starting with the peasant; The task is not a peasant one, although it is about peasants. We need another word. No. 17. Why announce this secret? No. 18. The word republican freedom stings the eyes. Isn't the folk one better? No. 19. As you wish, closing your eyes is not good. That is why he rushed into the abyss of Russian History, because he opened eyes that others had closed. No. 20. Is this insertion from line to line unnecessary? Why is there any discussion about the rules of science or art? Isn’t it better to start straight away: In preparing materials, etc. M® 21. This is too much! Theologians should start with Karamzin! N® 22. Just as your other extracts are all apropos and explain your thought, this extract, I must admit, is the most unfortunate. Think carefully, is it possible to present this idea of ​​Karamzin without reservation? – If there was a dark point in Karamzin’s bright mind, then, of course, this was a confusion of concepts about autocracy and autocracy, about educating a rude and ignorant people with an enlightened government! – This is the beginning of a division between the government and the people. – The mind of the people – in churches, in universities, in literature, in the beliefs of classes, etc. – In the government – ​​the people’s will; Can the will be smarter than the mind? It may seem smarter when, without listening to reason, it imitates someone else's way of acting. Hence the momentary brilliance and inevitable breakdown of the body. That is why Peter does not go in the way of the people, but contrary to them. In a word, here is the whole point of the question between East and West in the Russian way of thinking. By citing Karamzin without objection, you are refuting yourself. No. 23. Language cannot be produced. No. 24. Why is Zhukovsky called Karamzin’s student, and not just a friend? But the main thing you can notice about the whole speech is that it is powerful and well-written and effective. Honor and glory to you! Letter to Moscow friends, March-April 1847 47 On March 28, 48, on the day of the 700th anniversary of Moscow, despite the terrible road, despite some home circumstances that required my presence at home, I went across all of Moscow to Devichye Pole to M.P. Pogodin, because I knew that some of my friends were gathering with him on that day, people united with each other, in addition to many heterogeneous relationships, especially by the love they all shared for Moscow, with whose name more closely associated or less the way of thinking of each of us, representing from this side mainly the point of mutual sympathy. I hoped that when such people come together in the name of Moscow, which already unites their thoughts, then this very circumstance will revive in them the consciousness of their mutual sympathy. This consciousness, I thought, will awaken in them the need to realize what exactly is common between everyone and everyone; to find out what remains discordant, to seek means to resolve this disagreement, and finally to understand the possibility of a more complete, more living, more life-giving and fruitful sympathy. I expected a lot from this day. I trudged along the rocks and mud in the sleigh at a pace for an hour and a half, bouncing rather painfully on the bumps and bumps. But the more difficult the journey, the more I was consoled by the thought that people who decide to undertake such work will probably do it with a purpose. How often before, being in the circle of these people, imbued with one noble aspiration, but separated by a thousand misunderstandings, I suffered internally from those monotonous repetitions of certain phrases, common to all, but understood differently by everyone, from that incompleteness of every thought, from those endless, hot and at the same time dry, learned, intelligent, and at the same time empty disputes that filled all their mutual relations and clearly indicated that the dark sympathies between Not only did they not develop into unanimity, but even they did not see this disagreement, or, having seen it, were not bothered by it; they did not feel the need to delve into the very root of their convictions and, having strengthened themselves unanimously at the beginning, then agree in all its essential applications, and thus unite everyone into one living force, for the common cause of life and thought. What could these people do, I thought, if they were fully aware of their convictions and consciously united together. How many years of life were wasted in vain because, uniting by chance, they never thought about a conscious union! But now they are finally gathering in the name of one common thought: a new life will finally begin in their chosen circle. Should I continue? Each of you knows what this union of yours consisted of in the name of a common thought. You dragged yourself steadily over rocks and mud, over bumps and bumps, without any purpose. When I saw that your meeting was ending in nothing, I wanted to remind you of the reason that united us, of the need for greater connection between our opinions, of the uncertainty in which our convictions are, not only in relation to others, but even in relation to ourselves: then some of you could not talk about this, because they had to listen to Plessis, others went to the evening, others on business, and some even expressed the idea that there were no misunderstandings between us; that if there are some differences of opinion, then they are insignificant and arise solely from the differences in our individualities, and, therefore, can never be resolved into agreement; that, however, we have all given ourselves the most complete and extreme account of our convictions and, therefore, we can neither find out ourselves nor tell each other anything new, except for some facts learned by chance one way or another. Against this opinion, which I consider not only unfair, but also directly pernicious, destructive of any possibility of a common cause between us, it will not be useless, I think, to clarify the differences that exist in our opinions, and to explain those contradictions that prove the underdevelopment of our inner consciousness. Firstly, we call ourselves Slavs, and everyone understands a different meaning by this word. Another sees in Slavicism only language and unity of tribe, another understands in it the opposite of Europeanism, a third - the desire for nationality, a fourth - the desire for Orthodoxy. Each person presents his own concept as the only legitimate one and excludes everything that comes from another principle. But do these concepts and aspirations contradict one another, or is there something in common between them that connects them into one principle? This has not yet been explained between us. If, in fact, our differences in this respect are only different types of one common principle: then, having realized this, we would subordinate our private views to it and would not weaken each other with endless contradictions. 2. The very concept of nationality between us is also completely different. By this word he means one, the so-called simple people; the other is the idea of ​​national peculiarity that is expressed in our history; the third is those traces of church structure that remain in the life and customs of our people, etc., etc., etc. In all these concepts there is something common, there is also something special. Taking this particular for the general, we contradict each other and interfere with the correct development of our own concepts. Moreover, each of these special concepts contradicts itself and therefore proves the underdevelopment of consciousness. So, for example, in the desire for nationality, they consider the condition, so to speak, of our salvation, and the possibility of Russian enlightenment, and the salvation of Europe, and the development of science and grace, etc., etc., and yet to limit nationality to the common people means: to cut off from the beginning of the people everything that is not contained in this common people, and what is truly popular in it is accepted in a one-sided form, i.e. His special reflection in the common people is revered as his normal expression. If we add that with this concept it is required of everyone who does not want to perish like brushwood in the oven, that he use all the efforts of his spirit to pacify within himself everything that may be contrary to this nationality and to form himself both internally and externally according to the concepts and tastes of the common people: then one cannot but agree that this requirement contains even more unconsciousness. For if it is possible to demand from a person that he work on himself in view of the prototype of truth, then this is understandable because we are talking about the prototype of truth; and it would be possible to work on oneself to achieve common people only if this common people were the direct embodiment of the truth itself. But since it is incongruous to assume this, the demand remains as impossible. It can also be easily proven that other special concepts of nationality contain an internal contradiction, as soon as we accept them as the full expression of our nationality in general. Meanwhile, nationality in its general beginning has not yet been recognized and expressed by us. That is why our concepts are mixed, our demands are unnecessary and our sympathies are unfruitful. The third important disagreement between us lies in the concept of the relationship of the people to statehood. Here the most extreme extremes of opinion make any agreement completely impossible. Meanwhile, we do not give each other, and perhaps even ourselves, an account of those principles from which the peculiarity of our opinions stems, and, moreover, for several years now we have been standing next to each other without connecting and, constantly turning in roundabout thoughts, we are not moving a single step forward. While disagreeing on these concepts, it is natural that we also disagreed on the countless number of derivative and secondary concepts that, when applied to life, give it decisively one meaning or another. Do we disagree because we (are not aware of) our completely basic concepts? Or did they not give the final report themselves? Or can we not agree on the disagreement of the fundamental principles of our beliefs? This question, it seems, cannot but be a matter of first importance for us. For me, at least, sympathy with you constitutes, so to speak, half of my moral life. Therefore, whoever sympathizes with me in this regard, I propose the following means to resolve our perplexities, or at least to some approximation to this goal: make it our duty and give each other the word so that, at least once a week, one or two of us state, albeit in general terms, our opinion on any of the subjects in which we do not agree, and having read this opinion to others, give everyone the opportunity to express their judgment about it, not in order to clarify only the contradiction his own, but in order to find in the contradiction itself a line of general sympathy. Thus, ascending from beginning to beginning, we will perhaps reach those foundations on which agreement can give new life to our thoughts and new meaning to our life. The Church develops, that is, it constantly brings to its consciousness the eternal, inexhaustible truth that it possesses. The incarnation of the Son of God brought about reconciliation between man and God in the person of the God-man. But the visible presence of the Savior on earth had to end: the Savior ascends and gives his disciples the promise of the Spirit - creates the Church. The Spirit of God constantly lives in the Church. The Church calls itself the bride, the body of Christ. Consequently, the fact of the incarnation, accomplished in one person of the God-man, is accomplished invisibly in the Church. So there are two elements in the Church – Divine and human. The whole question lies in how they relate to each other. Do they remain indifferent to one another, the Spirit as eternal truth in its completeness and immobility, and humanity under its definition of constant development. In this case, of the two assumptions bû you will have to accept one. Or you will tear humanity away from God, accept the Old Testament attitude and reduce the Church to the level of a priestly caste; but then you deny the essential fact of Christianity - or, from the general development of mankind, you exclude one person and point to him as one in whom the Spirit is constantly concretized; then this person will be the Church, and everything else will be an orderly crowd of people. This is how it was in Catholicism. Private individuals are sharply separated from the Church and treat it as subjects to the Sovereign; they live under the Church, but not in the Church. They develop, but the Church remains motionless. Obviously, such an attitude is possible only in Catholicism, with the idea that the Spirit is chained to one person, to one pulpit. In order to have the right to say: individuals are developing, branches of the Church are developing, and not the Church, one must first point the finger at the Church. So both assumptions are false. It remains to admit a close, inextricable combination of two elements, individuals who represent the Church, and the Spirit - the developing inquiry of the Church. Every dogma contains within itself a living principle, an embryo; but this germ can only develop in the soil of the Church, that is, by passing into the consciousness of people. Here it necessarily undergoes random modifications, is refracted into opinions, and a split appears in the Church, a split not of the dogma itself taken in the abstract, but of the Church professing the dogma. You will say that this is not a division, but a rejection of some from the Church. Undoubtedly; but how do you distinguish the right side from the wrong? unconscious, immediate persuasion of private individuals can keep them in the truth; but as long as the Church has not recognized itself in these persons, their conviction remains an opinion. The Church unites itself in the Ecumenical Council; she proposes a question to herself and solves it due to the Spirit present in her: It pleased the Holy Spirit and us. So the Ecumenical Council makes sense for the Church itself, and not for non-Churches. Its faithful members, as a result of the Council, became as much higher as rational conviction is higher than opinion. So the Church develops; but its development stands infinitely higher than any human development, because every moment of it is sealed by the Spirit, every result, every word of the Church is necessarily true. Therefore, the very path by which she reached the truth, the Church must recognize and bless the development. Triumph over evil, victory over death lies at the foundation of the Church. This means that she has been given the opportunity for infallible development, comprehension of all truth, and exposure of all lies. Now about your objections. To the question why there were no Ecumenical Councils for so long, I answered you in words, as far as I think, satisfactorily. Precisely because the Church holds the Ecumenical Council for itself, and not for those outside it. As for what you called the vital side of the Church, i.e., the celebration of the sacraments, the Church, undoubtedly, at every moment of its existence, recognizes itself as completely powerful for this, i.e., as completely the Church. But who says that it was ever not the Church, developed into the Church. The celebration of the sacraments constitutes its essential definition, into which the Catholic Church also fits. If you take this definition, her life, away from her, then there will be no Church, there will be no development. But here is another contradiction to what I said. In exactly the same way, a person lives a direct life; in addition, he can develop in the sphere of thought. The question is not why the Church is the Church, but whether the Church can, should, develop. This very vital side of the Church can be the subject of its rational development. In the recognition and implementation of this development lies the excellence, the truth of our Church, the reconciliation of two one-sided principles. Catholicism realized in itself the immovable Church; Protestantism, having recognized the beginning of development, had to deny the Church, and therefore the very content of this development. He remained in an abstract, fruitless movement. We, that is, while Aksakov and I, profess a developing Church. From your article it became clear what we agree on and what we disagree on. I accept the beginning unconditionally; I accept the definition of the Church’s attitude to the incarnation, which was not in my article, and which constituted a break in it. The Church is the newly created humanity. What was this update? In victory over sin. Victory was achieved through the confession of sin. Sin kept man enslaved until man was aware of sin in himself, believed in his holiness, in the possibility of being saved by the law. To abandon this hope meant to recognize sin as sin, that is, as something alien to man, although constantly abiding in him, as a contradiction to his definition. To admit it meant to break away from him, to become higher than him. For a new person, sin does not exist - sin is not imputed to him. This is the negative meaning of Christianity, its attitude towards the law. Another point, positive, is closely related to the first. Sin deprived a person of freedom, that is, the opportunity to manifest his determination in himself, to live in accordance with his purpose. The Church recognizes the lack of freedom in damaging the mind and will. Consequently, the triumph over sin was the granting of freedom to the mind and will. The new man can realize the Divine in real life, can comprehend it in thought. The possibility of these two moments and their unity lies in the matter of embodiment. Having appeared in the form of a man, Christ made it possible to communicate directly with him in the sacrament, through the communion of His body and blood; Christ clearly, comparing the old humanity with the new, says: you bow to him, but you do not lead him, we bow to his own people. So, direct communication with God through the sacraments and communication in knowledge through dogma, this is what was given to the new humanity by Christianity. The Church, in which the fact of the Incarnation lives as perfect, that is, as the possibility of both communion, appears from these two sides. Knowledge of God, i.e. We realize dogma in life, that is, in the sacraments, and we elevate life into dogma. But this life is her life, this dogma is her thought - their identity in the full self-consciousness of the Church. This is my concept of the ideal Church, the implementation of which is already the third phase of the Church - its triumph. In the militant Church, which has not yet been detached from the conditions of historical development, we see only the desire for this ideal - a developing consciousness. So let us draw a conclusion from all that has been said. The Church was constantly the Church, that is, it did not develop into the Church, but appeared as a complete, living organism. The conditions of this organism, life and consciousness, were in the Church from the first minute of its existence, life as completely ready-made and not developing, consciousness as a possibility constantly manifesting itself, as development. The immediate life of the Church represents the complete, closed sphere of the Church Year, which repeats itself over time in identical forms. The sacraments, in their sequential totality, embrace the entire life of a person and are applied to each person. The Church meets a person at his entry into life, the Church places the sign of the cross on his entire being, the Church, foreseeing his fall, offers him healing against moral and physical illnesses, the Church blesses him for family life, the Church honors him with direct communication with God himself in the Eucharist, finally she opens him the entrance to eternal life and prays for the deceased. So the life of the Church is a constant repetition of the same phenomena in relation to all its members and to each of them in particular. There is no development here; here the Church is an organ of grace. But this life, existing in its immediacy, is reflected in the consciousness of the Church 50, in its doctrine. In it she finds her reasonable justification. The desire to elevate life into a harmonious system of dogmas is the development of the Church as a school. This second side of her, in time, appeared later; its meaning is higher than the first. The sacraments existed in the Church from the beginning; but recognizing them as sacraments, recognizing their septenary number, justifying them by raising them to dogma, these are the results of the development of the Church, which takes place in time, in historical memory, in parallel with the development of the thought of mankind, and which conditioned a whole series of Councils. The Ecumenical Council in the development of the Church is the highest level, corresponding in this regard to the fact that the sacrament is in life; hence the highest manifestation of the Church in general. A new question arises. The Church does not seek an answer outside itself, it does not even seek it, but unites itself into one whole, withdraws into itself, looks into itself, recognizing in itself the eternal source of revelation. Truth and she are the same; Therefore, by comprehending and pronouncing the truth, she does what was in it for herself - she realizes herself. Having distinguished two sides in the Church, we recognized the need for their constant agreement. Where it does not exist, where life and dogma quarrel, one must recognize the distortion of life and the purity of dogma, or vice versa, or finally the distortion of life and dogma by the invasion of two different principles. Catholicism, we agree, contains a contradiction; otherwise it would simply be false and would not be resolved into Protestantism. What exactly does our Church recognize as a distortion? The Church was divided approximately in the 10th century. From this time on, Catholicism began. But in the 10th century the vital side of the Church existed, just as before, in its entirety. Catholicism, recognizing itself for the continuation of the Ecumenical development, retained this side, which was not its business. In this area, Catholicism was not itself. Catholic development proper began with the desire to raise life to rational consciousness. But this desire was accomplished under the influence of the pagan traditions of ancient Rome, and its fruit was the Catholic doctrine - a reflex of Christianity in the Latin concept. On our last meeting, I told you how I explain the entire Catholic system from a legal, narrow concept of freedom, and you agreed with me. Here, that is, in a false understanding, is the whole falsity of Catholicism. If it were possible to assume in the West the opposite path of development, that is, from Catholic doctrine to life, then life would necessarily be distorted and Catholicism would not contain a contradiction. But rational development, starting from life as given, reached a complete concept of it, distorted it into dogma, but not into a phenomenon, not into itself. Our Church, strictly distinguishing between these two sides, recognizes the reality of the Catholic sacrament in a Catholic who turns to Orthodoxy, and therefore renounces the false Catholic understanding. Catholics are not rebaptized 51 and in this our Church is completely true to itself. But here another kind of question may arise: you will admit that a false doctrine may not distort life directly, but by distorting the organs through which this life flows, it has an impact on life itself, making it futile and powerless. Part of the Church, not wanting to be in spiritual communion, violated dogma by its rejection; as a result of this violation, did the Holy Spirit withdraw from her, did she reject her agency as an unworthy instrument? In this case, the invalidity of the sacraments will not be a direct result of the distorted dogma, but the execution of God falling on the entire Church. The question is presented in the following form: does a false understanding of a sacrament, due to personal error, make the one who understands it falsely incapable of performing it? If we imagine the whole West as one person, then Catholicism in the general fate of the Church will appear to us the same distortion of Christianity in the personal understanding of one person, which in the Orthodox Church is represented by every depraved priest who does not understand at all or has a crooked understanding? I ask: does our Church subordinate the reality of the sacraments to the conditions of morality and understanding in the person performing them. If it does not subjugate, it is only because it distinguishes in itself, as well as in Catholicism, two sides - immediate life as finished and always valid, and consciousness constantly developing. Catholics, recognizing complete consciousness in their Church, that is, in the Pope, as complete development, demanded the same consciousness from each person performing the sacraments, otherwise they considered it invalid. You were absolutely right in attributing such teaching to Catholicism. This is what the scholastics thought; Canon XI, from the VII sessions, is formulated in this spirit. Trident. Cathedral. Si quie dixerit, in ministris, dum sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt, non requiri intentionem, saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, anathema sit. So the Orthodox teaching about the sacrament follows from the thought of development. The explanation of Catholic dogma expressed in Canon XI seems correct to me, although I do not stand for it. Here's my thought. There are still some details in your article that I cannot agree with, but I am skipping them because they do not go straight to the point and would lead me astray. On our last meeting, we reduced, or better yet, the argument itself boiled down to one general question about consciousness. As far as I could understand from a few words, you distinguish two moments in your consciousness, taking this word in a new meaning, against the usual one. If, after reading my article, you find that this is precisely where our dispute revolves, I will ask you to at least briefly state your thoughts; but I will not answer it, for fear of entering into the sphere of philosophy, which is almost alien to me. In conclusion, it remains for me to repeat the remark you recently made that the expressed contradiction brings people together. For my part, I am completely convinced of this. Letter to Elder Macarius of Optina, 1852 52. Dear Sir, dearly respected Father! This letter will probably come to you on this Holy Day: therefore I ask you to accept my sincere congratulations - along with the joyful greeting: Christ is Risen! – Yesterday I sent you my article by mail, with a break in the middle (for these sheets were in the printing house), and, moreover, I did not have time to write a word to you. I ask you, Gracious Father, when you, by your kindness towards me, read my article, then take upon yourself the work of correcting in it what you find in need of correction. Every comment from you will be precious to me. That pass, which I could not send to you, contains my thoughts on Western enlightenment. I show that it came from three sources: from pagan Rome, from the Roman Church and from the violence of conquest, and that all three of these sources directed Western man to appearance, and to the preference of reason (which examines the external side of thought and the formal cohesion of concepts) over reason, which strives for the whole truth. Therefore, I think, my thought will be clear to you even despite the omission. For me, your comments will be especially important that I am talking about the Holy Fathers of the Eastern Church, and about Russia as it was in ancient times. – Although I think that I am telling the truth, I feel at the same time that only people like you can judge this. But I would not like to say anything untrue or incorrect, especially about the teaching of the Holy Fathers. Letter to Elder Macarius of Optina, 1852 53. From the bottom of my heart, dear Father! Yesterday evening we received your letter and the manuscript of the translation of Isaac the Syrian (with the Volkhov bill of sale V.I. Kurk.), and today we also received a letter by mail dated August 8th. But this very morning I had to travel on the business of our trial, and therefore could not look through your comments on the translation of the Trinity Academy, and only half of your translation of the 1st chapter of Isa. S. managed to read and compare it with the translation by Lavrsky and Paisievsky. It still seems to me that in all those places where you deviate from Lavrsky’s translation, you are absolutely right and your meaning is more correct. But, despite this, it seems to me that Paisiy’s translation still remains superior, and although the meaning in it is sometimes not entirely clear at first glance, this ambiguity encourages careful research, and in other places in the Slovenian translation the meaning is fuller not only from the expression, but also from the very shade of the word. For example: you said: “the heart, instead of Divine pleasure, will be carried away into serving the senses.” In the Slovenian translation: “for the heart is scattered from the sweetness of God into the service of the senses.” The word: crumbles with sweetness, maybe incorrectly according to the laws of external Logic, but it puts true concepts into the mind, and among other things, it makes it clear that Divine sweetness is accessible only to the integrity of the heart, and if this integrity is not preserved, the heart serves external feelings. – Also, the expression: “Whoever makes his true heart wise is the vision of the mind of the word,” gives not only the concept of correction of the heart, but also the fact that an unclean desire is a lie of the heart, with which a person deceives himself, thinking to desire what he really does not want. - However, maybe I see unnecessary in these expressions; the main thing was in the literal sense, but the shade was an extraneous thing. – After reading the entire word and all the comments, I will tell you my opinion, because you order me to do so. “We are thinking of delivering your manuscripts to the Metropolitan tomorrow, if God wills.” – About your question: is it possible to write in Russian: from the same thing, N.P. has already reported the Metropolitan’s opinion. I was thinking about what to write to you in my last letter, that I just don’t see why this couldn’t be said. In my opinion, this is as much possible in Russian as in Slovyan. Your doubt is whether the opinion that Isa. Sirin had about the state of the earth, if this opinion is left without a note, I will submit for the Metropolitan’s consideration, as well as what you deign to write about the translation of the word reason. For my part, in this last case I completely agree with you. - As for the fact that you deign to write to me so that I can delve into it and understand and tell you my opinion (!) about that not entirely clear matter that lies between pages 16 and 20 of the 28th sheet on the back, this order of yours did not surprise me because it required me to explain it to you! but therefore it seemed amazing to me that God actually arranged it in such a way that I can tell you the answer to this. For when I was 16 years old, when I read Isaac the Syrian for the first time, God wanted me to ask the late Fr. for an explanation about this very place. Philaret Novospassky, who told me that this passage is interpreted in such a way that the word “Head and foundation of all creation” means Archangel Michael. - Apparently it was necessary. Philaret to convey this to you; but since you weren’t with him then, God put it into my mind to ask him exactly about this. “I’m in a hurry for my letter to reach the post office, albeit with a fine.” I ask for your Holy prayers and Holy blessings, and with the deepest respect and devotion I remain Your humble servant and spiritual son I.K. Letter to Elder Macarius of Optina, November 23, 1854 54. Dear and sincerely beloved Father! N. Peter. informed me of your letter to her dated November 6, in which you deign to write about Maximus the Confessor, and I see from your words my extreme foolishness in understanding this high spiritual Writer, and I ask you to forgive me for this. I believed that the main difficulty in understanding his writings lay not so much in the spiritual height as in the forms of language occupied, as I thought, by the philosophical systems of that time, and especially by the New Platonists. That is why I was so bold that I dared to offer you my services in translation, suggesting that in places that are incomprehensible, I would look for explanations in philosophical terms and turns of thought of ancient schools. But truly, Father, I thought only about the literal sense, and not about the spiritual, and if I knew that it was about the latter, I would not have dared to offer my participation. I know very well and deeply feel how blind I am in this last respect, and not only where the thought is expressed unclearly, but even where it is said simply and clearly even for children, as for example in the Gospel - I constantly find darkness for myself that I cannot penetrate, and in these cases I usually solve my perplexities with the assumption of asking you for an explanation; although at the same time I feel that even your explanations can only indicate where to look, and will not give eyes with which to see. – As for that higher speculation about which you write, and which is revealed by action, then to whom will the Lord give it, if not to you. This is vital and living speculation, which burns like a candle before the Lord, and illuminates everything around it, and lights a lamp in the pure lamps of those around you; This is the light that we, far from you, look at with reverence and love, as God’s gift sent by Him for the benefit, admonition and consolation of people today. - Therefore, forgive me, Father, if I think that St. Maxim hardly said such things that in a spiritual sense could be incomprehensible to you, although in a literal and outwardly philosophical sense he said a lot that, perhaps, forever and for everyone will remain not fully explained. - However, I repeat again that, understanding almost nothing in this matter, I completely submit my judgment to yours, and I ask you to forgive me for my reckless opinion. Letter to Elder Macarius of Optina, July 28, 1853 55 Sincerely beloved and respected Father! Even this spring, an old acquaintance of mine, the German pastor Sederholm, came to see me once and brought me to introduce his son, Karl, who, two years old, left the University as one of the first candidates, and about whom his father says that he would have been more productive than his other children, if only he had not been in poor health. “This young man, soon after our first acquaintance, revealed to me that he felt the superiority of our religion over the Lutheran one and was not even averse to accepting our faith. However, he hopes to do this over time, but first he goes to the Smolensk province for several months, and then he thinks about going on a trip to Greece, and maybe he will accomplish this thing there. I advised him not to postpone this matter if he was already convinced, but rather to go to Greece already Orthodox. But in order to get to know our church better and finally strengthen his convictions, I advised him to go to you in Optin. He accepted my advice and wanted to go to you after his stay in the Smolensk province, and meanwhile he would prepare his family for this act, which should be all the more difficult for his father because he himself is a pastor, and besides, he also suffered for his faith, for he was dismissed from his posts precisely because in his sermons he did not advise the Germans to change their faith to ours. Now, about ten days ago, he returned from Smolensk province, and told me that his father, finally, if he does not bless him for this matter, then does not oppose him, but gives him complete freedom to act according to his conviction, demanding only that he first see him, in a village near Serpukhov, where he spends the summer. That’s why young Zederholm wanted to go to his father, and then to you. But in the meantime, remaining a few more days in Moscow, he asked me to introduce him to some Russian priest who could prepare him even before Optin and through whose acquaintance he could somehow learn the good side of our white clergy. I named him Sergei Grigorievich Ternovsky, as a person whom I know personally little, but about whom I have heard a lot of good things, and who certainly will not refuse to work with him. In this sense, I wrote a letter to Sergei Grigorievich, which he delivered himself. Sergei Grigorievich definitely worked with him several times, and had a good effect on him; however, he instructed me to tell Obleukhov that he considered it best to finish this matter here, and not go to my father or to Optin. However, the young man could not and did not want to change his promise to his father to see him before he took this great and irrevocable step, and therefore went to Serpukhov yesterday. From there he will go to you in a week if he finds that it is not difficult to travel from Serpukhov to Kaluga. Otherwise, he will return to Moscow and finish this business here, and after that he will go to you to talk and get to know you, dear Father, and see your monastery, and, by the way, get to know Fr. John, whom I told him about as a man who was in somewhat similar circumstances. “I was not afraid to complicate you with this, Father: for this is about the salvation of the soul.” “Perhaps the way, with what completeness of conviction he takes this decisive step, will decide the fate of the rest of his life.” Perhaps because of this, his act will be either a stone of edification or a stumbling block for others. If in this case I did not act as I should have, then I ask you to forgive me. – I have the honor to be your humble servant and spiritual son I.K. Letter to Elder Macarius of Optina, October 8. 1853 56. In the three printed sheets of Maximus the Confessor, you will deign to see many changes against the manuscript. Of these, those made in the interpretation of the “Our Father” seem to me to be in complete agreement with the meaning of the translation of S. Paisius and greatly explain the darkness of some sayings. Also, some of the notes seem to me very precious; eg, note on page 16 and page 25. – Some words in the manuscript were corrected by the hand of the Metropolitan himself. It is obvious that he was involved in this matter. – But after the Metropolitan had the manuscript, Golubinsky made some additions, and, it seems, in vain. For example, he inserted into the text the words on page 16: the verb: “May Your Holy Spirit come and cleanse us.” What was a precious explanation in the note becomes a damage to the book when words are inserted into the text and attributed to the holy Writer that he did not say. “But there was nothing to do about it.” – However, I took the liberty of crossing out the other insertion, because it seems to me that it could lead to a false understanding. Golubinsky took it from a Latin manuscript published by the Bernardine monks. Why take sayings from these Latin editions that are not in Paisius’s translation and attribute them to Paisius? - this saying that I am talking about is on page 29. Paisius said: below, as in another; not by production from the Unit, the Trinity is unexistent (uncreated) Existing and self-expressing. Golubinsky corrected: below we see as if from another through another: it is not because of any relation that the identical and unrelated thing is mediated, but rather the product is related to its guilt: below, as if from another: not because by production from the Unity the Trinity, the existence of the possessing and the self-expressive Being is not borrowed. – Here, as you deign to see, the words underlined twice are not found in Paisius, but were inserted by Golubinsky from the Latin edition. - But, having proofread, I thought that we do not have the right to attribute to Paisius something that he did not write, and that it is even doubtful whether he would have written, and whether there was a Maxim in any text, for the Latin monks in such cases do not know conscience and will easily invent a saying to bring it in confirmation against the doctrine of the One Wine of the Holy Trinity. Based on this feeling, I crossed out the words added by Golubinsky. He can mistype them if he wants. But, Father, I ask you to tell me, did I act like this, or too arbitrarily? In another writing of St. Maxim, in the Word of the Fast, Golubinsky changed a lot in the manuscript, and, it seems, very often in vain, and sometimes even put the meaning, as it seems to me, incorrectly; there was nothing to do. Therefore, it seems that the manuscript was written in bad handwriting and with grammatical errors, he was prejudiced against the entire work, and was convinced that this was not a translation of Paisius, but of some translator, inexperienced in either Greek or Russian. It seems to me that he is mistaken, and that the translation has the character of the Paisievsky system down to the word, and that Golubinsky’s amendments are not entirely successful. For example: he in vain replaces the word looking with the words purpose or intention. The idea that the Lord tolerated the actions of the evil one out of love for the people with whom he acted. Golubinsky incorrectly, it seems, replaced it with another thought, saying that the Lord punished the evil one with love for people. - This, it seems, is not the punishment that is determined for the evil one. Golubinsky changed a lot there due to his prejudice. All, however, this brochure with two Scriptures of St. Maxima is, in my opinion, one of the most profound, most important, and most useful books that have ever been published in our country. For 15 countries. One unforgivable typo of the Greek word was made, and therefore this page will be reprinted. In Isaac the Syrian, it seems to me that it is very necessary to make a preface from you, in which to say that S. Paisius, wanting to give the possible clarity to his translation without violating its literal fidelity, indicated in his manuscripts various kinds of dots - various relationships between words, which in Greek are obvious by themselves, are not expressed by themselves in Slovenian. S. Paisiy discusses the meaning of these dots in detail at the end of his preface, which Russian publishers did not consider necessary to repeat, because in the proposed edition the explanation through subword dots is replaced by explanations at the bottom of the page. This kind of preface, it seems to me, needs to be done in order - firstly, to justify Paisius, whose reasoning about the difference in the languages ​​of Greek. and Words. otherwise they will seem to lead to nothing; and secondly, in order to justify oneself: for - when printing the preface of Paisius, and throwing anything out of it, one cannot help but make a reservation in this action in order to avoid the reproach of infidelity and incompleteness of the publication. This preface will hopefully be published after Paisievsky and before his life. Lovingly devoted to you, your humble servant and spiritual son I.K. Letter to Elder Macarius of Optina, July 9, 1854 57. Sincerely beloved and respected Father! I have now read your letter from Kaluga to N.P. and now I want to congratulate you on receiving the pectoral cross. Although I know that neither this nor any visible difference constitutes anything significant for you, and that you could not get such differences if you wanted them at all, nevertheless for some reason it is very pleasant to hear this. Maybe because it will be pleasant for everyone who loves you. We have always seen how you carry the cross of the Lord inside your heart and sympathize with Him in love for sinners. Now that shrine that is inside your loving heart will be obvious to everyone on your chest. May God grant you many, many prosperous years! Grant, God, many years to our pious Bishop for this. The other part of your letter had a completely opposite effect on me. You write that you suffer from insomnia and that you couldn’t sleep at all for four nights. This, in addition to being painful, is also extremely harmful to health. Does afternoon tea have any effect on this? Then I think that your sleep is taken away by concerns about all of us sinners, who relate to you with our sufferings and sins. You think about how and with what to help those who need your help, and this takes away your peace of mind. But think, Gracious Father, that the mental health of all of us depends on your physical health. See yourself as your neighbor. One sigh from you for all of us to the Merciful God is enough for Him to cover us all with His warm wing. Rest on this true faith, Gracious Father, for the health of all of us. Drive away caring thoughts from yourself, as enemies not only of yours, but also of our peace, and, lying down on your pillow, entrust the care of us to the Lord, Who does not sleep. – Your love, which knows no boundaries, destroys your body. Letter to P.V. Kireyevsky, March 16–21, 1830 58 (Berlin), March 16 – 21, 1830. It’s true, dear brother-friend, we need to write more often, while we are close, but still separate. Thank you for your letter; but your news about Moscow was not fresher than mine. After my last letter to you, I received it from my mother and sister. Daddy in Dolbina. All the children had measles, but, as they and Ramikh say, it was good measles. Mama does not sleep at night, caring for the sick; my sister probably does the same, although she doesn't say so. It's hard to think about them. In every letter to me, I asked my sister to write out some text from the Gospel for me. I did this in order, 1st, to give her an extra opportunity to become more briefly acquainted with the Gospel; 2nd, so that our letters do not hover around other things, but pour out as much as possible from the heart. A page that contains at least a line from a saint will be easier to write from the heart. But what? Here is the text she chose in her last letter: Ne soyez donc point inquiets pour le lendemain, car le lendemain se mettra en peine pour lui-mêmë à chaque jour suffit son mal. “How calm we would be,” she adds, if we did this. But we never think about the present, we only care about the future.” - Poor thing! At 17 years old, her future is one of care and worry. In our entire family, the dominant, daily feeling is some kind of tense, fearful expectation of trouble. Happiness does not go along with such a feeling. But where does it come from? For what? How to destroy it? How to replace it with calmness and courageous fearlessness in the face of the hurricanes of fate? - this is what we must think about together in order to act with common strength. If we could give our sister as much firmness and fortitude as she has tenderness, sensitivity and kindness, then we would do a lot for her happiness. Meanwhile, I hope that this difficult state of mind in which she wrote to me passed along with the illnesses of the children. But do you know how long our house is free from reasons for concern! All this constitutes a still unsolved problem for me. I will write to daddy at the first post office. His suspiciousness moved from the physical world to the moral one. But fortunately, she turned to a point where it is easy to get rid of her. At the very least, I will use all my strength to dissuade him and prove that I have not stopped loving him as before. I don’t know where this thought could come from; I’m afraid that it might not have its source in the influence of that hostile star that alienates me from everything that is dear to my heart. You know, sometimes it seems to me that fate, paving such a steep path in life for me, is leading me to something extraordinary. This thought strengthens my strength in striving to be worthy of her calling. What I wrote to you about Berlin life and the university is not true, or better yet half-truth. For you, I think, in any case, Munich is more useful, but not Paris? Have your answer ready before you arrive. Meanwhile, write to me in Dresden through Rozhalin. I'll be there around the first of April in their style. But we will meet the Saint together. Until now, besides Gufland, I have not met any professor here, although I have made several interesting acquaintances. One day, however, I will go to Hegel, Hans, and Schleiermacher. Since I have no letters to them, and the features of my face will be the only letter of recommendation, I still don’t know how I will be received and whether I will succeed in some plans for them, the fulfillment of which could make my journey not in vain. When we meet, I’ll tell you in more detail, but I still think, as they say, without the owner. Of all the people I met here, the most interesting was Major Radowitz, to whom I had a letter from Zhukovsky. It's hard to find more originality with such sanity. “Of the curious things I have seen, the local art gallery ranks first. It would be too long to tell all the features of the impressions that I took away from there. I will only say that here for the first time I saw one Madonna by Raphael, which I really liked, or, better said, took a liking to. I had seen about 10 Raphael Madonnas before, and looked at them all coldly. I could not understand what feeling corresponded to this face. This is not the queen; not a goddess; holy - but this holy thing is not understood in terms of reverence; beautiful - but does not produce either surprise or voluptuousness; does not amaze, does not captivate. With what feeling must one look at it in order to understand its beauty and the dominant disposition of the spirit of its creator? This is the question that remained unresolved for me until I saw one of the local Madonnas. This Madonna explained to me that her beauty can only be understood by one feeling: the feeling of brotherly love. The movements that she excites in my soul are similar to those that are born in me when thinking about my sister. Not with love, not with surprise, but only with brotherly tenderness can one understand the pure charm of her simplicity and the greatness of her tender innocence. What I am saying now is so true, and I felt it so clearly, that the more I peered at the Madonna, the more vividly the image of Mashka appeared before me, and finally captured me so much that because of it I almost did not understand the other paintings, and looked at Rubens and Vandyck like wallpaper, until finally the crucifixion of Jesus X., some ancient painter of the German school, woke me up. This was the first picture that the heart understood without the help of imagination. This is the best sermon I have ever read, and I do not know what unbelief can withstand it, at least for the time of contemplation. Never have I understood so clearly and vividly the greatness and loveliness of Jesus as in this simple depiction of the feelings that his crucifixion produced on the witnesses of his suffering, on his mother, on Lazarus's sister, Mary, and on Joseph. Such feelings, such tears can only be sacrificed to man-God. Have you seen, and how many times, your Munich Gallery, which is said to be one of the most wonderful in Europe? Could you send something from your travel and Munich life for Pogodin or for Delvig, who publishes Liter. newspaper together with Pushkin, Baratynsky and Vyazemsky? Both told you to ask for it. I also promised both; but my observations so far have been so individual, as the Germans say, that they can only be interesting to those close to me, to whom I myself am interested. I have seen little more of general interest, but what I have seen would require more work to turn into a good journal article, and I still haven’t had time for journal work. Work for me. Farewell, dear, firmly and firmly beloved brother! With all the strength of my soul I press you to my heart, the better half of which is yours. I. Kireevsky. Started on the 16th, ended on the 21st of March. With. Barsukov, Pogodin, vol. XIII p. 129. Barsukov, Pogodin, t. XlVjcrp. 136. Gr. Mich. Mich. Vielyyursky, chairman of the hospital commission in Sevastopol; he died in Simferopol, contracting typhus. Count Vielgorsky, father of Mikhail Mikhailovich Sister of Mikhail Mikhailovich. Born Countess Vielgorskaya, wife of A.V. Venevitinov. Dmitry Vladimirovich, who died in 1827 From the original. It was published in Rus. Arch, 1909 book. 5. Kolyupanov, Biography of A. I. Koshelev, vol. II, Appendix, p. 101. Kolyupanov, op. Op. page 99. It is not known which article by Kosheleva Kireevsky is talking about here. From the original. Sent simultaneously with the previous one, the date of which is indicated at the end of the letter. Kolyupanov, decree, op., p. 80. From the original. It was published in Rus. Arch. 1909 book. 5. From the original. It was published in Rus. Arch. 1909. No. 5. From the original. It was published in Rus. Arch. 1909 book. 5 Kolyupanov, op. cit., p. 94. Vasily Alekseevich Elagin. Notes on the World History of Khomyakov. From the original. It was baked. in Rus. Arch. 1909 book. 5. From the original. It was published in Rus. Arch. 1909 Count S. G. Stroganov, trustee of the Moscow educational district. From the original. It was published in Rus. Arch. 1909 book. 4. Barsukov, Pogodin, vol. IX p. 303. Barsukov, Pogodin, vol. Sh. p. 58. “John the Terrible” by M. P. Pogodin. Barsukov, Pogodin, vol. VIII p. 221. “Historical Eulogy to Karamzin” by M. P. Pogodin. Rus. Arch. 1904, book. 8, p. 495. You say in your article that a sacrament, being understood rationally, ceases to be a sacrament. In this case, we understand the object of consciousness in the sacrament differently. By this I mean not its mechanical decomposition, not the interpretation of the mysterious combination of grace with what we call the matter of the sacrament, in a word, not the denial of its essence as a sacrament, but, on the contrary, recognition of its necessity and its significance (Note by I.K.). I foresee an objection, but I will keep silent about it for the time being, although the answer to it is ready. (Note by I.K.). Print. in "Historical" description of the Kozelskaya Optina Hermitage", 1902, p. 182. Print. ibid., p. 175. Print. ibid., p. 198. Print. ibid., p. 183. Print. ibid., p. 185. Print. in "Historical" description of the Kozelskaya Optina Hermitage" 1902, p. 196. From the original. It was published in Rus. Arch. 1907 book. 1. You might be interested in: