Личность

At the beginning of the 17th century, the Belevsky nobleman Vasily Semenovich Kireyevsky 1 was awarded for being a siege - receiving his Dolbino estate (seven miles from the Tula city of Belev, within the Kaluga province) as his patrimony. This laid the foundation for a strong noble nest, which the descendants of Vasily Semenovich owned for more than one century. From that branch of the family of Vasily Semenovich Kireyevsky, which merged with Dolbin, came the “ever memorable” Kireyevsky brothers, famous in the history of Russia in the 19th century, the elder Ivan Vasilyevich - the founder of the so-called Slavophilism in our country - whose life and teaching form the subject of the proposed essay, and the younger Peter Vasilyevich, an expert on Russian history and a collector of Russian folk songs. In the Kireevsky pedigree, certain details are of significant importance for our Kireevsky, which we need to note before moving on to the facts and persons of the family from which he directly came. Namely: one of the ancestors of Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky, the son of the above-mentioned Vasily Semenovich Ivan Vasilyevich, ended his life as a monk in the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, another ancestor of our Kireevsky Ivan Ivanovich, the son of the just named Ivan Vasilyevich, declared himself as an opponent of Peter the Great’s reform: in the notes 2 left by Ivan Ivanovich, there were Peter the Great was reproached, under whom Ivan Ivanovich had to sacrifice his beard for the success of European enlightenment. These facts of the Kireevsky family tree were later resurrected in the personality of Ivan Vasilyevich, in his deep interest in ascetic literature and in his view of the “character of the enlightenment of Europe.” Of course, Ivan Vasilyevich could have inherited the same features of his spiritual appearance from his father Vasily Ivanovich (1773–1812), who (he was the great-grandson of the above-mentioned Ivan Ivanovich) in many ways, as we will see, resembled his great-grandfathers. Now let’s see in what kind of everyday life and in what kind of people the early years of I.V. Kireevsky took place. Kireevsky's father, having married sixteen-year-old Avdotya Petrovna Yushkova in 1805, lived partly in Moscow, where Ivan Vasilyevich was born, but mainly in his family Dolbina. At the end of the seventies of the last century, the Dolbino estate existed in approximately the same form as it was arranged by Vasily Ivanovich. The surviving stories 3 about the Kireevsky estate depict a luxurious landowner's environment: many outbuildings, magnificent gardens and a large house on a high foundation, with marble cladding of the walls inside. Kireevsky, in addition, owned other possessions in the provinces: Oryol, Tula, Tver and Vladimir. 4 Vasily Ivanovich Kireevsky, however, had little need for all this landowner luxury. Despite his material wealth and the conditions of military service (Vasily Ivanovich served in his youth and retired as a second major), Kireevsky led a very modest life. Vasily Ivanovich, more than life, so to speak, practical, was occupied by various areas of knowledge. The library left by Kireyevsky's father testified to his love of reading; In addition, speaking five languages, Vasily Ivanovich translated and published novels in his youth, and finally composed a little himself. 5 To what extent Vasily Ivanovich was not a man of ordinary, practical life, and to what extent he was characterized by intellectual interests, this is sufficiently evidenced by his naive behavior when, after his marriage, he lived for some time in Moscow for the birth of his wife. Vasily Ivanovich was absent from home for days on end, without making any business orders, for example, without leaving any money to spend on numerous household chores, so that Avdotya Petrovna (who was also too young) sometimes literally did not know what to do, and returned late (after sitting somewhere in a bookstore) with a lot of broken china, or with a bunch of books. 6 Vasily Ivanovich was especially interested in natural sciences. He studied physics, chemistry and medicine. Vasily Ivanovich used his knowledge in medicine in practice, successfully helping patients. 7 There is information that Kireevsky’s interest in natural science had a sort of mystical connotation. Once Vasily Ivanovich called chemistry “divine science” to his son Ivan and convinced Ivan Vasilyevich to take up it. To P.I. Bartenov, who heard about this fact personally from Ivan Vasilyevich, this designation of chemistry as a “divine science” even gave reason to conclude that V.I-ch was “a like-minded person of Novikov in Freemasonry.” 8 But, in any case, there is no doubt that Vasily Ivanovich, with all his love for natural science (V. I-ch even had his own laboratory), retained a completely pious (more on this below) way of thinking. In particular, medicine could have interested Kireevsky as a means of alleviating the plight of his neighbors, and V. I-ch’s passion for this science only speaks, in addition to scientific interest, about V. I-ch’s kind heart. Vasily Ivanovich, indeed, was distinguished by his extraordinary kindness. He could not be otherwise with his sensitive soul. Vasily Ivanovich’s kindness, even sentimentality, is evidenced, by the way, by his rhetorical, tender praise of his native Dolbin, which opens the pages of one of Vasily Ivanovich’s notebooks. In these books, sewn from thick blue paper (there were two of these left after V. I-ch), V. I-ch entered the most varied content. There are business notes about farming and rural life, extracts from various poetic and prose works, and finally, one’s own literary experiences and memories. These notes portray Vasily Ivanovich as a man of a noble soul. For example, in a draft petition addressed to the Tsar, Vasily Ivanovich proposes means to combat epidemic diseases. Vasily Ivanovich does not miss the opportunity to lecture himself in his notes for this or that offense. One day he reproaches himself for scolding the servant, another time he admits to injustice towards the peasant, whom he forbade to go to the meadow. Available in the notes of V. I-cha and such words, where his soul, gripped by a thirst for something higher on earth, expressed itself with a peculiar lyricism: “Oh, the truth, the truth! Where do you shine? Illuminate us with your brilliance! Clouds hide your face from us, darkness separates us from you. God! Tear the veil that separates us from the truth, let us see it in all its splendor! It is difficult, oh difficult, to find a person on whom you can fairly rely.” 9 In V.I-che himself there was this truth, which he did not find around him. The attitude of V. I-cha towards his peasants, who were not familiar with corporal punishment 10 and the treatment of whom by the landowner was the most simple, humane, clearly showed what kind of person he was, who alone cried out in his blue notebooks for the truth. Obviously, tirades like the one above were not a play of idle imagination for V.I., but were a genuine expression of his moral essence. Vasily Ivanovich, according to his basic convictions, was a deeply religious and moral person. This is exactly how various facts from his life, everyday and special, portray him. V. I-ch could not stand French godless literature - the encyclopedists and Voltaire, whose works he bought in Moscow with the sole purpose of destroying them by burning them. 11 Church services were often held in Vasily Ivanovich’s house: prayer services, vespers, all-night vigils, “mephimons” and services of Holy Week. At the same time, part of the servants in Kireyevsky’s house - literate - (there were plenty of them in his house) formed a choir and - sang in the “old tune”, according to the taste of Vasily Ivanovich, who did not like new tunes in church. Attachment to the old generally distinguished Kireyevsky and manifested itself in him in different forms and shapes, down to the smallest detail. for example, V. I-ch did not want to change his hairstyles, which had gone out of fashion, and wore a bun at the back of his head. But the same connection with tradition was evident in V. I-cha in the most important thing, in V. I-cha’s attitude to religion. In Dolbina, religious life generally occupied a prominent place. The Dolbino Church was famous in the area for its miraculous icon of the Dormition of the Mother of God. For the holiday in honor of this icon, many people flocked to the village. Usually, not far from the church, a fair was held with the sale of all kinds of village goods. There was only one thing he could not allow to be sold at the Dolbino festival, V. I., intoxicated, and on this issue he always had arguments with the tax farmer, which ended not in favor of the latter. Order during the entire rural celebration was therefore exemplary, so there was no need for the police and, indeed, they were not present. Vasily Ivanovich tried in every possible way to enhance the solemnity of the moment. On the eve of the holiday, tar barrels were burning on the road to Dolbin, and on the very day of the Assumption, the wide alleys near the church were decorated with lanterns and bowls, and fireworks were also displayed. Showing attention to religious celebrations and generally being devoted to religion, V. I-ch, naturally, did not allow anything offending religious feelings to come to his village. On Christmas days, courtyard servants came to the landowner, “dressed up” with roosters, bears, Baba Yaga with a broom, etc., while the “guslist” (passed to Kireevsky by inheritance and only for this reason was tolerated by V. I.) played on the piano, and the valet V. I. acted as Aesopus, that is, he read fables with his own additions. But without prohibiting to a certain extent, a joke to his people, V. I-ch did not allow him to overstep the boundaries in this matter. When one day a man in bishop’s vestments appeared among the entire above-mentioned audience and, having placed a lectern, intended to deliver a sermon, Vasily Ivanovich ordered the speaker to immediately leave. In the same way, V. I-ch was strict in matters of morality. Soon after his marriage, Governor Yakovlev, who was touring the province, came to him. The governor's carriage with several chaises loaded with numerous servants drove up to the porch of the Dolbino house. Among the governor's retinue, by the way, was his beloved. Kireevsky did not allow her into his house and the governor, who was awaiting a reception, had to leave Dolbino. V. I-ch discovered the same severity when he had to be a judge in the district. In his relations with the defendants, V. I-ch was very strict, but fair, and he said to officials: “Neglect in office is guilt before God.” 12 In all the facts we cited to characterize V. I-cha, attention is drawn to, firstly, the agreement of V. I-cha’s life with his beliefs (we will verify this again below), and secondly, V. I-cha’s loyalty to the views inherited by tradition. These traits were also characteristic of the sons of V. I-cha; in particular, Ivan Vasilyevich showed them not only in life, but also in his teaching. V. I-cha’s personal influence on his son did not last long. Ivan Vasilyevich was born in 1806 on March 22. In 1807, V. I-ch was elected to the squad leaders during the first militia. In the winter, V. I-ch taught marching to his warriors in the large hall of the Dolbino house, and in the spring, when all the warriors of the Kaluga province were supposed to gather in Mosalsk, he went there with his own and V. I-ch, but soon returned, as news was received about the conclusion of the Tilsit peace. Later, when Napoleon was expected to move along the Moscow road and the Kaluga residents feared for their well-being, V.I-ch invited his relatives, the Yushkovs, who lived near Dolbino, in Mishenskoye (Tula province), to go with him and his family to Oryol province, to Ek. Af. Protasova, 13, in order to go somewhere safer with E.A. It turned out that the Yushkovs went to Moscow alone, and Protasova, when Kireevsky arrived to her, refused to leave her village 14 and convinced V. I-cha to stay in the Oryol province, where the Kireevskys had a small estate - Kireevskaya Slobodka. IN. I-ch transports his family to Orel, and he himself, since the war was already in full swing, set to work - caring for the wounded. Kireyevsky put the city hospital in order, which he found in disarray, 15 and turned his houses in Kireyevskaya Slobodka and Orel into a haven for those fleeing the enemy and into hospitals. V.I-ch tried equally to help both the Russians and the enemies, whom he also immediately tried to convert to religion. 16 These Christian deeds, which complete the image of V. I-cha for us, ended his life. V. I-ch contracted typhus in the hospital, from which he died on November 1, 1812, “on the day of remembrance of the unmercenary doctors Cosmas and Damian,” as one biographer adds. 17 In view of the short-lived direct influence of V. I-cha on his son, even under the condition of the latter’s very early development, it should be recognized that the characteristic personality traits of the father were passed on to the son primarily by inheritance, and then they developed and strengthened in the latter thanks to the influences that V. I-cha’s personality left in the family atmosphere, 18 and also thanks to the influence of the mother and V. A. Zhukovsky. In general, it should be said that Ivan Vasilyevich in childhood and adolescence was under more or less homogeneous influences: this will be evident from what follows. I. V-cha’s mother, Avdotya Petrovna, 19, as already mentioned, came from the Yushkov family. The Yushkov family belonged to the most enlightened nobility of that time. A. P.'s father, P. N. Yushkov, was in correspondence with Lavater, his mother, Varvara Afanasyevna (nee Bunina), was also an educated woman who knew literature and languages ​​well. Avdotya Petrovna was brought up in an intellectual and literary atmosphere: in the Yushkov house they closely followed literary novelties, artists and musicians gathered. But of particular significance for A. P-na and her sisters was the presence in their family of V. A. Zhukovsky, who was initially brought up together with the Yushkov sisters 20 and spent his best young years in their company. 21 Zhukovsky himself owed a lot, in the sense of the development of his character and in the sense of the development of his poetic gift, 22 to his stay in the company of the Yushkovs, but at the same time his own influence on his nieces was also significant. It was thanks to Zhukovsky that a whole center of sentimental-romantic mood later formed in his circle of people related to him (the Yushkovs, the Protasovs). During his studies at the Noble boarding school, Zhukovsky returned to his homeland for the holidays and could here propagate among his nieces the sentimental and moral ideas learned at the Noble boarding school, as well as in the Turgenev circle 23 to which he was close. At the same time, Avdotya Petrovna turned out to be especially sympathetic to Zhukovsky, in her mood and life views. There is no doubt, judging partly from the correspondence that existed between them, that Zhukovsky influenced A. P-well - like her sisters - in the development of beliefs. In parallel with this influence, Zhukovsky acted as a teacher. Under his leadership, Avdotya Petrovna studied literature and German. Then periodic trips to Moscow, to visit her grandmother, M. G. Bunina, only continued and developed what Avdotya Petrovna received through her upbringing in the family and in Zhukovsky’s society. A. P. met in her grandmother’s house the same Turgenev family, to whom Zhukovsky was close, and from the numerous governesses in M. G. Bunina’s house she learned the French language well and learned French literature. It is clear that a woman who grew up in these circumstances could contribute something valuable to her own family, provided that the atmosphere around her did not pass without a trace for her. Avdotya Petrovna, indeed, acquired, in addition to mental and literary development, also a skill for the corresponding work. According to the biographer, she “from an early age acquired the habit of replacing women’s handicrafts with reading, making notes, and generally working at a desk.” A. P-na, even in her youth, had a thorough knowledge of literature, Russian and foreign, knew languages, and translated. Almost all of Kotzebue’s plays, which were popular on the Russian stage at the beginning of the 19th century, were translated by Avdotya Petrovna in collaboration with the sisters. A. P. helped Zhukovsky with translations and correspondence when he published “Bulletin of Europe” in 1808 and 1809. “Translating and writing,” says the biographer, “was a necessity for her; all her long life she either copied something in her beautiful, even handwriting, or translated from foreign languages, or drew.” 24 Consequently, Ivan Vasilyevich, already in the early years of his life, was under the influence of his mother, which contributed not only to mental development, but also to literary and artistic talent. 25 Avdotya Petrovna’s influence on her son could be very significant and, moreover, could pass through Ivan Vasilyevich’s entire life, and therefore, looking ahead a little, we will note everything in this wonderful woman that was reflected in the personality of her son. First of all, as can be seen from what has already been said, Avdotya Petrovna was a bearer of mental culture for her family. The entire biography of A. P-na speaks for this, being a noticeable link not only in the life history of her sons, but also in the history of Russian society. Avdotya Petrovna Elagina was a prominent personality in the intellectual life of Moscow from the 20s to the 40s, that is, in one of the most interesting eras in the history of Russian society. In the writings and biography of more than one major figure in the intellectual life of Russia one can find the name of Avdotya Petrovna (Koshelev, Kavelin, Herzen and many others). Distinguished by the breadth of her intellectual interests, she united in her salon various representatives of literature and society, influenced many and, according to one of her admirers, “participated in the movement of Russian literature and Russian thought more than many writers and scientists by profession.” 26 All these services of Avdotya Petrovna to the Russian enlightenment received, shortly before Avdotya Petrovna’s death, official recognition and confirmation, so to speak, in her election as an honorary member of the “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature.” - Of course, A. P-na could not remain indifferent to the direction of the mental life of her sons: she closely followed this life and took part in it. Among the numerous translations of A. P-na, mostly unpublished 27, there were those that had some relation to the development of the views of her sons. Thus, A. P.’s translation of Bonshoz’s book “The Life of Huss” could be of interest to the Slavic 28 sympathies of the Kireyevskys (the translation was made at the time when the Slavophile sympathies of I. and P. Kireyevsky were being determined), the translation of the conversations of the Genevan preacher Vinet, 29 whose writings A. P. was very interested in, could have had significance for the religious beliefs of both Kireyevsky and, according to one biographer, and Khomyakov and Koshelev. But the significance of A. P-na for her family (of course, and for everyone on whom she influenced) was only mental in the formal meaning of the word. Coming from the nest of the sentimental-romantic movement, Zhukovsky’s friend A. P-na could not be satisfied exclusively with intellectual interests, but inevitably paid attention to the life of the heart. “Improving science,” she once wrote, “is not the main thing; the mind is the second department of the soul, you need to improve the soul and not let it fall.” 30 Just as Zhukovsky’s romantic worldview was imbued with religious and moral ideas, the same features characterize the views of A. P-ny. In part, this was already evident from what was said above about A. P.’s interest in Vinay’s sermons. And in general, in the field of literature, she had her favorite authors: Rousseau, Massilion 31, Fenelon 32 and others. All this best suited A.’s religious and moral interests. P-ny, which, according to the biographer 33, prevailed along with her artistic interests over everything else, so that, for example, political and social issues interested A. P-nu exclusively from the humane side. Avdotya Petrovna owed this direction of her interests not only to her upbringing in the family, the influence of Zhukovsky, but also to her husband, Vasily Ivanovich, who read serious books with her, in particular the Bible, and, according to another biographer 34, “completed her moral education” and “established her in the rules of strict piety.” This biographer gives the following characterization of Avdotya Petrovna’s personality from the side that interests us: “Closely acquainted with Western writers and philosophers, she assimilated their best sides, and she herself remained a completely Orthodox Christian, in all the breadth of this word. Her mind comprehended various shades of philosophical and theological teachings, but loyalty to our church statutes was not an empty ritual for her. Until the end of her life, already completely decrepit and barely able to move her legs, she always kept fasts, attended God’s Church and raised all her children in this spirit.” Thus, I. V-cha’s mother could influence her son not only by introducing into the family a tradition of mental culture, very important for the development of a literary figure, but also by introducing a tradition of moral outlook, no less important for the formation of a future Russian thinker. After the death of his father, I. V-ch was brought up under the influence of his mother and V. A. Zhukovsky. After the death of her husband, Avdotya Petrovna spent about two years with her aunt Ek. A. Protasova in Muratov; Zhukovsky arrived here, leaving the militia due to illness. 35 On the estate of the Protasovs and their neighbors the Pleshcheevs, in Cherni, an educated literary society was then formed. The center of attention was V. A. Zhukovsky, a well-known poet already at that time, the author of “The Singer in the Camp of Russian Warriors.” The society - it included the Pleshcheevs 36 , the Protasovs 37 , educated prisoners and other persons - organized literary evenings, practiced music, and staged plays. By the way, here in Muratov, little I.V. Kireevsky discovered extraordinary abilities in playing chess, successfully beating captured officers, so that the captured General Bonamy 38 did not risk playing with him, but only watched the game with interest. The Kireyevskys remained in Muratov until Muratov society began to get upset and disperse. The younger Protasova married the writer Voeikov and had to go to Derit, V. A. Zhukovsky began to have strained relations with E. A. Protasova and, in the middle of 1814, Avdotya Petrovna moved with her family to Dolbino, where Zhukovsky (who sold his small estate not far from Muratov) temporarily settled. 39 For Ivan Vasilyevich Dolbino was, in terms of the atmosphere of literary and intellectual interests, a continuation of Muratov. In Dolbina, Zhukovsky wrote many poems, and usually in the evenings V.A. read them, as well as his other works, in the circle of the Kireevsky family. But what was especially important, of course, both in Muratov and in Dolbina, was the presence of Zhukovsky’s personality in the Kireevsky family. Zhukovsky could not help but have, even then, a very noticeable effect on the soul of the impressionable Ivan Vasilyevich. This action could consist in the fact that Zhukovsky, by his very presence, could bring to life the natural inclinations of I. V-cha, the inclinations of deep feeling, religiosity, in general, that idealistic mood that always distinguished Kireyevsky. One can say even more: having before him the image of Zhukovsky, whose idealism of mood permeated his life, and feeling the poetic structure of his soul, I. V-ch received very early a valuable grain for his future philosophical teaching about integral life and integral knowledge. With Dolbin, Kireyevsky’s more or less systematic mental education began. I. V-ch, first of all, could find here the books left by his father: I. V-ch began to develop very early and Vasily Ivanovich’s library was available to him. For ten years Kireevsky was well acquainted with Russian and French literature; the early manifestation of a strong thought also allowed him, even in adolescence, to read books of scientific and philosophical content. By the way, a book that was in the use of I. V-cha, an essay by the freemason Lopukhin 41, has been preserved: “Some features about the inner church, about the single path of truth and about various paths of error and death, with the addition of a brief image of the qualities and positions of a true Christian,” with the following inscriptions: “From the author in memory of sincere respect” and - “To dear Vanyusha for his kind heart from a true friend of his grandmother, 1814, February 20." The date with which grandmother’s gift is marked indicates that I. V. is less than eight years old. 42 And it is already undoubtedly known that in Dolbina I. V-ch read the works of Locke and Helvetius, which was, however, somewhat later, when I. V-ch was older and when he had a leader in philosophical reading in the person of A. A. Elagin. - Then, with the move to Dolbino, the question of teachers for I. V-cha and his brother was raised. Apparently, it was initially assumed 43 that Zhukovsky himself could be the Kireyevskys’ mentor. But this plan did not succeed, since in 1815 V. A-ch left Dolbino and went to Dorpat, where the Protasov family moved, and then he was soon assigned to St. Petersburg. Zhukovsky also failed to find a teacher for the Kireevskys to replace himself, although when he was in Dorpat, Zhukovsky negotiated with suitable people on this matter. While these negotiations were being conducted by Avdotya Petrovna, the German Wagner was taken to the children, who had come to buy the plant 44, but remained as an uncle of the Kireevskys. In 1817, an event occurred in the Kireyevsky family that clearly reflected on the course of Ivan Vasilyevich’s mental life. This year, on July 4, Avdotya Petrovna married her second cousin Alexei Andreevich Elagin. Elagin was a man with broad intellectual interests, in particular with a significant interest in philosophy. At first A. A-ch was an admirer of Kant, whose “Critique of Pure Reason” he took from his campaigns abroad. Having become acquainted through Vellansky with the philosophy of the then fashionable Schelling, Elagin became interested in this philosophy and, while living in the village, translated Schelling’s letters about dogmatism and criticism. Under the influence of A. A. Elagin, the previous literary evenings in Dolbino were replaced by philosophical conversations, which meant a lot to Ivan Vasilyevich in terms of acquiring knowledge in philosophy. By that time, Kireevsky’s general education had moved forward significantly. I. V-ch knew German well, mathematics, and read a large number of historical books. 45 No doubt under the influence of stepfather I. V-ch began to study the works of Locke and Helvetius when he was approximately a fifteen-year-old boy. Unfortunately, given the paucity of information about this period of Kireevsky’s mental development, it is difficult to imagine a complete picture of I. V-cha’s passion for philosophy during the Dolbin period, but we have a little – but valuable – information about this. Already in the early 30s, in a letter to A.I. Koshelev, Ivan Vasilyevich characterized his former passion for Helvetius as follows: “About Helvetius, I think I myself would have the same opinion as you if I had read it now, but ten 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 to be an inaccurate word, because it could mean patriotism and 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. Moreover, the example of his own life contradicts accusations of immorality.” 46 From this recognition, made even after “ten years,” we see what attracted Kireyevsky to philosophy. Obviously, already in his early youth he was attracted by the high ideal of goodness, and he sometimes searched for this ideal even where it may not have been given in its pure form. It is also clear that the ideal was not presented to Kireevsky in the abstract, but quite concretely; in this regard, it is also characteristic that I. V-ch sees a guarantee for the sublimity of the ideas of a famous author in the personality of this very author. In the future we will have to return to what was just said now, in passing, about the personality of Kireyevsky. Now it is enough just to state that I. V-cha’s living, sublime striving for the ideal of good, which was revealed in him very early, was undoubtedly the result of those influences at the very beginning of his life and in the years of transition to adolescence, which we noted above. At the beginning and throughout the twenties, the Elagins and Kireevskys lived in Moscow; this was caused mainly by the need to complete the education of the Kireyevskys. In Moscow, Ivan Vasilyevich and Pyotr Vasilyevich took private lessons from professors at Moscow University: Merzlyakov, Tsvetaev, Chumakov, Snegirev (I.M.) 47 I. V-ch also listened to public lectures by Prof. M. G. Pavlov on agriculture, in which Pavlov developed the main provisions of Schellingism. At the professors' lessons, Ivan Vasilyevich met with a later prominent figure in the Slavophil movement, Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev. 48 The friendly relations that began with Iv. Cha in the early twenties and with other talented young people were much more important for the formation of his worldview than the lessons of professors. The (higher) nobility of that time had only a purely external relationship to the university and the university could not, of course, have a noticeable moral influence on this class, especially through private professorial lessons. 49 Ivan Vasilyevich, like many young men of that time from the upper class, was prepared by university professors to pass the university exam established in 1809 to enter the civil service. During the preparation for the exam, I. V-ch, by the way, studied languages: Greek, Latin, English, and from the sciences he was interested in political economy. The predominant interests for young people of that time were philosophical and literary interests. Ivan Vasilyevich’s sympathies were directed in this direction after he passed the above-mentioned exam in 1822 and entered the service in the Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1824. 50 The society that surrounded I. V-cha in Moscow fully contributed to the development of Kireevsky’s literary aspirations and philosophical sympathies. Already from Dolbin, I. V-ch came to Moscow familiar with philosophy and in particular with Schelling, who in Moscow in the early twenties began to become popular. 51 At the same time, a revival began in the field of Russian literature with the appearance of the first works of Pushkin. Ivam Vasilievich, as stated, listened to lectures by the Schellingian Pavlov, who undoubtedly influenced the educated youth of that time, getting them interested in philosophy. Then, I. V-ch - thanks to his service in the Archive - met many young talented people who later received one or another significance in literature, in public life or in philosophy. Finally, the Elagins’ house itself, in Moscow, became a meeting place for the most educated Moscow society. I. V. Kireevsky found himself at the center of the intellectual life of Moscow, and thanks to his talents and education, he soon became not only a prominent figure in the trends that were then emerging in Moscow society, but also a prominent exponent of one of these trends in literature. The mental life of educated Moscow society at that time found its focus not in the official centers of intellectual life, but in circles of educated people: in salons and circles of educated youth. The most prominent salons in Moscow in the twenties were the Elagin salons (which also functioned in the thirties and forties) and Zin. Volkonskaya. 52 At first, the salons were dominated mainly by aesthetic interests. Those who gathered in the salon read literary works, staged performances, etc. Somewhat later, the physiognomy of the salons changed; many quite serious subjects were introduced here in the form of philosophical and social issues. This more serious material gradually penetrated into the everyday life of Moscow society thanks to the intellectual life in circles of a completely serious direction that arose among educated youth. In 1823, a literary circle (partly philosophical) of Rajic was formed in Moscow. “We have compiled,” wrote M. P. Pogodin, book. Golitsyna – Society of Friends. We meet twice a week. We read our works and translations. We are supposed, by the way, to translate all the Greek and Roman classics and translate the best books on education from all languages, and Plato, Demosthenes and Titus Livy have already begun.” 53 Raich’s company, by the way, included: S.P. Shevyrev, who had just completed his university course, V.P. Titov, later a prominent diplomat, Vl. F. Odoevsky and many others. etc.; Rajic's society did not have a certain character. Perhaps as a result of this last reason, among the same people who were part of the Raich society, another society was formed, with a more definite direction, namely philosophical - the Society of Liubomy. This society met secretly 54, partly perhaps because philosophy was then persecuted in Russia, but on the other hand, perhaps this was done with the aim of imparting mystery to the pursuit of philosophy, in which the participants in the meetings believed very much. The chairman of the “Society of Liubomudiya” was Vl. F. Odoevsky, a famous Russian thinker and fiction writer, members are D. Venevitinov (Secretary of the Society), I. Kireevsky, Koshelev 55 and N. M. Rozhalin 56. The named persons formed, as it were, the core of the Society, others, to a greater or lesser extent, adjoined it - such as V. P. Titov, later a prominent diplomat, N. A. Melgunov, a writer and musician. critic, S.P. Shevyrev, Pogodin, etc. Of course, not all of them, even at that time (i.e., when the Society existed), could well fit under the banner of Lubosomy, but there is no doubt that the Society of Liubomudiya was an expression of the corresponding mood in society - in the broad sense of the word; in the Society of Lyubomudry itself there were, as it turned out later, very few typical lyubomudrov, but I.V. Kireevsky should undoubtedly be counted among these few. Unfortunately, the minutes of the meetings of the Society of Lyubomudiya have not reached us. From these protocols one could clearly see what the main interests of the wise men were. But partly from the memoirs of the wise men themselves, partly from their literary activity 57 we can judge the essence of their direction. The circle of wise men 58, as its very name shows, dealt with philosophy. “German Philosophy reigned here,” says Koshelev, i.e. Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Oken, Görres 59 and others. Here we sometimes read our philosophical works; but most often and for the most part we talked about the works of the German philosophers that we had read.” As can be seen from the memoirs of the same Koshelev, the wise men were primarily occupied with issues of an epistemological nature 60 ; and from other sources we can see that of all the named thinkers, the wise men rated Schelling especially highly. The basis for the latter conclusion is provided by the works of such a prominent philosopher as Vl. F. Odoevsky 61 and short prose works by D. V. Venevitinov 62 read by him in the collections of the Society of Liubomudiya. In Schelling, both were attracted by the unification of poetry with philosophy, the expansion of the sphere of knowledge through the admission of the activity of feeling into it. This sympathy for Schelling reflected one of the characteristic features of the romance that dominated at that time abroad and here. All Western European romantics fought for feeling against reason: F. Schlegel, Tieck, Novalis, Chateaubriand, etc., and here we have: Venevitinov, Vl. F. Odoevsky, I. Kireevsky and others. The desire to create for ourselves an integral worldview, defined in its main features by the romantic trends of the era, made Schelling’s philosophy the last word of wisdom for our wise men. Aesthetics, which plays such a prominent role in Schelling’s philosophy, fell unusually into the hearts of people who were as much thinkers as poets. But we would misunderstand our wise men if we considered them only followers of Schelling. Of course, in their aesthetics 63 and epistemology, the Schellingian and generally romantic coloring is very noticeable, their view of things, of the entire universe, is imbued with Schellingianism, but one cannot help but see in them some peculiar refraction of the ideas of romantic philosophy. This refraction was later experienced by Hegel’s philosophy in our country, and in all these cases this refraction consisted in the fact that the Russian mind introduced some subjectivism into the understanding of German philosophy. The Russian mind is usually understood as realistic in its ideological aspirations and ethical in its principles. This property of the structure of Russian thought was revealed in all Russian thinkers, and it was also revealed in the hobbies of Russian people with Western philosophy. 64 In particular, the circle of wise men did not isolate themselves in the sphere of abstract interests alone. The very passion for philosophy signified that people who were passionate about it had certain living interests. In the memoirs of contemporaries, the mood of the educated youth of that time is depicted in sympathetic terms: “there was never any talk between us about modern gossip, about speculation on literature and life, or even about how to make a career. But the mental, ideal life, the study of the eternal problems of the world were in full swing... German philosophy was especially interesting to everyone and was the subject of heated judgments. They wanted to explain to themselves its provisions and applications, because philosophy gives a view of everything and is reflected in all human actions.” 65 For a more complete idea of ​​what our wisdom was, you can turn to the works of Vl. F. Odoevsky, who in them more fully than others, and most importantly specifically, expressed the ideals of philosophy. From the works of Odoevsky it is clear that wise men are not only theorists who are passionate about philosophy, but also people who strive to develop well-known living ideals 66 and have these ideals. In numerous stories by Odoevsky from the 20s, we encounter a type of wisdom very similar to living people of that time. Odoevsky's lyubomud (for example, his beloved Arist 67), endowed with the undoubted autobiographical features of the author himself, is a person who lives primarily by mental needs, wholly devoted to the interests of knowledge, but he is also an idealist in the broad sense of the word, he is outraged by all kinds of everyday vulgarity, his moral and practical demands on life are very high. This is precisely how the task of philosophy was understood by the true philosophers, who did not waste their ideals even later, when their idealistic youth had already passed. I.V. Kireevsky, as his subsequent history shows, was a true wise man 68; in the twenties he was a typical wise man, like Venevitinov and especially Odoevsky. I. V-ch was very interested in philosophy, and probably in the meetings of the Society of Liubomudiya, where D. Venevitinov especially amazed listeners with his gift of words, Kireevsky also played a noticeable role, at least in the memoirs of his contemporaries he is depicted as tireless in dialectics and words. 69 As we will see below, I. V-ch coincided with other wise men both in the beginnings of some social views and in the general idealistic direction. But we already know about all this from sources dating back to the time after the closure of the Society of Liubomudiya in 1825: the first letters that have reached us from I.V. K-go date back to 1826–27, and the first printed works to 1828. The Society of Lyubomudry was closed - its members themselves and its protocols were destroyed after the December events in St. Petersburg, 1825. The society, on the one hand, was afraid of incurring the suspicion of the authorities 70, on the other hand, it decided to cease to exist in view of the fact that the attention of its members was now focused on political events. 71 Apparently, some of the members of the Society found that their philosophical studies were far from life and decided to change their chosen path. In 1826, three of the wise men, Vl. F. Odoevsky, Vensvitinov and Koshelev moved to St. Petersburg with the aim of taking up service. Friends were waiting for Kireevsky in St. Petersburg, finding his position inactive and even insignificant. 72 – I. V-ch at this time was busy with questions that had always been of main interest to Kireyevsky. If even earlier, as we saw, he was occupied with thoughts about universal happiness, about virtue (when I. V-ch read Helvetius), then so it was now. In a letter to A. A. Elagin (stepfather) in August 1826, I. V-ch wrote: “... if I were to write to you about what I think about, and the way I want, then I would not write to you about you, nor about me, nor about ours, but I would write to you about the highest happiness, about the means to our common achievement of this, about self-improvement 73, pp. j. And even earlier, in June, A.I. Koshelev wrote to Ivan Vasilyevich: “I look forward to reading your essay on Virtue. The subject is still little processed from the point at which (you) put it on transcendental idealism, the only Love of Wisdom that can develop in us the thought of good.” 74 Kireyevsky, as we learn from his own letter (to Koshelev in 1827), decided to educate himself all his life and devote himself to literary and social activities. Obviously, in contrast to some of his comrades - the wise men, he felt a calling within himself to public teaching - not to public work, in the practical sense, but to the dissemination of the ideas of love wisdom through literary means. “If,” wrote I. V-ch in the same letter to Koshelev, “before birth, fate asked me: which of the two do you want to choose? or to be born a warrior, to live in constant dangers, to constantly struggle with obstacles, and without knowing rest, the reward for all your labors is to have one consciousness that you are moving towards a high goal... or to spend a calm age, in the circle of a peaceful family, where one minute smoothes out the other and each one greets you equally satisfied... I would not have thought about the choice... But unfortunately, fate did not consult with me... what field can I choose in life?... To serve - but for what purpose? Can I bring significant benefit to the fatherland in my service?.. Do not think that I have forgotten that I am Russian and did not consider myself obligated to act for the good of my fatherland. No! all my strength is devoted to him. But it seems to me that outside of work I can be more useful to him than spending all my time on service. I can be a writer, but isn’t helping to educate the people the greatest benefit that can be done to them? I spent my youth not in vain, and now I can usefully share my information. But having spent my whole life with the main goal of education, how can I not have weight in literature? I will have it, and give literature its direction. In addition: I have four brothers, to whom nature has not denied abilities. All of them will be writers... What won't we do together?... We will return the rights of true religion, we will agree gracefully with morality, we will arouse love for truth and we will elevate the purity of life above the purity of style. Here are my plans for the future. 75 Schelling's philosophy, satisfying the needs of a holistic view of the entire totality of life, also affected historical life, illuminating (schematically) the meaning of the past, present and future of nationalities. If in general the pursuit of philosophy contributed to the clarification of our epistemological, ethical and aesthetic views, then in particular Schellingism (as later Hegelianism) awakened in Russian minds socio-historical questions regarding their people and fatherland. Above, we briefly noted the thoughts of our wise men about originality, flashed in Mnemosyne, but in this magazine, which soon ceased to exist, the idea of ​​originality was expressed mainly in application to literature. In another magazine, which also appeared among the wise, in the Moskovsky Vestnik, the same idea was developed in relation to history. 76 Particularly interesting is the program 77 of this magazine, set out by one of the wise men, Venevitinov. The task of the magazine should have been to promote the original development of the Russian mind, because for every nation, education must develop from the beginning of the “domestic” and only in this case it is useful, both for its state and for all humanity. It is especially interesting that the author of the magazine plan, recognizing the people as individuals by analogy with an individual human personality, and the goal of the development of the people, recognizes self-knowledge, which is the goal of the individual, and defines enlightenment as an expression of moral efforts aimed at self-knowledge. This connection between personal and social problems, the understanding of social problems from the point of view of the moral interests of the individual, is characteristic of the subsequent development of Russian thought, just as another feature noted above is characteristic of it, the combination of abstract philosophical interests with moral interests. 78 Kireevsky in the second half of the 20s, if not in print, then still publicly, made a statement, albeit in a fictional form, of his thoughts about Russia. In 1827, at an evening with Z. A. Volkonskaya, I. V. read the essay “Tsaritsyn Night.” 79 The interest of this small work for Kireevsky’s spiritual biography lies in the fact that “Tsaritsyn’s Night” illustrates the author’s mood, similar to that which he expressed in a letter to Koshelev and which, obviously, coincided with the aspirations of some wise men. Kireevsky’s views had not yet been fully determined, but a general impulse had already matured in the author’s soul: he was occupied by the thought of Russia in connection with the question of the life and fate of man. These are the questions asked in “Tsaritsyn Night” by the participants of the cavalcade, which night found two miles from Tsaritsyn: “Having untied the wide boat, the friends set off for a walk along the smooth pond. Silence, a moonlit night, the rocking of the boat, the uniform strokes of the oars, the musical splashing of water, the freshness of the air, the darkly poetic view of the surrounding garden - all this tuned their souls to a heartfelt conversation, and a heartfelt conversation, as usually happened between them, led to dreams about the future, about the purpose of man, about the mysteries of art and life, about their own fate and, finally, about the fate of Russia. Each of them still lived in hope, and Russia was the favorite subject of their conversations, the knot of their union.” In the essay “Tsaritsyn Night” there are even individual touches that give a Slavophile tint to Kireevsky’s mood - in any case, showing that even then (in 1827) his gaze was turning to the past of Russia and was looking for something there: “Do you really think,” asks one of the persons depicted in “Tsaritsyn Night,” Vladimir, “that by moving into the past, you can completely abandon the current moment. And when it was possible, should it? Only relationships to us give meaning and value to those around us, and therefore the present alone warms history for us. “Yes,” Cherny responds to this speech, “for whom the past does not warm the present.” In the same year, when Ivan Vasilyevich read “Tsaritsyn Night” at Volkonskaya’s party, M.P. Pogodin, having once visited Kireevsky with Rozhalin, noted about the latter in his “Diary” 80: “he spoke very intelligently about Russia, about the place that is given to it among nations, about nationality.” Thus, already during the period of philosophy in Iv. Quite definite ideological sympathies have developed, as well as certain intentions. In the field of philosophy, I.V. primarily sympathized with Schelling for the poetic nature of his philosophy, although Kireevsky was not a Schellingian and the central point of his own thinking was moral and social aspiration. I. V-ch, then, decided - at the same time - to devote himself to public teaching and he already had literary projects planned: “about Zhukovsky, about criticism, about philosophy in Russia” 81, but before taking up the dissemination of his ideas, Kireevsky thought about visiting abroad to replenish himself with the necessary information. However, even before leaving abroad, Kireevsky published two articles in print: in 1828 he published the article “Something about the character of Pushkin’s poetry” in the “Moskovsky Vestnik”, and in 1830 in the almanac “Dennitsa” - “Review of Russian Literature for 1829”. The first article is predominantly critical in nature 82, but it is important for us to note that in this article Kireyevsky expresses a firm belief in the bright future of Russian literature, for which he sees the basis in Pushkin, and the future of Russian enlightenment. “A brilliant field,” says Kireevsky, among other things, in this article 83, “is still open to Russian activity; all types of art, all branches of knowledge still remain unassimilated to our fatherland; We are still given hope.” In the second article, bright expectations receive clearer logical argumentation. This article is also, in large part, critical, and in the interests of a complete presentation of the thoughts contained in it, we will have to partly touch on its critical content. The significance of this article in the biographical sense is very great, since in it Kireevsky appears before us with essentially the same range of ideas that he set forth much later (in articles of the 50s) 84 . Having cast a quick glance in the “Review of Russian Literature for 1829” at our literature of the early 19th century - noting the merits of Karamzin and stopping with an enthusiastic speech before Zhukovsky, Kireevsky sees the contemporary state of Russian literature as an undoubted guarantee of its successful development in the future. Our literature was and is under the cross-influence of literature: French (Karamzin), German (Zhukovsky), Italian (Batyushkov), English, but this does not mean that it lacks any originality. Imitation is not at all a complete lack of independence; it only speaks of the presence in the models being imitated of traits that meet the requirements of our spirit. From this point of view, the dependence of our literature on Western literature should not only not deprive us of hope for independent development, but “promises our literature a multifaceted character.” At present, we do not yet have such literature, but “we have the good, the guarantee of all others - we have hope and thought about the great purpose of our fatherland.” In order for our hope to come true, it is necessary to take a number of measures aimed at assimilating the level of education in Europe. Western Europe is noticeably leaving the scene as a leading educational force and, in the absence of other candidates for this role, we must replace it. The focus of “that degree of mental development on which the enlightenment of Europe has now stopped” is “respect for reality.” In accordance with this general spirit of the modern state of Western enlightenment, for example, “political opinions, in order to acquire their credibility, must turn to events... to History: so Thierry, in order to defend certain provisions in Parliament, wrote a History of France. Philosophy, having closed the circle of its development with the consciousness of the spirit of mind and being, directed all its activity towards the application of speculation to reality, to events, to the history of nature and man. Poetry, the expression of the universality of the human spirit, was also supposed to move into reality and concentrate in a historical kind.” To fulfill our national task - to replace the West, which has completed its development - we must rise to the same level of development and, first of all, we need philosophy. We have always “sought philosophy in poetry itself,” our poetry breathed it, and now only philosophy is capable of properly directing our lives. But the philosophy of the West is not suitable for us, since “other people’s thoughts are useful only for the development of social... Our philosophy must develop from our life, be created from... the dominant interests of our national and private life.” Ivan Vasilyevich sees the first expression of our originality in philosophy in the untimely death of Venevitinov. Venevitinov - according to Ivan Vasilyevich - was created to have a strong influence on Russian enlightenment, “to be an adornment of its poetry and, perhaps, the creator of its philosophy.” Whoever is able to ponder with love the works of Venevitinov, “whoever in these torn passages finds the unity of the being that animated them, whoever comprehends the depth of his thoughts, will recognize an original poet, whose every feeling is illuminated by a thought, every thought is warmed by his heart, whose best song is his own being.” Nature generously endowed him with her gifts and their diversity agreed with unity. The harmony of mind and heart was the distinctive character of his spirit, so that “his very fantasy was more the music of thoughts and feelings than a play of imagination.” At the conclusion of his article, Kireevsky speaks definitely about Russia’s advantage over the West. Russia embarked on the path of development later than Western states, as a result of which it is “rich in the experience of its elders.” Western peoples have completed the circle of their development, grown old and fallen into the “one-sidedness of maturity.” All Western states have merged into something whole, according to the nature of their mental life; not one of the peoples of Europe prevails over the rest by “political and mental superiority.” Meanwhile, as the “history of modern enlightenment” shows, such predominance is necessary, a capital is necessary for states and one heart for peoples. Kireyevsky is inclined to think that Russia can bring Europe out of its moral stupor if it first masters Western European enlightenment, so that it can then act on Europe more successfully. At one time, that is, when Kireevsky’s articles appeared, the thoughts expressed by I. V., especially in the “Review of Russian Literature for 1829,” could not be properly understood. Kireevsky was greeted as a talented writer, others laughed at his language, 85 but only much later it became clear that this was a writer who, very consistently, and from his first literary works, developed one idea that constituted, as it were, the foundation of his spiritual life. During the period of the 20s, only one side of Kireevsky’s spiritual life did not receive revelation; it was the religious, while his philosophical and social views were already defined quite clearly. Kireyevsky was not satisfied with the philosophy closest to him - Schelling's system; his philosophical ideal, at the same time, consisted in the harmony of mind and feeling 86 (for which he remembered Venevitinov with such delight); K-go’s socio-historical views, as we have seen (in particular from the article “Review of Russian Words for 1829”), had a shade quite characteristic of the future “Slavophile”. What I. V-ch already very early began to realize the foundations of his worldview; this can be confirmed, in addition to his articles and letters, also by third-party evidence. for example, M. P. Pogodin in the “Diary” on April 22. 1828 wrote: “Kireevsky told me the plan of his large essay on the form of philosophy in Russia. I listened to him with great pleasure. A desire was kindled in me to write the distinctive features of Russian history, which should be applied to his work.” 87 Consequently, in the 20s, Kireyevsky was already presented with a draft of two large articles that he subsequently wrote. True, we do not have biographical data that would speak about Kireyevsky’s religious views at that time, but in any case, the biographers’ comments about some radical changes in Kireyevsky in the first half of the 30s are unfounded. We will talk about this below, but for now it is enough to note that the moral foundations of Kireevsky’s worldview were revealed very early, as well as the philosophical ones. Due to the close connection between the philosophical and moral beliefs of I. Lastly, and in general, due to the extraordinary integrity of his worldview, his religious ideas could be contained embryonically in his philosophical and social views, and under favorable conditions they consistently emerged. The thought of traveling abroad to complete his education greatly occupied Kireyevsky. Already in 1823, he negotiated with his stepfather on this matter. “What I want to ask you for,” he wrote to A. A. Elagin, “is not a momentary whim of the imagination, but a thoughtful and mature thing, which, in my firm conviction, is necessary for my happiness, for my education... This thing is foreign lands.” 88 Ivan Vasilyevich’s departure abroad could only take place in 1830. The travel plan was initially quite large - it was supposed to spend a sufficient amount of time on university research abroad and on an educational trip around Europe. 89 But only part of this plan was implemented. In January 1830, I. V-ch left Moscow. After spending some time in St. Petersburg, in the company of Zhukovsky, Pushkin and others, Kireevsky headed through Riga to Berlin. Kireevsky did not stay in Berlin for long, then he was in Dresden for only a few days, after which he studied in Munich, from where he returned home when rumors about cholera had spread in Moscow. 90 Abroad I. V-ch stayed for less than a year and from this circumstance it is clear that his stay in the West could have been more formal for him than any other meaning. This is how it actually happened: abroad mattered for his “education,” but only in the sense that it further confirmed Kireyevsky in his original conviction. Kireevsky went abroad fully formed in the fundamentals of his worldview. 91 This was already evident from the facts characterizing I. V-cha during the period of Lyubomudry. Here we present a few lines from Kireevsky’s letter to Pogodin, just before leaving abroad, confirming our thought. In response to Pogodin’s letter, in which the latter asked for an impartial trial of himself, Kireevsky writes among other things: “Providence cannot be unjust, and the ability for good or bad for him is equivalent to an actual act. 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 internal transformation of yourself.” 92 In these few words, all of Kireevsky, as we know him based on everything he wrote: the idea of ​​​​the structure of a complete person, of the harmony of word and deed, is, as we will see, the driving nerve in Kireevsky’s worldview. – In particular, how clearly the moral side of Kireevsky’s personality was expressed at that time is shown by I. V-cha’s attitude to some circumstances of his personal life. Precisely: then he experienced a strong shock depending on the refusal on the part of his future wife. The trip abroad itself took place half under the influence of this fact, as a means of dispersal and improvement of health. Ivan Vasilyevich, however, found enough moral strength in himself to put ideological interests above personal ones. He decided to devote himself not to happiness, but to duty. “I am calm, firm,” he wrote, “and do not stagger from side to side, I walk with a sure step along one road that leads straight to the chosen goal”... “I look at life and every minute of it as someone else’s property, which is entrusted to me on my word of honor and which, therefore, I cannot throw away” 93 “I translated the word happiness into my own language: activity and good spirits.” 94 Thanks to his personal failure, Kireyevsky’s intention to devote himself to literary activity became stronger and, in his words, “gained some kind of settled character.” “If everything changed, I would not go back, but would now remain faithful to my chosen path.” 95 Abroad, I. V-ch found himself under the influence of the intellectual life of Germany, but remained “faithful to his chosen path,” not only in the sense of his choice of literary activity, but also in the sense of loyalty to his ideological predilections. In Berlin, I. V-ch diligently listened to lectures and got to know the professors. The German philosophical world was dominated at that time by Hegel, who temporarily supplanted Schelling. But Kireyevsky did not find much interest in Hegel’s lectures. Interested in philosophy, Kireevsky, however, with equal interest, and even more, listened to the lectures of the geographer Ritter and Hans Savigny, who gave lectures at the Faculty of Law. In private conversations with representatives of German science and art, Kireevsky entered into disputes for Russia, for example, proving that the Russians have energy (in a dispute with Raupach). 96 But especially characteristic for illuminating the personality of Kireyevsky during the Berlin period of his life is I. V-cha’s passion for Schleiermacher’s lectures and Kireyevsky’s reviews, in letters, about this philosopher-preacher. Schleiermacher strove, in the spirit of the time, for a new solution to questions of religion, being one of the most prominent representatives of German romanticism. Subjectivism and idealism, essential to romanticism, also characterize Schleiermacher’s thinking. In “Speeches on Religion” 97 Schleiermacher set himself the goal of showing religion as the focus of human life. The philosopher attacks the rationalistic age of enlightenment, which completely destroyed religion. Practical enlightenment, serving temporary interests, is not able to understand what is individual and in this it is the opposite of romanticism. Schleiermacher set about clarifying the essence of religion, since he did not see the correct points of view on this subject. Religion is sometimes held in contempt simply because it is usually regarded as a known religious system, as fragments of metaphysics and morality. From this point of view, those who despise religion may be right. But in the latter we need to explain not the named random elements, but the very essence of religion. Philosophers have not taken on such a task. For example, Kant cleared the elements of knowledge and morality from all extraneous growths, but Kant did not single out religion. Schleiermacher thought of doing for religion the same thing that Kant did for ethics, standing up for the independence of the moral law. According to Schleiermacher, it is necessary to firmly draw the boundaries separating religion from morality and metaphysics, since these areas are mixed even in the Holy Scriptures. Religion is neither morality nor metaphysics. She does not seek to explain the nature of the universe and does not try to complete its development, she simply wants to contemplate it and passively submit to its direct influences. The ability of such contemplation lies deep in the human soul and manifests itself (at first under the influence of nature) exclusively as contemplation of the universe, without striving for any generalizations. Dogmas in religion are abstract reflections on contemplations; they compare the immediate view with the belief accepted at one time or another. It is necessary to purify religion from random impurities in order to thereby preserve its universal character. Human powers can never find satisfaction either in morality or in philosophy, because in these activities man inevitably encounters the finite. The only way out of this situation is to submit – in the sphere of religion – to the impressions of the infinite, which alone give harmony to our soul. Schleiermacher places the very force that balances the human spirit and forms the basis of religion in man in such depths of human nature that all our religious contemplations are only a withered embryo in comparison with the flower that is religion and stands behind these contemplations. The sphere of thinking and activity, as a result of this, is so separated from the religious sphere that no interaction between them is possible. This teaching of Schleiermacher represents some kind of extreme idealism in the understanding of religion. In addition, this is extreme subjectivism in religion. In view of the fact that in a pure religion there can be no theoretical constructs, no dogmas, how can such a religion be communicated from one to another? Schleiermacher taught that it is more natural for a person to communicate to others not ideas, but only contemplations. The outward manifestation of religion must also correspond to the nature of these contemplations. Religion must avoid publicity and, of course, real communication is no longer possible for it. In the absence of any theoretical constructs in pure religion, religion itself consists of many individual contemplations of the universe, devoid of any systematic connection. Hence the religious society should not have any connection. Those who have religion must be united by close bonds, but since a church of this kind is an ideal church, then the bonds here are actually nothing other than freedom. Schleiermacher first sought visible support for the church in the family, but then he completely rejected the need for any kind of institutions for the church. In this Schleiermacher teaching on religion, imprinted with extreme subjectivism, the 19th century had the most consistent manifestation of romanticism in dealing with religious issues. In his concept of religion, Schleiermacher became above all theoretical and practical certainty, above all forms of belief and religious cult. This thinker, among other things, expressed that countless positive religions should arise, that not only societies can have their own religions, but also each individual person - that along with Christianity other, newer religions will arise. These are the religious views of Schleiermacher, 98 with whose worldview I.V. was well acquainted and in whom he was very interested. Of course, it cannot be allowed that this recognition of the complete subjectivity of religious feeling, this unbridled expanse of fantasy, which extreme romantics could recognize, could satisfy Kireyevsky. Schleiermacher's doctrine did not have the harmony of reason and feeling that was the ideal for Kireyevsky. If I. V-cha was interested in Schleiermacher’s worldview, then only by the very fact of posing the question of the reconciliation of faith and science, and the very solution to this question, proposed by Schleiermacher, could not satisfy Ivan Vasilyevich. Since Kireyevsky’s philosophical ideal did not coincide with Schleiermacher’s, I. V-ch soon noticed that Schleiermacher believed his feelings and “tried to believe with his mind.” Along with the spontaneous outburst of feeling, Kireevsky notes 99 Schleiermacher’s very noticeable rationalism, for which he calls him “a ruin of the 18th century.” Having set out to reconcile the “world of rational conviction” with the sphere of “spiritual certainty,” Schleiermacher had to present faith and philosophy... in their community, therefore in their integral, complete being.” But instead of this main question, the philosopher evaded the solution of many particular questions, “which did not penetrate into the depths of the problem,” for example, speaking about the resurrection of Christ 100, he asked the questions: “whether decay began in the body of Jesus or not, whether an inconspicuous spark of life remained in it, or was there perfect death, etc.” According to Kireyevsky, a true Christian, as well as a “modern philosopher,” cannot raise the question of the resurrection of Christ and the atonement like Schleiermacher. In the fact of resurrection and redemption for the believer “the totality of Divine revelation”, for the thinker “the focus of human existence.” It is useless to know whether the blood has decomposed into parts, etc. For a believer, such a question does not exist, but for a thinker, the question of the resurrection of Christ breaks down into two questions: about the reliability of religion in general and about the relationship of the miraculous to the natural, so that the question of the resurrection for a modern thinker does not have the nature of materiality. This criticism by Kireevsky of Schleiermacher quite clearly reveals the independence of I. V-cha as a thinker. Obviously, even then he had some kind of criterion by which he evaluated the Schleiermacher system. The general philosophical foundations of his own worldview had already been formed. But it was not only the absence of well-known religious and philosophical principles that did not satisfy Kireyevsky in Schleiermacher, but also the lack of certain content in his system. “What is he? Kireevsky asks about Schleiermacher. His system is like a pagan temple converted into a Christian church, where everything external, every stone, every decoration, reminds of idolatry, while inside there are songs of Jesus and the Virgin Mary.” Kireyevsky obviously did not find a specific Christian worldview in Schleiermacher’s system. The words just quoted from the letter thus confirm the idea expressed by us in its place that Kireyevsky’s religious and philosophical views had already been determined at their core during the period of the twenties and that the religious part of them could, under favorable conditions, naturally emerge. Kireevsky's life abroad represented these favorable conditions. While abroad, I. V-ch learned to highly appreciate the positive aspects of everything Russian, he saw both in Russia and in himself many things that, of course, existed before, but of which he was not clearly aware. “Russian has this in common with everything huge, that it can only be viewed from afar,” Kireyevsky writes in one letter from abroad and admits that only in foreign lands does he learn to appreciate Russian literature. 101 As can be seen in general from Kireyevsky’s letters from abroad, he did not like many things in Germany 102: his sympathies were repelled by what was foreign and attracted more and more to his Russian. Kireyevsky was far from enthusiastic about Schelling, in whom, while in Russia, he was at least very interested. Arriving in Munich, where he was then reading Schelling at the university, I. V-ch soon became convinced that there was nothing new in Schelling’s lectures compared to what he already knew, 103 and Kireyevsky soon even stopped recording his lectures (which he took on very diligently). Subsequently, in his criticism of Western philosophy, I. V-ch will clearly express what did not satisfy him in Schelling’s philosophy: this thinker only languished with a thirst for divine truth, but could not see the truth itself, being brought up in the spirit of Protestant thinking. 104 Lack of sympathy for the very “way of thinking,” as Kireyevsky later expressed it, undoubtedly alienated I. V-cha from Schleiermacher. Interested in religious issues, especially under the influence of foreign life 105, I. V-ch could expect that here, in the audience of an eloquent philosopher, his own dream, which he had sketched out several years before in a letter to Koshelev, would come true. But soon, precisely under the negative influence of a religious culture alien to him, I. V-ch felt the first serious impulses to reveal his own religious and philosophical worldview. Likewise, Kireevsky’s interest in the peculiarities of Russian life and its advantages in comparison with the West should have especially developed under the influence of the same West. 106 The validity of what we have said about the significance of Kireyevsky’s stay abroad, and Kireyevsky’s worldview at that time, are especially clearly clarified by the content of Kireyevsky’s literary activity upon his return from abroad. I. V-ch then realized his dream of publishing a magazine. In 1832, Kireevsky began publishing the magazine “European,” which, however, was banned after the second book, for the article “The Nineteenth Century.” 107 The analysis of this article by Kireyevsky, which is an echo of his stay abroad, is of undoubted interest precisely for understanding the author’s views at that time and their gradual disclosure. Article 108 outlined the path along which Russian education should develop. There is no clearly formulated conclusion in the article, but indirectly, in a number of considerations about European enlightenment, a program of Russian life is outlined, which the author himself accepted. Considering enlightenment to be the source of all benefits for the state and the expression of people's life, Kireyevsky recognizes it as impossible for Russia to be satisfied exclusively with its own, Russian people. True, all the peoples of Europe have recently experienced a return to everything native, but they lived and developed under completely different conditions than we do. European enlightenment was quite consistent and harmonious in its development. It is quite definitely possible to indicate those elements that underlay Western European enlightenment during all periods of its history. These principles are the Christian religion, the character and education of the barbarians, and, finally, the remnants of the ancient world. The last element serves as a significant difference between European history and Russian history, in which the classical element was absent. The Roman laws and Roman structure inherited by the European peoples greatly influenced their life and education. The influence of the classical world was especially noticeable on the formation of trading cities, which, having become independent, became one of the main springs of European enlightenment, and on the external formation of the Roman Church, mainly on its political influence in the Middle Ages. The civil power of the clergy was undoubtedly a Roman heritage in Europe, and the secular government of bishops was structured on Roman models. Moreover, the opposition that existed between the spirit of paganism and Christianity was to make the Western Church the focus of European life and education. Christianity acted on the remnants of the pagan world as a conquering and transforming principle, and for the barbarians it was a source of enlightenment, order, as a formative, creative principle. That is why the Western Church was the first link of the feudal system, the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire. She united and organized around herself the disparate elements of Western life, giving all of Europe one spirit. We see something completely different in Russia. Christianity did not have among us - although in Rus' it was purer and holier than in the West - such a powerful influence on civil life, it did not give us unanimity and order. In the West, the church breathed one soul into the civil organism of Europe, but in our country there has always been fragmentation, division into destinies that are not spiritually connected to each other. The reason for our difference from the West is nothing other than the absence of a classical element in our historical life. Without assimilating this element, which created spiritual strength in the West, we could not have spiritual unity, the consequence of which, in turn, was the Tatar yoke. Our liberation from the Tatars could only be accomplished by concentrating external forces, and not at all as a result of our spiritual power. This preponderance of external, material force over moral strength was reflected in the stupor of spiritual activity in which we remained for a very long time. Taking into account such a difference in the course of European and Russian history, one can justifiably assert that to look for the national means to look for the uneducated, it means to expel enlightenment: “for, not having sufficient elements for the internal development of education, where will we get it from, if not from Europe? Wasn’t European education itself a consequence of ancient Rome? Undoubtedly so. The fifteenth century was for Europe a century of invention, discovery, intellectual and civic success, but this century was prepared by the fourteenth, which in turn was the consequence of previous developments under the influence of the ancient world. Europe inherited its enlightenment and it, therefore, is not an excerpt, but a continuation of the mental life of mankind. The enlightenment of Europe is a universal enlightenment, and in relation to us, Europe now stands in the same way as the world of classical antiquity once stood towards it. We need to acquire European education if we want to join human development. But what is European enlightenment and what should be our own tasks in relation to it? European enlightenment is currently a strange mixture of heterogeneous elements. At the end of the 18th century, the dominant direction was destructive, when in science, in life and in art, there was one desire to overthrow everything old. The words that appeared at that time: freedom, reason and humanity did not contain anything positive; freedom meant the absence of previous constraints, humanity meant a material majority, reason meant the absence of prejudices. Religion, due to such a purely negative direction, fell, since, while denying the abuses of religion, they denied religion itself. In the scientific field, only the sensual was recognized as truth, while the supersensible was denied as impossible. Imitation of nature was established in art, materialism dominated in philosophy; the entire previous worldview lost its holistic appearance, moral life disintegrated into its component parts, into “elementary material principles of existence.” This direction then caused a reaction against itself, and instead of fragmentation of thought, a desire appeared to restore the destroyed integrity. Unbelief and analysis were replaced by mysticism, in art the imitation of nature was replaced by subjectivism, in philosophy the dominance of idealistic systems began. In this struggle between the two principles of destruction and reconciliation, a desire for balance was formed, for the agreement of the old with the new. The newly emerging trend was expressed in art as an attempt to reconcile imagination with reality, and in philosophy as a system of identity. What is now required from literature is not so much beauty as conformity with the current moment, and philosophy, in the person of Schelling, who created the system of identity, sets as its goal knowledge that does not consist in the logical development of the laws of reason, but living, positive, historical knowledge. In a word, in the modern character of enlightenment there is a desire to bring spiritual activity closer to real life. This is especially clear in the area of ​​religion. Mysticism fought against Voltaire’s freethinking, but it is certainly not accessible to everyone, therefore it could not act as successfully in the fight against unbelief as enlightenment could do. Thanks to the successes of enlightenment, religion now enjoys almost universal respect and is no longer looked upon falsely as a body of rituals, or as an individual belief; It is now recognized that for religion “the unanimity of the people is necessary, illuminated by vivid memories, developed in unambiguous legends, intertwined with the state structure, reduced to one positive principle and palpable in all civil and family relations.” In the entire life of modern Europe, Kireevsky notices this one desire: to bring thought closer to living life, to achieve a positive, practical ideal. Before Kireyevsky’s gaze, one can already see that bright life that should begin as soon as the indicated desire is satisfied, when a solid social structure, for which a solid basis has long been sought, can naturally be established on the “enlightenment of general opinion”, then in the life of peoples the principle of solidarity of one with all and of all with each other will be realized. The merging of two paths of development, along which the life of peoples now disorganizes, disintegrating into a branch of mental work and the line of development of practical life, seems to Kireevsky to be the ideal that the new enlightenment has to realize. Enlightenment is precisely new, since the desire for this ideal is not, in the opinion of I. V., in sequence with the history of the previous development of Europe. Those principles that lived in European civilization no longer meet the needs of life; those same, for example, Roman laws, which were one of the foundations of European education, are now in conflict with the needs of the civil system. In particular, the structure of the Roman Church also does not correspond to the spirit of the current times, as is clearly evidenced by the fact of the Reformation. In a word, Western enlightenment, which developed quite consistently up to a certain point, now finds itself in contradiction with itself. For Russia, this circumstance is very important: now we can assimilate the new European enlightenment without going through the entire path of European development. If previously we were not successful in mastering European education, this was due to the fact that, due to the peculiarities of our historical development, we could borrow only one form from the West; Now, however, we can fully assimilate the new direction of European enlightenment, as inorganic for the West. How correctly Kireevsky takes into account in his article “The Nineteenth Century” a certain moment of European enlightenment, this is not of particular importance for us, but what is important for it is the very ideal that he noticed in the life of Europe and what is important is the gradual revelation of the personality of our thinker. From the above content of the article “The Nineteenth Century” it is clear how thoroughly one can consider the author of the article a Westerner. Even in the “Review of Russian Literature for 1829,” I. V-ch outlined and even developed thoughts about the coming to an end of the role of the West and about the fate of the Russian people in world history. In the article “The Nineteenth Century,” the second thesis is sort of bypassed and nothing is said about our leadership role and history in this article, but the author’s thought, far from Westernizing, is quite clear when they talk about a new European enlightenment that stands outside of connection with the historical foundations of European life. The time has come—as Kireevsky argues—to put new ideals into practice. These ideals are felt and floated in the atmosphere of the West, but the West is no longer able to raise them; hence the need for the participation of a new people to implement new ideals. 109 Kireyevsky invites his fatherland to borrow from the new European enlightenment. It is, of course, hardly possible to call such a view as Westernism that rejects the very foundations of Western life. 110 Isn’t it clear, then, from all the reasoning in the “Nineteenth Century” that Kireyevsky sees the Russian people in line in the arena of world history? True, in his article Kireyevsky speaks about the weak influence of the Orthodox Church on the organization of our spiritual power and enlightenment, and about the powerful influence of Catholicism on the life of the West, while in his later articles he based his views on the uniqueness and uniqueness of our historical development on Orthodoxy. But in order not to see a radical change in Kireyevsky’s way of thinking at different times, we note two observations that can be made in the article “The Nineteenth Century” rather in favor of Kireyevsky’s Slavophile sympathies than Westernizing ones. In this article, Kireyevsky speaks sympathetically about religion, about the Orthodox Church, which, as we will see, constitutes the main thesis of Slavophilism. Then, Kireyevsky speaks in “The Nineteenth Century” about the powerful influence of the Western Church on enlightenment and the life of the West and about the weak influence of the Orthodox Church on the life of Russia (and in this perhaps reveals, if not pure Westernism, then Westernism in the spirit of Chaadaev?!)” 111 ; But the influence of the Western Church on what kind of enlightenment does Kireevsky speak in the indicated place?! There is no doubt that he has in mind the kind of enlightenment that he considers unsuitable for Russia. Kireevsky sets the task of Russian enlightenment to implement a new European ideal, which has already become detached from the soil of the West and, as we will see later, the Orthodox Church contributed greatly to the implementation of this ideal. After the ban on publishing the magazine, Kireyevsky almost stopped writing and this silence lasted for quite a long time. Kireyevsky could only write for the magazine, 112 and since he was not allowed to publish, 113 he preferred not to write at all. After the closure of the “European” until 1845, I. V. published only two small articles in magazines 114, and even then without the author’s signature. But since intellectual life in Moscow, in the same Moscow salons, developed independently of the ban on journals, Kireyevsky, although not soon, had the opportunity to write 115, however, not for publication. The environment in which I. V-ch lived at that time was, first of all, that circle of 116 Russian educated people, in which the so-called Slavophile trend was later discovered. For Kireevsky, communication with his brother, Pyotr Vasilyevich, and with Khomyakov was especially important. The first “from a young age... concentrated all his efforts on the study of Russian antiquity and developed his own independent view - a deep conviction in the absolute harm of the violence of Peter’s coup.” 117 In Khomyakov, from a young age, another feature of the Slavophile trend was clearly visible - devotion to the Orthodox Church. 118 I. V-cha also had the makings of a religious and national worldview, as we saw, due to various, positive and negative, influences on him, and his worldview had already been revealed quite noticeably; Moreover, it should have been determined more and more noticeably under the influence of such meetings as a close acquaintance with Khomyakov. Already the trip abroad had noticeably alienated Kireevsky’s sympathies from the West, and he now lacked new material to build a new building of his worldview, albeit on the old foundation. Events in Kireyevsky's family life contributed indirectly to this. In 1834, I. V-ch married Natalia Petrovna 119 Arbeneva. The mother of I. V-cha’s wife revered the elder, the schema-monk of the Novospassky Monastery Filaret, and Natalia Petrovna herself was raised in the church spirit and was under the guidance of the same elder. I. V-ch, of course, met the elder. Then, when the division took place in the Kireevsky family and I.V. received (1836) Dolbino in this division, he found himself in the neighborhood of Optina Pustyn, which he also became acquainted with through Natalia Petrovna. 120 From that time on, a noticeable predominance in everything that Kireyevsky wrote began, of religious and, more precisely, church ideas: from that time on, Kireyevsky’s worldview gradually included elements of Orthodox thought. This can be observed in two articles by Kireevsky written at that time: in the story “The Island” and in the article “In response to Khomyakov.” “The Island” represents an excerpt from an unfinished story; it expresses in artistic form those thoughts that are expressed in journalistic form in “Answer to Khomyakov.” The plot of “The Island” is that the young man Alexander Palaiologos, a descendant of the Greek emperors, brought up on a secluded island where life was unlike life in the rest of the world, before the war for the liberation of Greece, was carried away by news from Western Europe on a trip to different countries. The interest of the story, in relation to the personality of the author, lies in the reasoning that Alexander conducts and listens to. From the hero’s reflections with himself, from his conversations with the patriarch, from the speeches of the elder, which Alexander happened to hear, it is undoubtedly clear that in the passage “Island” all the main elements of the Slavophil doctrine are given. Here is a lack of sympathy for the West, the direction of Western enlightenment (and, conversely, sympathy for the East), the idea of ​​the Church as the bearer of life, the preservation of the true faith among the people, and so on. Along with the religious basis and national elements of Slavophilism, the passage also outlines the philosophical ideal of this direction of Russian thought. On various occasions, remarks are made about the fragmentation of man’s spiritual being, as a distorted state, and about the need to “tune the disturbed sounds of the soul into harmony” - about the internal transformation of man, as the basis of the order of external life. But what is especially important - for characterizing the author’s sympathies at the time of writing “The Island” - is the sympathy expressed in the article for the religious life of the East, because the philosophical and national sides of Kireyevsky’s views appeared quite noticeably even before “The Island”. In general, “The Island” can serve as an expression of the religious and philosophical foundations of Kireevsky’s worldview for the period of the 30s. Even more important in this regard is the article “In response to Khomyakov.” 121 This article, at the time of writing, also falls during the period of public inactivity of the author after the closure of the European. Periodically living at that time in Dolbino and in Moscow, Ivan Vasilyevich gathered various representatives of literature at home in Moscow. 122 At one of the meetings, Khomyakov read the article “On the Old and the New.” 123 In response to this article, Kireevsky wrote “In response to Khomyakov,” for reading in a friendly circle. In “The Nineteenth Century” and other earlier articles, Kireevsky, as we have seen, only hinted at some kind of original beginning in Russian nationality. Now in his “Response to Khomyakov” he quite definitely points out the presence of such a beginning in Russian history. Without a particularly detailed development of all those thoughts that we will find in his later articles, I. V-ch, now briefly formulating his theses, indicates the main beginning of our life - in Orthodoxy. The Orthodox faith is what is special about us in comparison with the West, which makes us capable of realizing a special ideal of life, different from the Western ideal. Orthodoxy is alien to the one-sidedness and duality that are characteristic of the West, and the desire that appears there for an integral existence, for the synthesis of all elements of thought and life, can find its natural fulfillment in us. The fundamental difference between the West and us is in rationalism, in the triumph of formal reason and in the development of external forms of life. In our history, other principles have always been at work, determined by the nature of our faith. Instead of Western law, which organized the entire life of Western Europe on external formal relations, we developed internal truth; instead of the one-sidedness of reason, we have a harmonious combination of faith and rationality. In this harmonious combination of mental abilities, Kireevsky sees the true ideal of thought and at the same time the only reliable way of knowledge, and in the development of the sense of inner truth, which manifested itself in the life of ancient Rus', the true ideal of life. Thus, at the end of the thirties, Kireevsky had already clearly outlined all aspects of his teaching. We do not yet see here references to those sources that gave him material for this teaching; we will see these references later, when I. V-ch is busy simultaneously expounding his worldview and working on editing and publishing patristic works. But even now it is clear where the source of those thoughts that Kireyevsky expressed, both in the thirties and earlier, was. As we will see more clearly below, Kireyevsky’s philosophical, national and social ideal completely coincided with the ideal that is preached by the church 124, and Kireyevsky, thus, in his Slavophile doctrine, gives the experience of religious self-knowledge (experience - Orthodox). Therefore, to understand the personality of our thinker, one should pay attention not so much to the various foreign influences on him 125 as to the native soil from which he and his teaching grew. Such native soil in this case was the Orthodox faith, brought to us from the east and for centuries nourished the Russian soul. The peculiarities of the Orthodox worldview, as we will see, clearly affected the personality of Ivan Vasilyevich. 126 Over the period until the mid-forties, the religious content of Kireyevsky’s personality became more and more clear. In the early forties, relations between members of Moscow educated society became strained; in the latter, the Parties of Westerners and Slavophiles stood out, and the question that divided some was the religious question: about faith, about religion in general. 127 Among the Slavophiles themselves there were heated debates on theological issues. 128 Ivan Vasilyevich, when in 1845 he agreed 129 to take over the running of the magazine “Moskvityanin”, in a letter to Zhukovsky he developed a program for this magazine, quite, one might say, theological. We will give an excerpt from Kireevsky’s letter as a vivid illustration of his mood at that time. “In our time 130,” Kireevsky writes to Zhukovsky, “when Western literature does not represent anything particularly dominant over the minds, no principle that would not contain an internal contradiction, no conviction that its preachers themselves would believe.... 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 tension 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 thought. The development of rational man, the so-called enlightenment of mankind, was dominated by a more or less distorted, semi-pagan principle.... The relationship of this pure Christian principle to the so-called human education is now the main vital question for all thinking people among us, familiar with our spiritual literature. Everyone who studies ancient Russian history in our country is brought to the same question, further or closer.” 131 In the same letter to Zhukovsky there is the following question about Gogol 132 “I would especially like to hear from you about the strong religious trend that seems to have now 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? 133 As can be seen, then, from Kireevsky’s articles in “Moskvityanin”, Ivan Vasilyevich was increasingly occupied with issues of religious and philosophical significance, with which he connected all other issues raised by him in his journal activities. “Review of the Current State of Literature,” an article in three 134 “Moskvityanin” books published by Kireevsky, is the most characteristic of I. V. of all that he published then in this magazine. In the “Review”... Kireevsky develops a number of positions quite similar to what he wrote both earlier and later - in the “Moscow Collection” and “Russian Conversation”. Determining the current state of minds in various European countries, Kireyevsky notes that the beginning of enlightenment, which operated in the history of the West, is currently unsatisfactory in relation to the new, recently emerging demands of thought. Then drawing a parallel between the modern character of European enlightenment and the state of Roman-Greek education during the period of the decline of the latter, the author draws the conclusion from this comparison that the modern enlightenment of Europe must now give way to a new education, just as Greco-Roman education once gave way to European education. A new enlightenment must emerge from the depths of the Russian nation, and in order for it to be realized, we do not need to completely borrow the results of Western life, we should not make a sharp turn to the past of our history. The correct path for the development of Russia should boil down to the fact that we will permeate Western education with a new meaning, drawn from the principles of ancient Russian education. Our last goal is “true Christian” enlightenment, alien to the one-sidedness of Western enlightenment and fully meeting the need for “living understanding of the spirit.” This tolerant view of Kireevsky on Western education was shared by several I. V-cha with other Slavophiles and brought him closer to Westerners. “Perhaps you consider me a sworn Slavophile and therefore offer me the Moskvitian. To this I must say that I share this Slavophile way of thinking only in part, and the other part of it I consider further from myself than the most eccentric opinions of Granovsky.” 135 I. V-ch did not have a completely negative view of the life of the West, he assessed it objectively, finding only the need to imbue Western education with a new meaning, while, for example, in the views of his brother there was “a complete, complete alienation of everything Western.” 136 As a result of such a broad Slavophile view, Kireyevsky occupied some kind of intermediate position in Moscow society between the two parties. He was connected with Westerners by respect for the best manifestations of Western cultural life, with Slavophiles by high respect for his native Russian, mainly for the Russian religious faith, for Orthodoxy 137: “In my heart I am more with you,” he said to Granovsky, “but I do not share many of your beliefs; I am closer to ours in faith, but I differ just as much in other things.” At the same time, his breadth of views and the underlying breadth of moral sympathies attracted people of various persuasions to Kireyevsky. Needless to say, everyone paid tribute to Kireevsky’s mind: and as a person, as a moral figure, he invariably received only positive reviews. In 1832, Pushkin wrote regarding the banning of The European: “The magazine European is banned... Kireyevsky, the kind and modest Kireyevsky, is presented to the government as a tomboy and a Jacobin.” 138 “I don’t know the Kireevskys,” Belinsky later wrote about I. V-che and his brother Peter, “but judging by the stories of Granovsky and Herzen, they are fanatics, half-crazed, especially Ivan, but noble and honest people.” 139 “With all my heart,” Granovsky wrote in one of his letters, “I respect the Kireevskys, despite the complete opposite of our beliefs. There is so much holiness, directness, and faith in them, as I have never seen in anyone.” 140 Granovsky was in Kireevsky’s village for two days in 1844 and was convinced that I.V. was a tolerant person and could be worked with in Moskvityanin. 141 But Herzen depicted the moral greatness of Kireevsky especially vividly with his characteristic artistry: “The prematurely aged face of Ivan Vasilyevich bore sharp traces of suffering and struggle, after which the sad peace of the sea swell appeared over the sunken ship... His situation in Moscow was difficult. He had no complete closeness or sympathy either with his friends or with us. There was a church wall between him and us.... It was a pity to destroy his mysticism.” 142 But with an undoubted breadth of view and a tolerant attitude towards other people’s opinions, Kireevsky was very consistent in professing his own convictions. The same Herzen, who talks about the “difficult” position of Kireyevsky between the two parties, depicts the unusually integral personality of I. V-cha, as a person and as a thinker. “Ivan Kireevsky, of course, is a wonderful person; he is a fanatic of his convictions, just like Belinsky is of his. One cannot help but respect such people, even if one has diametrically opposed views with them; Those people who are hated are those who do not know how to stand firmly in their system, who cunningly retreat, are afraid to speak out, are ashamed of their conviction and remain with it. Kireevsky... is impatient, he rudely and impudently objects, is true to his principles and, of course, one-sided... This is what he seemed to me: a strong nature and always holding on to some kind of exaltation, which, I believe, should be inseparable from fanatical one-sidedness.” 143 These personality traits of Kireyevsky, which, as noted above, were inherited by him and which began to develop in him very early, provide the key to understanding his worldview. And if the religious content of Kireyevsky’s personality, due to the organic development of this personality, always remained essentially the same and Kireyevsky did not experience any sharp evolution in this regard, the same should be said about all other aspects of his worldview. And in all other respects, Kireyevsky was consistent, but with the breadth of view that Kireyevsky is recognized for, of course, he could not be a representative of ideological narrowness in the field of Slavophil teaching. The very term “Slavophilism” when applied to Kireyevsky is more inaccurate than when applied to any other. As can be seen from the fact that Kireyevsky stood alone among the advanced Russian society, at the same time arousing everyone’s sympathy for himself, there was some kind of comprehensive and, moreover, impressive idea in his worldview, which imparts a character of extraordinary integrity to everything that Kireyevsky wrote at different times. Even operating with the completely conventional terms of “Westernism” and “Slavophilism,” it is easy to see that Kireyevsky did not have a transition from Westernism to Slavophilism. Neither the name of the magazine published by Kireyevsky - “European”, nor even more so the article “The Nineteenth Century” placed in it by the publisher, speak at all about Kireyevsky’s “Westernism”; What Kireevsky wrote in the “Review of the Current State of Literature” in the magazine “Moskvityanin” does not speak of Kireevsky’s “Westernism.” In both of these cases, I. V-ch definitely emphasizes his dislike for Western Europe and speaks with clear preference about Russia. Moreover, we will not see any difference between Kireevsky’s early and late articles in relation to the author’s “Slavophilism” if we understand Slavophilism in the broad sense that this direction of Russian thought has in the works of our early Slavophiles (Kireevsky, Khomyakov, K. Aksakov). The development of the teachings of these Slavophiles coincided with the era of the revival of the Slavic peoples 145 and since in our Slavophilism the national (Slavic) idea clearly appeared (for some more clearly, for others less clearly), the name Slavophilism was once and for all consolidated behind this teaching. Meanwhile, no matter how valuable this attention to the Slavic world is as part of the Slavophil teaching, the center of gravity of the latter 146 lies much deeper than the feeling of nationality, precisely in what conveys the high value of the nation itself. The moral basis of Slavophilism at this time, it seems, can no longer be disputed by anyone. Now it would be strange to criticize the views of the Slavophiles from a historical point of view, for example, to reproach them for idealizing our antiquity, etc. etc., when the ideal is the essence of Slavophilism! In the same way, it would be strange to examine the teachings of any of our Slavophiles anatomically, looking for in it either Westernized or Slavophile elements. When applied to I.V. Kireevsky, this means that his teaching should be considered mainly as the development of the moral view of the thinker, and with such consideration, all apparent contradictions and transitions in this teaching are inevitably smoothed out, receiving a completely natural explanation. Just as in the personality of I. V-cha Herzen notes, along with extraordinary integrity, even fanaticism 147, certain fluctuations of this personality between two parties (Westerners and Slavophiles), so in the works of Kireyevsky there are various mutually exclusive details; however, along with this, all of Kireevsky’s articles from the first to the last are imbued with one main idea, one animating nerve. With what has been said, we do not at all intend to diminish the importance of national elements in Kireyevsky’s personality, since this would mean crossing out Kireyevsky as one of our first Russian thinkers. We deliberately dwelled on the early years of I. V-cha in order to show Kireevsky’s attachment to his native “land” (to what is and was the best in it) with the strongest threads, for the same purpose we dwelled on I. V-cha’s impressions of life in foreign lands. Kireyevsky, having not yet defined his religious ideas, was repelled by Western Europe and was drawn to his homeland - Russia, mainly due to his national preferences. And of course, it is by no means impossible to cross out the significance of national sympathies in the personality of Kireevsky: this would mean to cross out the significance of that religious and moral truth that nurtured the Russian nationality, which for the Slavophiles themselves made the Russian land unusually valuable and which for all the best Russian people has always constituted and constitutes the main meaning of the life of Russia and its historical vocation. 148 I. Kireevsky, of all the progressive Russian people of that time, was the first to come to the formulation of a philosophical and historical national idea. While other thinking Russian people shied away from Russian soil in their philosophical and historical generalizations (Chaadaev) or omitted some important aspects of Russian history (Prince V. Odoevsky), Kireevsky, in his search for the basic principles of Russian life, defined these principles very early and, moreover, defined them completely. Let us recall here the influence that Kireyevsky experienced from M.P. Pogodin, who also dealt with the question of the future fate of Russia. P. Ya. Chaadaev, who was sometimes credited with influencing the Slavophiles, on the contrary, he himself obviously experienced Slavophil influence when, abandoning some ideas of “philosophical letters,” he recognized the enormous importance of Orthodoxy in Russian history. 149 Book. Odoevsky, with whom Kireyevsky developed together in the “Society of Lyubomudiya,” in “Russian Nights” expressed much that was related to Slavophilism (in relation to epistemology, as well as the moral idea of ​​​​Slavophilism), but the Russian (Orthodox) religious idea did not receive formulation from him. 150 And while these and other representatives of Russian thought of that time, for example Zhukovsky, who very early indicated his influence on Kireyevsky, had not yet spoken out with any certainty on the main issues of Russian life, I. Kireyevsky from time to time outlined in his articles the main provisions of his religious-national worldview. Thus, Kireyevsky was ahead of many others in the philosophy of Russian self-consciousness, although there were many phenomena in Russian life that were ideologically close to Kireyevsky. Yes, it could not be otherwise, and this circumstance not only does not detract from the importance of our thinker, but gives him special value as a concentrated expression of social and national thought. – And among the Slavophiles themselves, Kireyevsky is, both chronologically and ideologically, the head of the school. While, for example, Khomyakov had not yet appeared in print outlining his philosophical and historical ideas, Kireyevsky in 1830 in the almanac “Dennitsa” published “Review” ... of Russian literature for 1829 and in this article outlined all the characteristic points of his teaching. 152 And then, when a circle of so-called Slavophiles had already formed, like-minded people looked at Kireevsky as the central person in this movement, which received the name Slavophilism. 153 And indeed, understanding Slavophilism as a predominantly moral teaching, the meaning of which lies in a certain high moral ideal and - as a religious-philosophical teaching, imprinted with the features of the Orthodox worldview and life understanding, it is inevitable to look at I. Kireevsky as “the hand of the leading philosopher of the school” and at his articles, as “the main monument for revealing the philosophical and historical motives of Slavophilism.” 154 As we have seen, back in the second half of the thirties there was a rapprochement between Ivan Vasilyevich and Elder Philaret and Optina Hermitage. The Optina elders and Filaret belonged to that direction in monasticism, which was started by the elder Paisius Velichkovsky 155. The ideal of Elder Paisius, like his disciples, was rigor of life and tireless teaching to guide those who strive for a high spiritual goal. Paisius recognized one of the means of influencing those he led, in addition to teaching and the example of personal life, especially the writings of ancient ascetics. Paisius, among other things, set himself the goal of disseminating the works of ascetics among Russian monasticism. Hence the interest in the paternal writings among all his followers. The ideas of Paisius found application in our Optina Hermitage: its famous elder Leonid (+1841) was a student of Cleopas (+1817) and Theodore (+1822), students of Elder Paisius. It is quite understandable that Optina Hermitage, having inherited the ascetic ideas of Paisius, continued the work of disseminating ascetic works begun by this elder. Elder Paisius himself worked hard not only on translating these works into the Slavic language, but also on collecting manuscripts suitable for translation. But during his lifetime, only a small part of Paisius’s translations were published 156; the rest was in manuscripts that were transferred to Optina Pustyn. Elder Leonidas' successor, Elder Macarius, took up the publication of Paisios' manuscripts. Thoughts on this edition by Fr. Macarius informed I. V-chu and Natalia Petrovna Kireevsky, who were zealous assistants to Optina Pustyn in the publication of patristic books. In 1848, Ivan Vasilyevich built a house in Dolbina for Fr. Macarius and his assistants translating books. 157 The same Kireyevskys asked through prof. S.N. Shevyrev received permission from Metropolitan Philaret to publish books and the business began. 158 Optina Pustyn published both the manuscripts of Paisius and the translations she made again. Ivan Vasilyevich took a noticeable part in all this, made translations, obtained the necessary books and certificates, took care of the publication and provided financial assistance to the publication. 159 Kireyevsky rendered an enormous service to Russian spiritual enlightenment and the Optina Hermitage with his work in translating and editing patristic works. 160 But at the same time he himself was enriched with enormous material of high philosophical interest. In patristic thinking, I. V-ch found something that he could not find in any Western thinker 161 - Christian philosophy, which he had undoubtedly sought before, at least instinctively. That harmony of reason and feeling, that balance of human spiritual powers, which Kireevsky, as we have seen, repeatedly spoke about as an ideal, was found by him in the teaching of ascetics about the spiritual abilities of man, in particular in their teaching about faith, as the highest insight into the natural powers of the mind. The question that occupied Kireyevsky about the integrity of life, about the coordination of thought and deed, to which I. V-ch also constantly returned, it turns out, found a place for itself in the writings of the same ascetics, and they closely connected this question with the first question, about the integrity of knowledge. 162 The ideas of the ascetics thus corresponded to the inclinations of Ivan Vasilyevich’s personality. Here he found not only satisfaction for his theoretical needs, but also satisfaction for his moral aspirations, which were very noticeable in him at an early age and then, in all subsequent times, ran as a noticeable thread in his literary activity. Kireevsky is a type of thinker whose theoretical questions are closely connected with questions of life, so that he cannot be satisfied with independently solving both questions separately: he needs an integral worldview. Pursuing throughout his entire development the ideal of holistic knowledge, I. V-ch very early drew attention to the contradiction between theory and practice, or, as they usually say, thought and life. Noticing in the life of new Europe (article “The Nineteenth Century”) a tendency to bring the practical side of life closer to the theoretical, Kireevsky with this observation sets a certain ideal of life. 163 These two ideals, integral knowledge and integral existence, stand at the center of everything that Kireyevsky ever, and especially in the last years of his life, wrote. What do these ideals have to do with not only personal, but also social. The problem of knowledge that occupied Kireyevsky, the solution to which he sought from the moment of his first fascination with the systems of the West, was always closely connected for our thinker with living reality, which, with its contradictions, poses, of course, certain questions to our consciousness, and at the completion of his spiritual development, Kireyevsky realized that various contradictions in life are generated by the contradictions of our soul and to eliminate them it is necessary, first of all, to cultivate our inner world, when this is done, then various contradictions in life will be resolved. All these thoughts are given especially in the last articles of Kireyevsky, written during the period of I. V-cha’s work on translations of patristic works and his close relations with the Optina Monastery. The influence of the patristic writings on Kireevsky’s worldview will be clear from the very presentation of this worldview; as for the influence of the elders of Optina Hermitage on I. V-cha, as a literary figure, it is revealed from the fact that Kireyevsky consulted with the elder about the content of some of his articles 164 before they were published. In addition, Optina Pustyn noticeably influenced Kireyevsky as a person, as an ordinary Christian who used the advice of Elder Macarius, and this, of course, could not but influence Kireyevsky the thinker. From the correspondence of I. V-ch with the elder, it is clear that I. V-ch, from the moment of his close communication with the desert, lived entirely under the guidance of the elder, or at least I thought about him. I. V-ch wrote to the elder about every new event in his life, consulted with him on every occasion 165, and in every letter from him to Fr. Macarius clearly shows deep faith in the elder 166 and love for the desert. In letters to Elder I. The doctor constantly inquires about his health, gives him medical advice and delicately, but enthusiastically, expresses praise to his supervisor. At the same time, letters to Fr. Macarius is depicted as I. V-cha, as well as all his other relations with people, as Christian-minded as he appears to us in his articles. Often turning to the elder, I. V-ch apologizes for causing him concern, because letters caused by heart pain also cause pain to a loving heart, but “due to the weakness of the heart” it is difficult to endure painful conditions. I. V-chu was caused mental pain by more than one, apparently minor, everyday fact. For example: the coachman broke the carriage, and responded to N.P.’s remark with rudeness. Not to punish means to offend N.P., but to punish is humiliating for a person who can become even more embittered: and I. V-ch would be ready to endure any punishment himself rather than feel himself in such a false position. Or: people stole two bags of cereals and the bags were found in the well. I. V-ch writes to the elder on this occasion that the elder’s prayers will protect the innocent and that he is most afraid of injustice and is afraid to act where “it is dark and inconvenient to act.” 167 Thus, those features of Kireevsky’s personality that attracted the sympathy of society to him and which attracted him to the sphere of high spiritual ideals were nothing more than the properties of a Christian-minded soul 168 and a loving heart. Kireyevsky discovered the needs of such a soul and such a heart in his writing, which also attracted and attracts the sympathy of people - regardless of their party convictions. Kireevsky's writings are part of his personality. It would be inappropriate to use the expression about him: as a writer and as a person, because Kireyevsky, preaching efficiency of thinking and integrity of life, realized to the possible extent both. He placed the very “new beginnings” of philosophy in dependence on the corresponding life of people, in dependence on the movements of their hearts. His philosophy is the expression of a believing mind and a Christian heart. Kireyevsky’s personality attracts attention because it conveys the true value of his philosophy, 170 which, in the event of a moral discrepancy between its content and the personality of the thinker, must, of course, lose all (living) meaning. Kireyevsky came forward with a more complete expression of the religious and philosophical views that occupied him only in 1852. From this year, the Slavophile magazine “Moscow Collection” began to be published. The purpose of this magazine, according to I. S. Aksakov, was “to promote the dissemination of true Russian enlightenment, based on the principles of the true Christian religion and on a thorough study of Russian history and life.” In the first volume of the Moscow Collection, Kireyevsky placed an article that fully corresponds to the purpose of the magazine and the ideas of the Slavophile circle, the article “On the nature of the enlightenment of Europe and its relationship to the enlightenment of Russia” (letter to Count Komarovsky). In accordance with the questions that occupied Russian society, in particular the circle of Slavophiles, I. V-ch in the said article treats the question of the historical vocation of Russia, the meaning of its past history, the meaning of Orthodoxy. In this article, as well as in others, Kireyevsky is not only a historian, but also a philosopher: in his treatise he gives not only the philosophy of Russian (and Western) history, but also expresses the foundations of his religious and philosophical worldview, the source of which he indicates in the writings of his fathers. 171 This article, like the entire collection, which had a specific program, was supposed to attract the attention of society and criticism, especially people who did not share the views of the Slavophiles. But the collection also attracted the attention of censors, as a result of which the spread of “true enlightenment” had to be suspended. Since all participants in the publication were not only forbidden to print, but also to submit their works to the censor 172, Kireyevsky again had to temporarily stop his journalistic activities, and since Kireyevsky could only write for the press, his literary activity in general ceased with the ban on the Moscow Collection. “My literary pursuits,” wrote I. V-ch Koshelev - they limit themselves to some reading, and even then I read little of the new, but I read the old more readily, perhaps because I have grown old. However, I have not lost my intention to write, when I can write, a course in philosophy 173, in which, it seems, there will be many new truths, that is, new ones from human forgetfulness. It’s a pity, it’s a pity that Western madness has now hampered our thought, precisely now, when it seems the real time for Russia to have its say in philosophy, to show them heretics that the truth of the sciences is only in the truth of Orthodoxy. However, it is also true that these concerns about the fate of the human mind can be left to the Master, who knows when and who to send to his task.” Planning to write a philosophy course. I. V-ch probably had in mind the plan for his work on “new beginnings” for philosophy. 2) “Materials for biography” pp. 99, 100. The following remark of Kireevsky certainly relates to this plan: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity attracts my mind not only because it appears to it as the highest concentration of all the holy truths communicated to us by revelation, but also because, while writing about philosophy, I reached the conviction that the direction of philosophy depends, in its first beginning, on the concept that we have about the Most Holy Trinity.” 174 These words leave no doubt about the nature of Kireyevsky’s philosophical sympathies. Until 1856, I. V-ch did not, and could not, appear in print. During this period, he wrote the second 175 memorandum on the issue of public education, namely: on the teaching of the Slavic language together with Russian (1854). As an honorary superintendent of the Belevsky district school, I. V-ch petitioned for the provision of the Russian language at the school along with the Slavic priest, which was done. 176 The latter had a very great interest in the tasks and even methods of Russian enlightenment, on which Kireevsky had such hopes. At the same time, Kireevsky illuminates everything, so to speak, with philosophical light. Scientific questions relating to his native history are of great interest to I. V-cha, and he, interpreting them in his letters, constantly emphasizes the connection of these questions with philosophical questions. Spreading in one letter of 1855 (to K. S. Aksakov) about verb forms and the laws of Russian speech in general, he continually notes the originality of the Russian mind, which is reflected in the language - he speaks of the “native Russian form of thinking.” In another letter to M.P. Pogodin, I. V-ch expresses the hope that “the Russian Orthodox spirit - the spirit of the true Christian faith will be embodied in Russian social and family life.” 177 Kireyevsky’s devotion to the ideals of Christian life was also manifested in I. V-cha’s enthusiastic attitude towards the signs of the great reform that was then approaching. Our thinker looked at the latter as necessary for the success of Russian enlightenment; even the misfortunes of Russia caused by the then war did not bother him: “Europe has no idea how much good Russia will derive from the evil that it thinks to inflict on it. Yes, dear friend 178, this suffering is purifying, this illness leads to health. We would have rotted and suffocated without this shock to the very bones. Russia is suffering, but these are birth pangs. He does not know Russia and does not think about it in the depths of his heart, who does not see and feel that something great is being born from it, something that has never happened in the world.” Believing that the time had come again to begin disseminating their ideas, the Slavophiles in 1855 raised the issue of a journal. The magazine "Russian Conversation" 179, like the earlier "Moscow Collection", was supposed to defend the original direction of Russian enlightenment, religious - as opposed to Western enlightenment, which is devoid of a religious basis. 180 This is exactly what this magazine turned out to be. When “Russian Conversation” was already being published, I. Aksakov wrote, among other things, in the “final word”: “We dare to think that in the field of philosophy, history and philology, “Russian Conversation” presented important examples of independent, independent, unique Russian thought. 181 In the philosophical part of the magazine, the article by I. V. Kireevsky was especially outstanding: “On the necessity and possibility of new principles for philosophy,” published in the second book of the magazine. I. V-ch himself attached great importance to this article and it really has such significance. In the article. “Oh ne... new. beginning." Kireevsky preaches original Russian philosophy. Of course, there is nothing completely new in this article, in comparison with other articles by I. V-cha, the author develops only those positions that he had expressed before - about the falsity of the foundations of Western enlightenment, about the one-sidedness of Western philosophy, and indeed expresses new considerations about the wearing of faith and reason. 182 The article was not completed and the second part, which treated the topic in essence, was not even written. That this is really so is evidenced by “Passages” of a philosophical nature, found after the death of I. V-cha in his papers. These “Excerpts” are undoubtedly related to Kireevsky’s last major article; in them we find notes on various thoughts of the author raised in the article “On the Necessity and Possibility of New Beginnings for Philosophy.” Of course, one can regret that Kireevsky did not leave any large work in which the ideas that occupied him were presented in chapters and headings. But this regret 183 is only possible from a formal point of view. Essentially, the entire content of Kireevsky’s personality found expression in his articles. We saw that for Kireyevsky his journalistic activity was a means of expressing his cherished ideas, we also saw that one of his articles often repeated the content of another and that the personality of our thinker seemed very integral in its development. All this forces us to accept what Kireyevsky wrote as the ultimate value, not arousing any doubts and reticence, ambiguity, etc. Kireyevsky is a thinker “to whom the greatness and dignity of Russia, preceded and expected, hidden in its religious and moral beliefs, was a source of consolation; to whom “an integral image of the view,” as he himself put it, of Orthodox Slavic antiquity was the key to the renewal of all European enlightenment.” 184 Some, even among Kireevsky's friends, reproached I. V-cha for his lack of originality or constancy. 185 But it seems difficult to find a man so close to the ideal of integrity as he is. The breadth of Kireevsky's intellectual interests, combined with a fairly significant objectivity of view, undoubtedly caused judgments about him as an unstable person, often changing his mental sympathies. In fact, in I. V-cha’s hobbies for certain ideas, the invariably constant essence of his personality was manifested: from beginning to end he was attracted to high religious and moral ideals. He found them even among French thinkers, in passions for the ideas of philosophy, and finally in the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Moreover, the desire for the ideal was so strong and consistent that Kireevsky, when he found the true roots of this ideal in Orthodoxy, almost became an inhabitant of the Optina Hermitage 186, where he saw the most perfect implementation of the teachings of the Church. Kireyevsky carried Orthodox concepts and feelings, acquired primarily through family upbringing, intact among all kinds of extraneous influences - this is the best proof of his true originality. In a word, Kireyevsky’s development represents a very clear organic growth of his personality. This gives a special value to Kireevsky’s personality. Our thinker is a typical product that could only grow on Russian soil, and by comparing ourselves with him, we can see the unevenness and deviations of our own development. So Kireevsky is whole, organically connected with the main elements of Russian life 187... It was started by Iv. Vasilyevich's work on philosophy was cut short and remained unfinished due to the fatal death of Kireyevsky from cholera, in St. Petersburg, 1856, June 12. 188 The death of I. V-cha caused deep regret for him among Russian society. Particularly characteristic of Kireyevsky are the words of Khomyakov 189, in which the image of Kireyevsky is given as a Christian man and as a Christian thinker. “A heart filled with tenderness and love,” Khomyakov wrote, “a mind enriched with all the enlightenment of our modern era; the transparent purity of a meek and good-natured soul, some special softness of feeling that gave a special charm to the conversation; an ardent desire for truth, an extraordinary subtlety of dialectics in a dispute, coupled with the most conscientious compliance when the enemy was right and with some kind of tender mercy when the enemy’s weakness was obvious; dashing gaiety, always ready for a harmless joke, innate disgust from everything rude and offensive in life, expression of thought, or in relations with other people; loyalty and devotion in friendship, the willingness to always forgive enemies and put up with them sincerely, deep hatred of vice and extreme leniency in court about vicious people, finally, impeccable nobility, which not only did not allow any stain or suspicion on itself, but sincerely suffered from any ignobility noticed in other people - these were the rare and invaluable qualities for which Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky was infinitely dear to your friends... But the loss of Ivan Vasilyevich Kireyevsky is important not only for his personal acquaintances: ... it is important and irreplaceable for all his compatriots, who truly love enlightenment and the original life of the Russian mind... Ivan Vasilyevich Kireyevsky is one of the people who took upon themselves the feat of liberating our thought from the superstitious worship of the thoughts of other peoples... Since his time and his affairs required predominantly a critical analysis, he was the first to turn to him his works and through a strict, deep and conscientious analysis came to the following conclusion: “Rationality and duality constitute the basic character of all Western enlightenment. Integrity and rationality constitute the character of that enlightenment principle that was the basis of our mental life.”... Modern philosophy... embraces the laws of possibility, but not the laws of reality: it is the study of the dialectical reflection in our thought of the logic of a phenomenon, which itself is only a reflection of what is revealed. The truth of this philosophy has its rights within its inherent limits..., but there is the possibility of a more complete and deep philosophy, the roots of which lie in the knowledge of the full and pure Faith - Orthodoxy. human in general. 190 The conclusions they reached, having become common property, will be known to everyone; but his few articles will always remain the subject of study for the consistency of his thoughts, which constantly demanded a strict account of himself, for the nature of the warm love for truth and people that shines through everywhere in them, for the true sense of the elegant, for his reverent gratitude to his mentors - predecessors in the ways of science even when he is forced to condemn them, and especially for some deep sympathy for the unspoken demands of all humanity, hungry for living and life-giving truth." A systematic presentation of the entire teaching of Kireyevsky, to which we will now move on, should fully explain to us the personality of I.V. Kireyevsky, as it is presented above, because his teaching is a natural result of his inner life and, being presented in its entirety, it casts an unusually bright light on the personality of the thinker. The genealogy of the Kireyevskys was recorded from the words of Pyotr Vasilyevich Kireyevsky (1808–1856) by P. I. Bartenev, Rus. Arch. 1877, book. 2, p. 482. These notes were in the hands of Pyotr V-cha Kireevsky and stolen from him on one of his trips to collect songs. (Ibid.) Russian Arch. 1877 book. 2, p. 361, message from Tolycheva. Valery Lyaskovsky. Brothers Kireevsky. St. Petersburg 1899, p. 3. “Materials for biographers. I. V. Kireevsky", with Full. collection Op. 1861 (ed. Koshelev) p. 3; also in ed. Op. 1911 (edited by M. O. Gershenzon). M. O. Gershenzon, Images of the past, p. 89. P. B. I. V. Kireevsky, Russian. Arch. 1894, book. 2, p. 332, approx. Valery Lyaskovsky. Brothers Kireevsky, pp. 2 and 3. Pys. Arch. 1877, 2, p. 480. N. Kolyupanov. Biography of A.I. Koshelev, M. 1899, vol. 1, book. 2, page 4. Tolycheva, Rus. Arch. 1877 book. 2, p. 361. A. Peterson, Features of ancient noble life, Rus. Arch. 1877, 2, pp. 479–482. Ek. Af. Progasova (nee Bunin), daughter of A.I. Bunin, father of Zhukovsky. Tolycheva. Stories and anecdotes, Rus. Arch. 1877, 2. Kolyupanov, cit. above op. Lyaskovsky, cit. above op. Finally, if you look at the matter more broadly, the very way of life of the noble estate, whose strong patriarchal traditions, as we have seen, went far into history, played a role in the formation of I. V-cha’s personality. Genus. 1789, +1877. The most important information about A. P-n in the articles: P. B., Rus. Arch. 77, 2, and K.D. Kavelina, Collection. Op. vol. 3, St. Petersburg. 1899, also in N. Kolyupanov’s “Biography of Koshelev” and in “The Diary of E. I. Popova”, St. Petersburg. 1911 Anna P. Sontag, writer, Maria Petrovna and Ekaterina Petrovna. Seydlitz. Life and poetry of V. A. Zhukovsky, St. Petersburg. 1883, pp. 4–14. By the way, Zhukovsky presented his first poetic works for discussion of the “virgin Areopagus”, which included Avdotya Petrovna along with her sisters. Seydlitz, page 16. I. I. Turgenev, the director of the university, was a prominent representative of that sentimental and philanthropic trend, which was first clearly revealed in our Novikov circle. T. was once a member of this circle and could influence Zhukovsky and others in the spirit of his ideas. P. B. Avdotya Petrovna Elagina. I. V-cha’s poetic abilities were not widely demonstrated - he wrote only a few poems - but he had them. Also, fragmentarily, K-y discovered his abilities as a fiction writer. K. D. Kavelin, op. above article. Herzen, in his Diary of 42, incidentally writes about Avd. P.: “The other day I visited Elagina, the mother of, if not the Gracchi, then the Kireyevskys.... an extremely smart woman, without quotes, simply and freely.” Herzen, vol. VI, St. Petersburg. 1905. These translations are indicated in the book: “Biography of A. I. Koshelev”, N. Kolyupanova It seemed possible to look at the religious movement associated with the name of the famous Czech reformer Hus as a protest of the elements of the Slavic soul against Western European principles. Vinet (1797–1847), Swiss theologian and literary historian, supporter of an independent church from secular power. Avdotya Petrovna translated his book: “Discours sur quelques sujets religieux.” Among Vinay's other works - “Sur la Separation de l'Eglise de l'Etat” and others. Ivan Vasilyevich was undoubtedly interested in Vinay, see Rus. Arch. 1894, 2, p. 346 (letter from K. to Koshelev). Letters from A.P. Elagina. Russian Arch. 1886 p. 336. Massilion, French preacher, bishop. “Selected Words of M...” was translated into several editions in Russia. Fenelon, author of the famous "Telemacus", bishop, writer with a religious and moral direction. Zhukovsky joined the Moscow militia on August 12, 1812, left it on January 6. 1813. The Pleshcheevs, A.A. Pleshcheev and his wife (nee Chernysheva), were distinguished by their education and artistic tastes: they had their own home orchestra; Pleshcheev was known, by the way, as a very good reciter. Daughters of Ek. Af. Protasova: Maria Andreevna and Alexandra Andreevna. In the village of the Protasovs, shelter was given to several French prisoners, among them there were two generals: Vonami and Menu (Russian Arch. 1877, 2, 365). “Materials for biogr...” pp. 5, 7 (ed. 61). I.V. Lopukhin was the godfather of Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky. V. Lyaskovsky, cit. Op. page 4. When we meet, we’ll talk about what is one of the main things in life for me, about raising our children.” (Letter from Zh to A.P. K-oi, Russian Star. 1883, vol. 39, p. 234). “Listen, dear Dolbin sister, I myself was afraid of my proposal made to you in the first minute, but I was only afraid of my inability to fulfill it. But as they say, if there is no fish, there is no cancer... what would be better than to work hard for our dear children... (Letter from Zh to A.P. K-oi. Utkinsky collection, p. 10). See Letters from Zhukovsky to A.P. K-oi. Rus. Star. 1883 vol. 39, pp. 533–544. "Materials for biogr." page 7. Works of Kireyevsky, ed. 1911 vol. II, p. 225. Merzlyakov taught literature at the university, and he captured not only Russian literature, but also ancient literature; Tsvetaev was considered a pillar of the ethical-political department; Chumakov prof. physical and mathematical sciences; Snegirev (son) prof. Roman antiquities and the Latin language. (Biographical Dictionary of the Imperial Moscow University. M. 1885. Part II.) Barsukov. Life and works of Pogodin, St. Petersburg. 1888, vol. I, pp. 39–48. “Mother. for biogr.” page 8. Biogr. dictionary...Moscow un., article: “Pavlov M. G.” Bobrov. Philosophy in Russia, Kazan 1899 Vol. I, pp. 111–112. – Together with Koshelev, Kireevsky then read Locke and both of them were delighted with this thinker (Notes of I. Koshelev. Berlin, 1884. p. 7). V. Lyaskovsky, cit. essay, pp. 7, 8. The Archive was a place of service for young nobles, who entered the Archive in large numbers. Thanks to the communication of young educated people in it, the Archive was destined to play a significant role in the history of Russian education. Even earlier, Schelling's philosophy began to be promoted in St. Petersburg. There it was distributed by Prof. medical surgeon acad. Vellansky and prof. u-ta Galich. The latter was prohibited from lecturing on philosophy in 1821, and the former, although not noticed in anything, decided then to remain silent. Book 3. A. Volkonskaya, in the retinue of Emperor Alexander I, traveled around Western Europe. She knew many famous foreigners. Volkonskaya's education, in particular her knowledge of art, made her home in Moscow a salon for writers, musicians, etc.; The following writers were here: Venevitinov, Kireevsky, Khomyakov, Pushkin, P. A. Vyazemsky. (Russian Arch. 1885, book 1. On the biography of the poet Venevitinov). Barsukov, Life and works of Pogodin, I, p. 212. Meetings of the Society of Liubomudiya took place in the apartment of Prince. V. F. Odoevsky. The atmosphere in which the meetings took place corresponded to the nature of, if not secret, then the mysterious Society. “Two cramped closets under the entrance were littered with books, tomes... on tables, under tables, on chairs... On windows, on shelves, on benches, flasks, bottles, jars, mortars, retorts and other tools. In the front corner was a human skeleton with the inscription Sapere aude. What tricks had to be resorted to in order to place a piano, albeit a very small one, in this cramped space? (Pogodin, Collection. “In memory of Prince V.F. Odoevsky,” I quote from the book of P.N. Sakulin in the Book of V.F. Odoevsky, pp. 104–105, note 5). Genus. 1806 + 1883, publicist and public figure. Genus. 1805 + 1824, R., among other things, translated “The Sorrows of Werther” by Goethe. The organ of the philosophers was the journal Mnemosyne, published by Küchelbecker and Odoevsky in 4 books in 1824–25. From 1827–30, the organ of the same ideas of Lyubomudry was the magazine “Moskovsky Vestnik”, ed. Weather. Lyubomudie is a term used by Masons and mystics of the 18th century. It was used to dissociate itself from the imaginary philosophy of the 18th century. Oken and Görress are Schellingians who dealt with: the first natural philosophy, the second - questions of religion. Notes of A.I. Koshelev, p. 12. “You can’t imagine writing about philosophy. Schelling Odoevsky - what effect it had in its time, what impetus it gave to people who fell asleep to the monotonous tune of Locke's rhapsodies. At the beginning of the 19th century, Schelling was the same as Christopher Columbus in the 15th century: he revealed to man an unknown part of his world, about which there were some fabulous legends - his soul” (Russian Nights, 1884, p. 15). In these works, Venevitinov expresses purely Schellingian thoughts: about the fundamental unity of reason and imagination, about poetry as a reflection of the universe (See “Sculpture, Painting and Music”, “Morning, Noon, Evening and Night”, “Plato’s Conversation with Anaxagoras”). The same ideas found expression in the poetic works of Venevitinov (1805 + 1827). The aesthetics of the wise men had some influence on Pushkin, who, on his visit to Moscow in 1826, met closely with the wise men. Here Pushkin could assimilate the sublime romantic view of the poet, expressed by him, for example, in the work “Mob” (1828). See about this in N. Kotlyarevsky, Ancient Portraits, St. Petersburg. 1907; article “Pushkin and D.V. Venevitinov.” - At the same time, Kireevsky met Pushkin, whom P. valued highly (see “Critical Notes” in any complete edition of Pushkin’s works. review of Kireevsky). Before Schelling's enthusiasm, French eclectic philosophy was popular among us and, by the way, Degerandeau, one of the prominent predecessors of French eclecticism, was especially highly valued. Degerandeau is a moralist and social thinker. This attracted the attention of the Russian reader to him. In Schelling's philosophy, the Russian reader also sought a solution to moral issues, as evidenced by the character of at least the same Society of Liubomy: The society may seem to have an abstract character, but in fact, behind abstract interests there was hidden a living desire to resolve social issues. Notes of K. Polevoy, St. Petersburg, 1888. p. 159. Since the passion for Schellingism was one of the manifestations of the romantic trends of the time, it is not surprising if the organ of the wise, Mnemosyne, touched upon issues not only of philosophical, but also of socio-historical significance. Thus, in “Mnemosyne” Kuchelbecker (On the direction of our predominantly lyrical poetry over the last decade) and Odoevsky (A few words about Mnemosyne by the publishers themselves) spoke, in the spirit of the ideas of romanticism, about the need for an original development of Russian literature and Russian enlightenment in general. Eg. in the works: “Strange Man”, “Days of Annoyance” and so on. The depiction of the type of wisdom by Odoevsky is discussed in detail in P. N. Sakulin’s essay on Odoevsky, vol. I, part 1, pp. 193–224. When one of the wise men, who had the makings of a practical activist, became quite such an activist, Kireyevsky reproached him for this. This reproach, however, does not mean that Kireevsky’s own ideals were far from life, but only that he did not understand practical matters that were not imbued with moral meaning (and what, of course, moral meaning could be seen in A.I. Koshelev’s business in wine farming?!). K. Polevoy talks about Kireevsky’s philosophical disputes with a certain Rosberg, then prof. Dorpat University: “I remember that one evening a dispute broke out, which did not end until late at night, and in order to end it, they agreed to meet the next day at Kireyevsky’s. The next day, everyone who was arguing appeared there, but the heated competition lasted until, finally, Rosberg, tired, weary, his face changed from a two-day argument, said with deep conviction and very solemnly, turning to Kireyevsky: “I don’t agree, but I don’t have the strength to argue anymore.” (Notes of K. Polevoy. p. 154). Oddly enough, the Moscow wise men were suspected by the government, as evidenced by the indictment filed in the III department. in 1827. See E. Bobrov, “Literature and Enlightenment in Russia in the 19th Century.” II, 152 pp. In the last year of the Society's existence, some of its members met with the Decembrists, which influenced the wise men. In 1825, Koshelev attended one evening with M. M. Naryshkin, where there were: Ryleev, Prince. Obolensky, Pushchin and others. When Koshelev shared his impressions of the evening with Kireevsky, Venevitinov and others, it was decided to include the works of political writers in the range of subjects of the Society. (Notes of Koshelev, p. 13). And in connection with the events of 1825, the Lyubomudry - since an indignation was expected in the southern army and its victorious march through Moscow to St. Petersburg - practiced fencing and horse riding every day. (Russian Arch. 1885. I. To the biography of the poet Venevitinov). B. Lyaskovsky, p. 11. “Matter. for biogr.” page 11. “Materials for a biography”... page 10. Lyaskovsky, cit. Op. pp. 11, 12. Obviously, philosophical studies pushed Kireevsky’s thought towards moral issues, as was the case with other wise men. V.F. Odoevsky also dealt with ethical issues. “Having mastered the general ideas of Schelling and Oken, orienting himself in the epistemological problem, Odoevsky hastens to focus his attention on more specific issues, on issues of ethics and aesthetics... “Moral wisdom”... most of all attracted the thought of V. F. Odoevsky. In all periods, with different ideological moods, he again and again takes on the solution of ethical problems.” The remaining fragments of Odoevsky’s work “Dwarfs of the 19th Century” in the manuscript contain a discussion about virtue. (P.N. Sakulin, V.F. Odoevsky. vol. I, part 1, p. 152). “Materials for a biography”... pp. 11, 12, 13. In 1827, in Mosk. The Bulletin “contained an article by a certain Kamashev - “A Look at History as a Science.” This article sets out the philosophical and historical scheme of Schellingism, but only in relation to the East and classical peoples; K. does not touch upon the question of Russia. This is Venevitinov’s article “A few thoughts on the plan of the magazine”, heard at one of the meetings of friends. These features precisely characterize the activities of Stankevich’s circle in the 1930s. Philosophical interests in this circle were of a moral and social nature; moving from one Philosophical system to another, the members of the circle looked for solutions to the problems of personal and public life. Collection Op. 1861. vol. I, p. 1. Barsukov. Life and works of Pogodin, vol. II, p. 104. “Mother. for biogr.”, page 16 (Letter to A.I. Koshelev from 1828). Distinguishing three periods in the development of Pushkin’s poetry: the Italian-French school, the Byronic period and, finally, the Russian-Pushkin period, Kireevsky in the second and especially the third period of the poet’s activity finds original features, an expression of the national characteristics of our life, and this opens up bright prospects for the future of Russia to critics. - ... “The determination of the merits and demerits of individual poems and an indication of the nationality of creativity,” V. Lyaskovsky writes about this article, “still amazes with its accuracy. It is especially interesting to compare the last instruction with the opinions of Belinsky and with Dostoevsky’s speech at the opening of the monument to Pushkin: this comparison shows that the question, raised much later, was already clearly presented to Kireyevsky’s mind for an entire half century.” (V. Lyaskovsky, The Kireevsky Brothers, p. 15). Both the article about Pushkin and the “Review of Rus. verbal. for 1829”, placed in Volume I “Collected. Op. Kireyevsky. M. 1861 and in volume II of the new edition, M. 1911. That is, in the articles: “On the nature of the enlightenment of Europe and its relation to the enlightenment of Russia” and “On the need and possibility of new principles for philosophy.” In a letter to A.P. Elagina, Zhukovsky wrote about I. V-cha’s article “Something about the character. Pushkin’s poetry”: “I read Vanyusha’s article about Pushkin in Moskovsky Vestnik and rejoiced with all my heart. I bless him to write with both hands; smart, juicy philosophical prose." (V. Lyaskovsky, p. 20). - Critics, in another article by Kireevsky, in the Review... “picked up two... details: the remark that “wit and taste are cultivated only in the circle of the best society” and the expression... that “Delvig threw a blanket of the latest despondency over his classical muse.” These little things were repeated and ridiculed in every possible way.” (Ibid., p. 19). In a letter to A.I. Koshelev dated Oct. 1. 1828, Kireyevsky writes among other things: “I... am glad that you like Herder. It is not depravity of mind, as you think, but greater maturity that makes you prefer poetry to dry calculations. Schelling himself is a poet where he gives free rein to the natural desires of his mind. Only the need to adapt to the limited understanding of readers makes him sometimes be dry. But it seems to me that he was mistaken in this: whoever did not understand a thought by feeling did not understand it. Just like the one who understood it with one feeling.” (“Material for biogr.” p. 18). Barsukov, Life and works of Pogodin. St. Petersburg 18–9. II, p. 189. Russian Arch. 1894, III, Letters of the Kireyevsky brothers, countries. 208–210. One observer of the fate of Russian philosophy, M. Filippov, quite rightly says that Kireyevsky arrived in Germany with ready-made concepts. (M. Filippov. The fate of Russian philosophy. I. German idealism on Russian soil. Russian Wealth 1894, No. 1). But what for us only serves as proof of the originality of the Russian soul, for F. is only the unfortunate fate of Russian philosophy. “Materials for a biography”... page 31. I. V-ch then told his brother: “If there is no happiness, there is debt.” (M. O. Gershenzon. Historical notes (about Russian society) M. 1910, p. 5). “Materials for a biography”... letters from Berlin from February 13/25, from February 20–March 4 and from March 14/26. “Speeches on Religion” is Schleiermacher’s most prominent work, which in terms of its significance in addressing general issues of religion for its time is comparable to W. James’s book “The Variety of Religious Experience.” Speeches about Sh-ra's religion. introductory article by S. L. Frank. M. 1911, ed. "Russian Thought". Gaim, Romantic school. M. 1891, ch. third, book three. “Materials for a biography”... letter dated March 3/15. From this letter it is clear that Kireevsky diligently read Schleiermacher and, in addition, listened to his lectures at the university on the life of Christ. The contents of Kireyevsky’s letter given here concern Sh-ra’s lecture on the resurrection of Christ. “Materials for a biography”... letter marked with the month - July, page 64. Summing up his trip abroad, I. V-ch said in a letter to A. I. Koshelev: “I saw nothing except Germany, boring, insignificant and stupid despite all my learning.” Letter to A.I. K-vu, 1831 in the edition of op. Kireevsky 1911, II volume. “Materials”... pp. 61, 65. – The same attitude towards Schelling was given to I. V-cha’s brother Pyotr Vasilyevich and Rozhalin, who were then in Munich. When all three of them visited the philosopher’s audience together, they sometimes became very bored with the lecture and said to each other to Schelling: “Dafolno Karl Ifanovich.” (From Rozhalin’s letters. Russian Arch. 1909, book II). Collection Op. Kireevsky, M. 1861. vol. II, p. 323. That time was for Germany a time of increased interest in religious issues, in particular in Christianity (Schelling, Baader, Görres, etc.). It was precisely this effect that Germany had on another Kireyevsky, I. V-cha. “We were not born in Germany,” he wrote to his brother, “we have a fatherland. And maybe the distance from everything native especially developed in me a deep religious feeling." "Only having been in Germany do you fully understand the great significance of the Russian people, the freshness and flexibility of their abilities, their animation." (V. Lyaskovsky. The Kireevsky Brothers, pp. 22, 23). Kireyevsky was accused of the fact that, while discussing philosophy and literature in The Nineteenth Century, he was actually talking about politics. But since there is, of course, no politics in the said article, it seems more likely that the magazine would be banned for another article, about the comedy “Woe from Wit”; In this article, Kireevsky dared to touch on the Germans, of whom, as now, there were a lot of them in the Russian administration. See about this in the book by M. Lemke “Nikolaev gendarmes and literature 1826–1855.” St. Petersburg 1908 pp. 67–81. Collection Op. M. 1861, vol. I. The philosophical and historical views presented in the article “The Nineteenth Century,” like similar views in Kireevsky’s earlier articles, have a common connection with the then dominant trend in the whole of Europe of the distinctive development of each individual people and - some relation to the philosophical and historical ideas of German philosophy. On Kireevsky, as well as on other representatives of Russian thought (for example, Khomyakov), the philosophical and historical views of Hegel and Schelling could be influenced, if not in essence, then by their formal side; it was precisely the evolutionary point of view on the course of historical life that could influence our thinkers. In essence, Hegel, for example, could not instill in the Russian minds thoughts about the glorious future of the Russian people, because, in the opinion of this philosopher, the Slavic nation had not yet “emerged in the world as an independent moment in the series of creations of reason.” (Cuno-Fischer. Hegel, Pol. II, p. 51). However, Schelling, whose philosophy was more sympathetic to the future Slavophiles and whose thinking is distinguished by greater breadth (in the sense of cosmopolitanism) than Hegel’s thinking, expressed in a conversation with P. V. Kireyevsky the opinion that “Russia is destined for a great destiny.” (M. O. Gershenzon. Images of the past, p. 101). Our Westerners posed Western European ideals not as something new in European life itself (as Kireevsky did in his article “The Nineteenth Century”), but as a more or less constant value, at least in its fundamentals. Chaadaev (in his first and philosophical letter), like the author of “The Nineteenth Century,” found unity in the West, we lack it, and from here he drew his pessimistic conclusions about the past, present and even future of Russia. But this similarity with Chaadaev is not deep in Kireyevsky, if only because the view of Russia in the article “The Nineteenth Century” is far from having the character of hopelessness. We will consider in more detail the question of Chaadaev’s attitude towards the Slavophiles, as far as necessary, in its place. Back in 1829, when Kireevsky, one might say, began his journalistic activity, one of his friends wrote about I. V-che to his stepfather A. A. Elagin: “Wake him up more often. It’s a sin... that people with talents sleep so much with us.” Letters of N. M. Rozhalin, Russian Archive 1909, II. Kireevsky explained his inactivity by the lack of constant motivation for systematic work. That is why he willingly took up the magazine business - its urgency was supposed to encourage Kireyevsky to write. See his letters about this. – Kireevsky and Gogol accused Kireevsky of inaction (in a letter to Pogodin regarding the slow conduct of business with the newly emerging magazine “Moscow Observer”: “For God’s sake, persuade Muscovites to work, it’s a sin, it’s a sin for all of them. Tell Kireevsky that he will be scolded by everything that comes after us, for his inaction”... Gogol’s letter to Pogodin November 2, 1834 Barsukov, IV, p. 233. Subsequently, regarding the hassle of taking over the editorial office of the magazine “Moskvityanin”, I. V-ch explained (in a letter to Zhukovsky) that, according to a certificate issued three years ago (letter to Zh-y from 1845), he was prohibited from writing “European”, but was not prohibited from writing. Collection Op. ed. Gershenzon, p. 236, vol. II. These articles are: “On Yazykov’s poems”, in “Telescope” and “Russian Women Writers”, in “Odessa Almanac”. One of the employees of the banned “European” wrote to Kireevsky shortly after the magazine’s closure: “Let us enclose ourselves in our circle, like the first Christian brothers, the owners of a light that was persecuted in its time, but is now triumphant. We will write without typing. Perhaps a prosperous time will come." Tatev collection, II. 1899, p. 40. Letter from E. A. Baratynsky. Melgunov wrote to A.V. Venevitinov about this society: We are all together two or three times a week. Khomyakov argues, Kireevsky teaches, Koshelev tells, Baratynsky poetizes”... “Barsukov, life and works of Pogodin, III, St. Petersburg. 1890,193,194. “Materials for biogr. I. K. K-ago”..., p. 83. This devotion of Khomyakov to Orthodoxy was revealed by A.S. even in childhood, when Khomyakov was already critical of Catholicism and showed loyalty to the statutes of the Orthodox Church. 24 years old A.S. polemicized with Koshelev, refuting his Schellingian views. (Zavitnevich, A.S. Khomyakov. book II, p. 966). However, one should not exaggerate the significance of these events for I. V-cha. It cannot be denied that Natalia Petrovna had some influence on his interest in religion, but both her influence and even the influence of the elders were important because in Kireyevsky himself there were deep foundations for an intense religious life. “The story of the conversion of Ivan Vasilyevich,” recorded from the words of Natalia Petrovna (see Collected works of I. V-ch Kireyevsky, edited by Gershenion) by A. I. Koshelev, seems to us to be not without distortions and, in any case, this story psychologically incorrectly portrays the personality of I. V-ch, for judging about which there are other, more objective facts; Therefore, we do not even include the said “history” in a note. "Materials for biographers." I. V. K-ago, p. 84. Lyaskovsky, The Kireevsky Brothers, p. 49. During Philaret’s illness in 1842, I. V-ch “followed him with all the care of a devoted son, sat whole nights in his cell over the bed of a dying man.” "Materials"... p. 85. “The Island” dates back to 1838, the article “In response to Khomyakov” to 1839 (in the 1861 edition it was erroneously attributed to 1838). These meetings were attended by: Khomyakov, Kireevskys, Aksakov, Samargin, Gogol, Baluev, Elagins, etc. - Here Gogol read his works and, by the way, the first chapters of “Dead Souls”, even before their publication. Barsukov, V, p. 359. In this article, Khomyakov contrasted contemporary Rus' with pre-Petrine Rus'. See Full. collection Op. A. S. Khomyakova. “In the view of I.V. Kireevsky and other Slavophiles, the supreme truth is contained in Orthodoxy, in that Christian idea that is alien to the rationalistic West, which is obscured in the consciousness of the Russian intelligentsia, but which lives in the Orthodox Church and in the common Russian people. Hence the antithesis of East and West and the idea of ​​our messianism.” Sakulin, V.F. Odoevsky, I, part 1, p. 350. Life in the West, as well as acquaintance with Western enlightenment, could have, as we have seen, a negative impact on Kireevsky, awakening the development of his natural inclinations. From the point of view of this organic growth of I. V-cha’s personality, the comments of various biographers about some kind of revolution in Kireyevsky’s soul that took place at a certain time seem completely unnecessary. It is quite understandable that others no longer see such a difference in I. V.’s mood during different periods of his life. We do not give here the names of people who spoke about Kireevsky in one sense or another, because all of these are people who either only casually mentioned Kireyevsky’s religious evolution in their writings (Herzen, for example), or touched upon the personality of I. V-cha in articles and writings that were not dedicated to him at all (Koshelev, Pyatkovsky). We used the name “biographers” in relation to some of these individuals, allowing for a certain inaccuracy because I. V-ch does not yet have a biographer: Bartenev’s essay is very brief, and Lyaskovsky’s book does not exhaust all the details of Kireevsky’s life and does not sufficiently clarify his personality, although the author approaches an organic understanding of the development of Kireevsky’s personality. Pro doma sua, it remains to be noted here that our present essay does not pretend to be a biography; we only strive to outline the most essential in Kireyevsky’s personality, which is closely connected with Kireyevsky’s very worldview. About one of the representatives of the Slavophile trend, Khomyakov, Herzen writes among other things: “His philosophical disputes consisted in the fact that he rejected the possibility of reaching the truth with reason; he gave the mind one formal ability, the ability to develop embryos or grains, otherwise received relatively ready-made (that is, given by revelation, received by faith). If the mind is left to itself, then wandering in the void and building category after category, it can expose its laws, but will never reach the concept of spirit, or the concept of immortality, etc. (Herzen, The Past and Dumas, part IV, p. 417 St. Petersburg, 1905). Similar theoretical or philosophical questions divided some Westerners. Thus, the same Herzen disagreed with Granovsky on the issue of the immortality of the soul (The Past and the Duma, part IV, p. 459). The central issue in this dispute was the question of the church. Barsukov, VI, pp. 288–292. Based on Hegel, K. Aksakov and Samarin “confessed a developing church,” in which they differed from Khomyakov and Kireevsky, who stood firmly on the basis of tradition. Samarin in one letter (to A.N. Popov) wrote: “the question of the church depends on the philosophical question and... the fate of the church is closely and inextricably linked with the fate of Hegel.” Then Samarin turned away from such a look. The older Slavophiles, and in particular I.V. Kireyevsky, were free from such enthusiasm for Hegel: they were more impressed by Schelling, mainly because of the importance he attached to irrational elements in knowledge. During the period of enthusiasm for Hegel in Russian society, I.V. Kireevsky diligently read Hegel’s “Logic” and “Philosophy of Religion,” but only once again became convinced of the lifelessness of German thought, which, as we have seen, did not particularly attract him before (see about this, etc. in “Notes” of A.I. Koshelev and “Correspondence of Stankevich” M. 1914, p. 715). Kireevsky became the editor and publisher of the magazine, not only completely independent from Pogodin, who had previously published Moskvit. with the close participation of Shevyrev (since 1840). Regarding this program of the Moskvitian, Herzen writes among other things: “The choice of Kireyevsky was unusually successful not only in terms of intelligence and talents, but also from the financial side. I myself would not want to conduct trade business with anyone in the world as much as with Kireyevsky.” And then Herzen tells an incident illustrating the “economic philosophy” of Kireyevsky. “The Past and the Duma, part IV, p. 426. Collection Op. ed. 1911, II, pp. 236, 237. Kireyevsky later developed propositions quite identical to these in two major articles: “On character. enlightenment Heb...." and "O necessary. and possible new started for philosophy." In the first article, at the end of it, I.V. wrote: “I only wish for one thing, that those principles of life that are preserved in the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church would completely penetrate the convictions of all our degrees and classes; so that these higher principles, dominating European enlightenment and not displacing it, but on the contrary, embracing it in their fullness, give it the highest meaning and the final development. In the second article, K-yi wrote: “To contrast these precious and life-giving truths (i.e. contained in the works of the Eastern fathers) to the modern state of philosophy, to penetrate, if possible, their meaning, to understand in relation to them all the questions of modern education, all the logical truths obtained by science, all the fruits of thousands of years of experience of the mind among its diverse activities; from all these considerations, to draw general consequences that correspond to the real requirements of enlightenment - this is a task, the solution of which could change the entire direction of enlightenment among the people, where the beliefs of the Orthodox faith are in disagreement with borrowed education. (Oc. vol. II, p. 314, ed. 1861). Gogol, like Kireevsky, was very preoccupied with the idea that pure, vital Orthodox teaching should be realized in the life of Russia. The same thought occupied the Slavophiles: Koshelev, Khomyakov, K. Aksakov. This also includes Zhukovsky himself, to whom the letter was written. Collection Op. ed. 1911, II, p. 238. Kireyevsky refused to keep the journal, not wanting to obey Pogodin. "Materials for biogr." ed. 61, art. 96. – Having once met with Pogodin, Kireevsky began to complain that he wanted to write, but had nowhere to print. On this occasion, Pogodin wrote in his Diary: “Unscrupulous people.” Barsukov, U ". page 304. Letters of I. V-cha, in Volume II of the Collection. Op. M. 1911, p. 233. Letter to A. S. Khomyakov. Herzen, The Past and Dumas, part IV, p. 420. Ibid., p. 419. This objectivity of Kireyevsky was rightly appreciated by Chaadaev: “I really wanted to see you today, dear Ivan Vasilyevich, so that I could read the speeches of Pil and Rossel with you, but since you probably won’t come to me, I’m sending you a list of debates with this Western bastard. I don't know why I really want you to read something. Perhaps you will calmly notice that this phenomenon of European education is one-sided, and convey your impression without hatred or partiality. Works and letters of Chaadaev, vol. I, M. 1913, p. 259, letter to I. B. Kireyevsky, 1845. Works by A. S. Pushkin, ed. Morozova, vol. VII, St. Petersburg. 1887, p. 302, letter to Dmitriev. Barsukov, Life and works of Pogodin, book. Ninth, 1895, p. 36. Barsukov, Life and works of Pogodin, book. fifth, 1892, pp. 470–71. Barsukov, book. seventh, page 439. Herzen, The Past and Dumas, part IV, pp. 418–19. Here, on behalf of Kireyevsky, Herzen conveys the following words of I. V-cha: “I stood early in the chapel, looked at the miraculous icon of the Mother of God and thought about the childish faith of the people praying to her; several women, sick people, old people were on their knees and, crossing themselves, bowed to the ground. With ardent hope I then looked at the holy features and little by little the secret of the miraculous power began to become clear to me. Yes, this is not just a board with an image... For centuries it has absorbed these streams of passionate offerings, prayers of grieving and unhappy people; she had to be filled with power flowing from her, reflecting from her to the believers. It became a living organ, a meeting place between the creator and people. Thinking about this, I once again looked at the elders, at the women with children, prostrate in fear, and at the holy icon - then I myself saw the features of the Mother of God animated, she looked at these simple people with mercy and love... And I fell on my knees and humbly prayed to her.” (The Past and the Duma, part IV, pp. 419–20). Herzen, vol. VI, Diary, p. 38. The term “Westernism” is characterized by the same inaccuracy. Some of the representatives of Westernism were sympathetic towards the Slavophiles and accepted some points of the Slavophil teaching. Such are, for example, Herzen and Belinsky, who shared the views of the Slavophiles on the need for an original national development of Russia; Herzen came especially close to Slavophile ideas. See art. Belinsky "Review of Literature for 1846". In Herzen, thoughts sympathetic to Slavophilism can be indicated in many places in his writings. Let us cite the following characteristic review of Herzen about the Slavophiles in “The Past and Thoughts”. “The Kireevskys, Khomyakov and Aksakov did their job; whether they lived long or short, but, closing their eyes, they could tell themselves with full consciousness that they did what they wanted to do, and if they could not stop the troika of couriers sent by Peter and in which Biron sits and beats the coachman so that he would gallop through the fields and crush people, then they stopped the enthusiastic public opinion and made all serious people think.” The Past and the Duma, page 427. This sympathy for the Slavophilism of people from the opposite camp only once again emphasizes the correctness of the view of Slavophilism as a doctrine that expressed the deep foundations of Russian life. Namely, the time of the formation of our Slavophilism coincides with the activities of such ascetics of the Slavs as Venelin (Carpathian Rusyn, who did so much to awaken the national self-awareness of Bulgaria), Vuk Karadzic (Serb), Safarik (Czech), etc. The travels of the first Russian Slavists in the Slavic countries, which the Germans, in their stupidity - let us note by the way - looked at as almost political spies, also date back to the same time. A. N. Pypin, Panslavism in the past and present. II. 1913 “The simplest historical information shows,” writes P. Vinogradov in the article “I. V. Kireevsky and the beginning of Moscow Slavophilism,” that the pan-Slavist tendency is far from a necessary appendage in Slavophilism, that the Slavic question played a relatively very modest role in the theories of the Slavophiles, despite the tempting name of the school, that the course of practical life, of course, put forward it too, but that it is precisely in this regard that one can discern significant differences between its main representatives and, on the contrary, point to some Ukrainophiles who have always disowned from Moscow Slavophilism and, nevertheless, pursuing truly pan-Slavist ideas (Kostomarov).” Questions of Philosophy and Psychology, book. 11 1892, p. 102. Iv. Vasilyevich was tolerant of minor differences between people of different beliefs, but he was very consistent in his loyalty to the fundamental principles of his own beliefs. Therefore, humanity in his relations with people was combined, so to speak, with integrity. For example, Kireyevsky was very indignant at the inappropriate use of the Slavic language (as a joke and for parody) as the language of the sacred books. Barsukov, IX, 117 pp. N.S. Solovyov tried to prove that in Slavophilism, Russian, nationality, are of main importance, while religion (Orthodoxy) was of interest only because it was professed by the Russian people. But Solovyov asserted this only in the heat of polemics against the “degenerated” (into nationalism) Slavophilism, which was hidden behind the names of the first Slavophiles. Wanting to refute the lies of nationalism, V.S. Solovyov did not spare “genuine Slavophilism, which, moreover, he did not sympathize with. The genuine thoughts of genuine Slavophiles about the relationship between nationality and faith, presented to V.S. Solovyov on the basis of Kireevsky, K. Aksakov, Khomyakov and Samarin by D.F. Samarin, however, evoked full recognition from this opponent of Slavophilism (by the way, who based the ideas of a purely Slavophilic nature as the basis for two of his dissertations). V. S. Soloviev. Collection Op. II, ed. General User vol. V, pp. 167, 197, 223–230, etc. In “Apology of a Madman (1837)” we find different judgments of Chaadaev compared to, for example. with his first "Philosophical Letter". Chaadaev no longer looks pessimistically at Russia’s past, considering the uniqueness of this past to be the key to great success in the future. I. N. Milyukov (in the book “The Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought”) suggests the influence of Chaadaev “in the preparation of the Slavophil theory,” in particular the influence of Ch. on Kireyevsky. Such an assumption cannot be substantiated with any convincing evidence. Based on the facts with which Miliukov operates, it seems more logical to substantiate the reverse influence of the Slavophiles, in particular Kireyevsky, on Chaadaev. Chaadaev undoubtedly submitted to the influence of the first Slavophile Kireyevsky, when, for example. in “Apology of a Madman,” he recognized, in agreement with I. V., the importance of the classical element in education (which Kireyevsky noted in the article “The Nineteenth Century”). Miliukov notes this circumstance as an insignificant “concession” on the part of Chaadaev; however, this concession is not so insignificant. For the author of Philosophical Letters, the pagan world was the complete opposite of Christianity and, while recognizing its formation in a positive sense, Chaadaev essentially contradicted himself. Of course, the classical world did not play a role in the doctrine of Slavophilism and Chaadaev’s “concession” in this sense did not bring him any closer to Slavophilism, but on the other hand - what is more important for us - Kireyevsky, who was familiar with the manuscript of the “Philosophical Letters” and “who took them into account, according to Milyukov,” when he wrote “The Nineteenth Century” did not borrow from them anything fundamentally important in the views of Chaadaev and the very setting of the classical element as a necessary condition for the further development of Russia (later accepted by Chaadaev) clearly shows how far Kireyevsky was from the ascetic-Catholic spirit of the Philosophical Letters, which constituted their undoubted essence. Thus, this whole incident with the “classical element”, with an undoubted exchange of opinions between Chaadaev and Kireevsky, does not at all prove even a deliberate “agreement” between them (Miliukov, Main Currents ... pp. 393, 394, according to the 1898 edition). We will not find any influence of Chaadaev on Kireyevsky if we turn to the “memoir” compiled by Chaadaev for Kireyevsky and intended to be submitted to Benckendorff. The “memoir” states that Europe and Russia are completely different in their historical development, that the enlightenment that we envy other peoples was the result of the influence of religious ideas, and that if we want the same enlightenment, we need to desire the revival of religious feeling in the country. It is this last idea about the importance of the Christian religion for enlightenment that Miliukov is inclined to consider among Kireevsky and among the Slavophiles in general as the result of the influence of Chaadaev. But such a conclusion, in any case, is very shaky, and not only because the said “memoir” pursued a very special goal of official justification, but mainly because Kireyevsky could have internalized the above idea even in addition to Chaadaev. To conclude from the general similarity of two worldviews in the religious idea, which appears in each of them with its own special content, to the continuity of these worldviews is, of course, hardly sound, since the facts are given for a completely different conclusion. The possibility of a different explanation of the religious nerve in Slavophilism seemed to Miliukov when he assumed a “mutual agreement” between Kireevsky and Chaadaev and asserted the role of the latter in the “preparation” of Slavophil ideas, noting at the same time that Kireyevsky himself was predisposed and in general the Slavophiles “themselves were inclined to attribute to the religious idea a primary role in the development of culture.” If so, then in what more precise way can the significance of Chaadaev for the Slavophil doctrine be formulated? Miliukov considers the answer to this question to be perhaps the most important definition of Chaadaev’s influence on the Slavophiles. “Chaadaev was almost the first to open their eyes,” he writes about the Slavophiles, to the general connection between the ideas of Christian historical philosophy, and only in this connection did the Orthodox religious idea acquire world-historical significance” (Main Currents... p. 395). But even regarding this assumption of Miliukov, it must be said that Chaadaev’s formulation of the religious problem has only apparent, and not actual, universality. True, Chaadaev presented the historical process as the striving of everything towards a single goal, set for humanity by Providence, but the laws of this process that he recognized did not apply to all historical phenomena. As Miliukov himself rightly says, the regularity of the historical process for Chaadaev is nothing more than a privilege of Christian Catholic peoples. The question is how such a point of view on history could reveal to the Slavophiles “the general connection of the ideas of Christian historical philosophy.” After all, it is clear that from Chaadaev’s point of view it was impossible to talk, for example, about the world-historical significance of Orthodoxy, which is exactly what we see in Slavophilism. In 1844 the works of the book were published. V. F. Odoevsky, in three books (P. 1844). Part one contained “Russian Nights,” essays of a philosophical, fictional and journalistic nature. In “Russian Nights,” which was written back in the thirties, Odoevsky expressed his negative attitude towards Western culture, which seemed to him devoid of idealism. Odoevsky criticizes the empirical direction of Western thinking, is indignant at the mercantilism and selfishness of Western life and expects the healing of these ulcers of Europe through its introduction to the Eastern Slavic element. The idea of ​​the great calling of Russia, which contains within itself the makings of an ideal structure for human life, is especially clearly expressed by Odoevsky in the “Epilogue of Russian Nights.” About faith, about religion Odoevsky in “R. night." speaks very sympathetically and recognizes religion as alive and vital precisely in Russia, and not in the West (which has lost faith), but the specific religiosity of Russia did not find its proper place in Odoevsky’s philosophical and historical forecast regarding Russia. The moral and philosophical dissatisfaction with Western life and thought, characteristic of many of the best people of that time, mark him as one of the prominent Russian idealists who sought to “understand his instinct and feel his mind,” that is, to comprehend his national existence. "Rus. nights" in ed. 1844 p. 376. – Another idealist of that time, moreover, very close to the Slavophil circle, E. A. Boratynsky, (by the way, a very close, at one time, friend of I. V. Kireevsky) was also acutely worried about the deadening influence of the mercantile West on Russian life. See eg. poem "The Last Poet": “The age moves on its iron path; There is self-interest in our hearts and a common dream From time to time, vital and useful More clearly, more shamelessly busy,” etc. Orthodoxy, as the basis of Russian life, was deeply felt, for example. Gogol, Zhukovsky, book. P. A. Vyazemsky, Tyutchev and others. They all believed in the religious-national principles of Rus', sometimes contrasting Russia with the heterodox West. “Holy Rus'”, Orthodoxy - was the central idea in the social and historical views of the best people of that time (see Gogol’s “Correspondence”, V. A. Zhukovsky’s 1848 letter to Prince Vyazemsky regarding the poem “Holy Rus'”, Tyutchev’s poem, for example: “Dejected by the burden of the cross, All your native land, In a slave form, the Heavenly King, He came out blessing... and so on and so on). – In particular, Gogol, and especially Zhukovsky, expressed some abstract truths similar to the philosophical positions of Slavophilism, such as Gogol’s idea about the insufficiency of the mind alone for the correct development of life (see letter XII, Christianity is moving forward) and Zhukovsky’s thoughts about faith, knowledge (see Zhukovsky’s philosophical passages). Ap., sympathetic to Slavophilism. Grigoriev called the "Review" ... Kireevsky a profound article "even for any time, not only for that time." Autobiography, ed. Savodnika, M. 1915, p. 66. “I. V. Kireevsky - Khomyakov wrote to A.V. Venevitinov - as you can hear, he wrote a lot of beautiful things. I rejoice mentally, I have a lot of hope for Kireyevsky. There is a treasure of thought and poetry in his head.” Barsukov, 5, p. 470. Vinogradov. Questions of Philosophy and Psychology, 1892 book. 11. pp. 104, 107. Paisiy (1722–1794), in the world Pyotr Ivanovich Velichkovsky was the son of a Poltava archpriest. At the age of sixteen he left the Kyiv Academy for the Lyubetsky Monastery, then to Wallachia, and finally to Mount Athos, where he took monastic vows in 1750. Paisiy was the abbot of the monasteries of Dragomirna, Sekula and Neamtsa (in Moldova). V. Lyaskovsky, The Kireevsky Brothers, pp. 46–48. The life and writings of the Moldovan elder Paisius (Velichkovsky). M. 1892, third ed. Kozelskaya Vvedenskaya Optina Hermitage. Biography of Fr. Paisiya was featured for the first time in the “Moscowite” of 1845. 4. On Mount Athos, Paisius found the originals needed for translation and at the same time began to study Greek and translate. During Paisius’s lifetime, one of the books he translated, “Love of Love,” was published in Moscow, in 1793. E.V. Historical description of the Kozel Optina Hermitage. St. Trinity. Lavra, 1902, pp. 84–85, 87. Assessing the significance of the book publishing activity of the Optina Desert, an activity that was carried out not without the participation of Kireyevsky, the author of the “Historical Description” of the desert writes, among other things, “Under the influence of Western Europe, the press in Russia has generated a huge number of literary works that distract readers from the irresistible questions of the human spirit, or resolve them because they are incorrect, to the extent and daringly, about: where and who we are, why we are unhappy, where is salvation, what should be done in order to be wise in your life and achieve happiness and what awaits us ahead? No science can give answers to these questions; meanwhile, all these queries inherent in every human soul have already been answered from above by the Creator of the whole world in Revelation, and faith resolves these questions with sufficient clarity and convincingness. Whoever has personally experienced the life-giving effects of Divine grace, all doubt about the purpose of life disappears” (pp. 85–86). Before the publication undertaken by the Optina Hermitage, ascetic patristic writings were not widespread among us, since, with few exceptions, they existed in manuscripts (ibid., p. 85). In particular, the Prince was interested in the “Philokalia,” among other things. V.F. Odoevsky and even recommended this book to others. It is possible, of course, that Odoevsky learned about this book through Kireyevsky. Sakulin, V.F. Odoevsky, vol. I, part 3, p. 393. See letters from I.V. to o. Macarius and other persons (eg Shevyrev), in Complete. collection Op. ed. 1911 and in the autographs of Imp. pub. bib. During the life of Ivan Vasilyevich, the Optina Hermitage published the works of, among other things, the following fathers Barsanuphius and John, Simeon the New Theologian, Theodore the Studite, and Maximus the Confessor. Isaac the Syrian, Abba Fallasius, Abba Dorotheus. Historical description of the Kozelsk Optina Hermitage, pp. 88, 89. Sending the editions of Optina and Hermitage to Shevyrev, Kireevsky wrote: “Look at the screwdriver where the publications of the Optina Hermitage are indicated. How many books and what treasures! and in what a short time! and what a poor monastery, deprived of almost all resources, published them! Is there another monastery in Russia that would do so much to spread spiritual light? Isn't it because it spreads so much that it concentrates so much? How many wonderful people are gathered there together! How many precious manuscripts, kept under wraps, are now being published!” (Letters from I.V. K-go to Shevyrev in the autographs of the Imperial Public Library). “If you think about the effect that a book can have, then of course one that pushes forward spiritual growth, or rather the most learned and most brilliant works of secular wisdom” (from a letter from I.V., in the autographs of the Imperial Public Library, to Shevyrev regarding the publication of a book about Paisius Velichkovsky “The Life and Writings of the Moldavian Elder Paisius (Velichkovsky)” - the first book published by Optina desert at the beginning of her productive book publishing activity, in 1847. The second edition of this book - the first was done through Kireevsky - was entrusted to Shevyrev). When considering the religious and philosophical worldview of Kireyevsky, we, to the extent required by the goals of the historical-genetic understanding of the worldview, will present the ideas of Christian ascetics that we noted in detail. This ideal attracted the attention of other representatives of Russian society. It was he, this ideal - in the sense of complete realization of Christianity in life - that was presented to Gogol’s consciousness. K. S. Aksakov, who preached “social hermitage,” meant in this case the realization by each individual member of society, first of all, of his individual perfection, that is, the full implementation of Christianity in his personal life, while removing himself from public interests. Where the source of such lofty aspirations was hidden is easy to see from the following words, for example, by Koshelev, which apply not only to him: “The Teaching of Christ must pass into life; faith and life must be united for ever. – Christ’s teaching must now be translated into life and completely change all social relations. Either Christ’s teaching is a lie, or we are all cruel insolent people, calling ourselves Christians. “Before each action, one must decisively think whether it is in accordance with the teachings of Christ.” V. Z. Zavitnovich. A. S. Khomyakov, vol. I, book. 2, pp. 976–979. So in one letter to Fr. Makaria I. V-ch asks to read the part of the article attached to the letter and even correct it and generally express his opinion about the article. (Collection of copies from letters in the library of the monastery Opt. empty., No. 413). For example, I.V. wrote very thoroughly to Fr. Macarius even on such an occasion as smoking a pipe, which I.V. was very keen on, or, for example, about his passion for playing chess. (Ibid.). Some of the letters quoted from Skeete's collection now exist in print. See R. Arch. 1912, book. 4. I. V.’s view of eldership is well expressed in the following words in one of his letters: “more important than any books,” wrote I. V. Koshelev, “and any thinking,” is 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.” R. Arch. 1894, II, p. 344. Collection copies.. Letters from I. V-cha to Fr. Makaria, as the most vivid depiction of Kireyevsky, deserves attention in detail. We note here that Kireyevsky in these letters expresses true and worthy opinions of a true philosopher about the abnormality of, for example, school education, which is all built on the principle of external law and does not pursue its true ideal, the development of a sense of inner truth in those being educated. I. V-ch, as can be seen from his “Diary” (unpublished), often attended divine services. According to his son, Sergei Ivanovich Kireevsky, I.V. loved to go to early mass, and sometimes chose a church that was far from home (From oral conversations with S.I. Kireevsky). One acquaintance of Kireyevsky told K. Leontiev, “that although all the Slavophiles of that time were people, of course, Orthodox in their convictions, he did not find in any of them so much warmth, so much sincerity and depth of feelings as in Kireyevsky.” “Khomyakov was colder; He, of course, was also a sincerely Orthodox man, but his dialectic, his passion for verbal debate carried him away to the point that he sometimes entered into disputes with Orthodox people about the most significant issues, contradicted and fell into some deviations. Whether he was talking to an atheist or a non-believer, he was completely Orthodox; but he began to talk with the Orthodox, and as soon as he said “yes, yes” to him twice, Khomyakov was already getting bored and wanted to say: “no, no, not quite like that!” “Kireevsky was all soul and love.” Father Clement, hieromonk of Optina Hermitage, K. Leontyev, ed. third of the Ambrosievskaya women's hermitage 1908, p. 6. This is exactly how Kireevsky himself looked at the organic connection between a personality and a famous work - the product of this personality. Back in 1836, I.V. wrote to N.M. Yazykov (regarding homeopathy): “Has there been at least one system since the creation of the world in which the character of its inventor was not identified? It seems to me that it cannot be. What is the character of Hannemann himself? A genius mind combined with the character of a charlatan. Consequently, we can already say in advance that in all his inventions there must be truth in parts and a lie as a whole.” (Collected works, ed. 1861, p. 87). Kireevsky spoke briefly about this source of true enlightenment earlier, in a review published in Moskvityanin (see Collected Works, vol. II, ed. 1861, p. 220); there he mentions the “comprehension of the highest wisdom”, which is revealed “in the Divine Scripture and in the wise thoughts of the Holy Fathers.” This idea of ​​I. V-cha - to find true philosophy from the Holy Fathers - found sympathy with A. S. Khomyakov, who in 1848 wrote to Kireyevsky the following poem, which expresses the hopes that Khomyakov had for Kireyevsky as a thinker: There is a land - above that land Unfurl your white sail Where are you, our brave traveler, And with valuable wealth Returning to us again, Give rest to troubled souls, Strength to weary wills, (Russian Conversation of 1858, and in collected verse.) A. S. Khomyakov, as well as Koshelev and others, were interested in patristic writings, read Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem. They also carefully and diligently read the Holy Scripture: “From the 15th of this month (November 1848),” writes Koshelev, “I began to read the “Acts of St. Apostolov" (Zavitnevich, S. Khomyakov, vol. I, book 2, pp. 971, 976, 979). It is interesting to note here that V. A. Zhukovsky, who in the nature and content of his religious and philosophical ideals comes close to the Slavophiles, attached more importance to Holy Scripture than to philosophy, and back in 1844 he wrote to A. I. Turgenev, who was fond of the philosophy of religion: “You continue to read the Bible, and leave Schelling; I don’t think anything could come of his philosophy of revelation.” Letters from V. A. Zhukovsky to the Turgenevs. Ed. Russian Archive, p. 296). Barsukov, Life and works of Pogodin, book. twelfth, page 1?. The censors saw in the articles of the Moscow Collection: dissatisfaction with the current education in Russia, the way of life and even political institutions. In the forties, Kireevsky made an attempt to obtain the department of philosophy at Moscow University (at that time the philosophy course was limited to the teaching of logic), but was unsuccessful. "Materials for biogr." page 100. The first was written in 1840 - “On the direction and methods of the initial education of the people.” A note from 1854 was published in the journal “Orthodox Review” in 1860, February, under the title “On the need for teaching the Church Slavonic language in district schools.” (Since 1839, I. V-ch was an honorary caretaker of the Belevsky district school). Kireevsky in this note proves the need for us to place the matter of public education on church soil. The old education “from the sexton” has an advantage over the school one, since it accustoms the student to reading sacred books and to understanding divine services and, being based on “the fundamental convictions of the faith and age-old customs of morality,” introduces the student to the church. The school cannot do this “with all the catechetical study of the law of God,” because “the whole essence of religious knowledge lies not in dogma, not in symbol, but in living sympathy with the spiritual life of the church.” The school will only provide an education that corresponds to the fundamental foundations of Russian life when an appropriate place is given in it to the Church Slavonic language, and therefore to familiarity with sacred and liturgical books. P. A. Vyazemsky. Old notebook (1853–1878). St. Petersburg 1886, p. 172. "Materials for Biography" pp. 102–109. From the quoted letter to Pogodin, on February 20, 1855, news was received in Moscow about the accession of Emperor Alexander II to the Russian throne. “That same evening,” says Koshelev, “after the oath of office, Khomyakov, I. Kireevsky and several other friends gathered with us and we drank with hope to the health of the new emperor and sincerely wished that during his reign the liberation of the serfs would take place” (Koshelev. Notes, p. 82). The Ministry of Public Education found it difficult to authorize the publication of the magazine, especially since the Slavophiles were far from revealing a desire to renounce their opinions, which were recognized by the censorship as harmful. When Khomyakov was in St. Petersburg, Minister Norov complained to him: “Kireevsky wrote to me and imagine he asks for permission and at the same time announces that he does not want to change his view and manner of actions and expressions.” The magazine was allowed mainly due to the relationship of the publisher (Koshelev) with Norov. Barsukov, XIV, p. 326. In a petition to Moscow. qualification Committee on permission to publish the magazine Koshelev and T.I. Filippov, among other things, wrote that at the basis of all their opinions, Orthodoxy is the soul of all Russian life. The purpose of the magazine is to study Russian life and promote the triumph of the Russian view in life and thinking. Barsukov, XIV, 318. Barsukov, Life and works of Pogodin, book. fourteenth, page 403. - “Russian Conversation” really attracted attention. The idea of ​​nationality as the basis of a unique (original) development aroused objections, especially since, of course, such a point of the Slavophil doctrine as Orthodoxy aroused attacks. But along with the hostile attitude towards the magazine on the part of other magazines, Russian Conversation also had its connoisseurs - the magazine was doing well. See Barsukov, vol. XV, pp. 158–164. In essence, there was nothing new in this, compared with previous articles, but there was only a development of I. V-cha’s thoughts about the philosophy of the whole mind as opposed to the unbelieving philosophy of rationalism. “The founders of Slavophilism,” writes N. A. Berdyaev, “did not leave us great philosophical treatises, did not create a system. Their philosophy remained fragmentary; it was conveyed to us only in a few articles, full of deep intuitions. Kireevsky had barely begun to substantiate and develop Slavophil philosophy when he died of cholera. The same fate befalls Khomyakov, who wished to continue the work of Kireyevsky. There was something providential about it. Perhaps such a philosophy should be a system. Slavophil philosophy is the end of abstract philosophy, and therefore can no longer be a system.” Berdyaev, A. S. Khomyakov, M. 1912, p. 114. F. Sidonsky. Speech at the burial of I.V. Kireevsky. Russian Conversation, 1856, II. For example, Koshelev, Notes, p. 74. “If you want to thoroughly know the spirit of Christianity, then you need to get acquainted with monasticism; and in this regard it is difficult to find a better place than the Optina Monastery,” - this was what I.V. said to the future Optina monk Clement. “Father Clement, Hieromonk of Optina Pustyn”, K. Leontyev. 1908, p. 6. – Kireyevsky was buried in the Optina Hermitage, his brother Pyotr Vasilyevich and Natalia Petrovna were also buried there. On the monument to I. V-cha, among other things, the following words are written from St. Scriptures (inscriptions chosen by Father Macarius): “I have loved and sought wisdom from my youth. Having realized that I would not prevail otherwise, unless the Lord gave it, I came to the Lord.” See Home. Conversation 1861, issue. 4, p. 63. “Living entirely in faith and philosophy, Kireyevsky,” writes V. Lyaskovsky, “took little part in the unrest of the day and age. Being a man of rare kindness, he even, to the great chagrin of his friend Koshelev, was indifferent to the preparations for the liberation of the peasants that began during his lifetime, believing that all the forces of the Russian people should be directed to resolving issues of faith and morality. This, perhaps, reflected his closeness to contemplative monasticism. This very proximity is the other side of Kireevsky’s historical significance. All Slavophiles, by their faith and consciously Orthodox convictions, were church people, and it is not for nothing that it is said about Khomyakov that he lived in the church; but not one of them was so closely connected with the best representatives of the church clergy and with its most living and active part - enlightened monasticism - as I. V. Kireevsky. By his many years of unity with the Optina elders, he showed in practice that not only dark people can seek spiritual enlightenment from this ancient source; that people who have studied a lot think in vain - at best, when they think without hostility - to descend to this area, but that they have to rise to it. In this sense, if on many of the most important issues of human knowledge Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky remains a good teacher for many generations of Russian people, then his life itself is an “instructive lesson.” Lyaskovsky, The Kireevsky Brothers, pp. 98–99. The works of I. V-cha were published by A. I. Koshelev in 1861 in two volumes. This included critical and journalistic articles, several letters from I. V-cha and works of fiction: “Tsaritsyn’s Night”, “Opal”, “Island”, an excerpt from the novel “Two Lives”, several reviews. This collection cannot be called complete (in addition, it is completely in vain that Stephens’ autobiography was included in it - translated by Avdotya Petrovna Elagina). The new Collection is no different in its completeness. Op. K-go, ed. 1911. Compared to the first, this edition can be called corrected and expanded, since there are no censorship omissions. It included a larger number of K-go's letters (Stephens' autobiography was excluded). A large number of Kireevsky's letters and some of his papers remain unpublished. Russian Conversation, 1856, II. Otechestvennye zapiski and Sovremennik were sympathetic to Kireevsky in their short notes about him. See same year of these magazines. In the works of I. V-cha one can point out more than one happy thought that he expressed long before this thought became more or less popular. Here let us at least recall how I. V-ch, in one of his letters abroad, criticizing Schleiermacher, outlined the correct formulation of the question of the apology of the resurrection of Christ. Long before V. Solovyov, I. V-ch expressed the idea that the question of the resurrection of Christ should not have a material character for a modern thinker and the reality of Christ’s resurrection should be confirmed, among other things, by philosophical considerations. In his article about Kireevsky, M. O. Gershenzon notes similar thoughts between I. V-cha and later representatives of European philosophy and poetry. The rationalism of Western thought, as Kireyevsky wrote about, turned out to be true, and now “hundreds of thinkers and poets are fighting against this rationalism, and all of them ultimately teach the same thing that Kireyevsky preached half a century ago: to know and live with an integral spirit.” Historical notes, page 39. – Indeed, at the present time I. V-ch has found many thoughts similar to his in the everyday life of European thinking. Not only Maeterlinck and thinkers and poets like him, who paid attention to depicting and revealing the mysterious foundations of life in their writings, would have attracted the attention of Kireyevsky, but also philosophers like James, although Kireyevsky would probably only have noticed in James the desire to make philosophy vital, would have approved of the method of this philosopher, but of course would have turned away from the American system, which truly thinks behind the financial transaction, speaks of its foundation on the “credit system”. (Pragmatism. St. Petersburg, 1910, p. 128).