Nineteenth century

So much has already been said about the direction of the nineteenth century that it would be difficult to say anything new about it if the nineteenth century were past for us. But he lives, and therefore changes; and every change in its prevailing spirit places us in a new point of view. Another perspective, in which the past is located before the current minute, gives it a different meaning. So the traveler, with every change of place, sees the road he has traveled in a new light. Thus, a new experience in life gives the whole world of memories new harmony and new meaning. These new experiences in nineteenth-century life were the events of recent years. I'm not talking about politics. But in literature, in society, in the struggle of religious parties, in the unrest of philosophical opinions, in a word, in the whole moral life of enlightened Europe, the presence of some new, some recent conviction is noticeable, which, if it does not change the prevailing direction, then at least gives it shades and other relationships. What is this peculiarity of the current minute? The answer to this question should serve as the basis for our judgments about everything modern; for one concept of the current moment, connecting general thoughts with particular phenomena, determines in our mind the place, order and degree of importance for all events of the moral and physical world. There was a time when the concept of the present moment of the century was the exclusive property of the Genius, suggesting in it a gust of some unaccountable, prophetic and few accessible inspiration. But now, when determining the dominant direction of the century has become the main common goal of all thinkers; when all the data for this purpose is known and collected; when all branches of the mind and life have become so closely related to each other that the study of one reveals to us the current state of all others, the concept of the present direction of time no longer requires either genius or inspiration; it has become accessible to every thinker, and involves only a careful look at the world around us, cold calculation and impartial consideration. However, despite this universal desire to comprehend the spirit of our time, there was no century whose study would present as many difficulties as the study of ours; for never have changes in the prevailing direction been accomplished so quickly and so decisively. Previously, the character of time changed barely perceptibly with the change of generations; our time has already changed its character several times for one generation, and we can say that those of my readers who have seen half a century have seen several centuries passing before them in the fullness of their development. The statement is not a play on empty words: its truth is confirmed daily by obvious evidence. Compare the old times with the present; open historical notes, private letters, novels and biographies of past centuries: everywhere and at all times you will find people of the same time. With all the diversity of characters, positions and circumstances, each age will present you with one common color, one brand, which is more or less etched on all simultaneous faces. All were brought up by like-minded circumstances, formed by the same spirit of the times. Both those minds who, in a struggle with the direction of their age, and those who submit to it, still reveal its dominance: it serves as a common center to which particular directions adjoin, like the right and left sides in the Chamber of Deputies. But look at the European society of our time: you will not find discordant opinions of one century in it, no! you will encounter echoes of several centuries, not so much contrary to each other, but heterogeneous among themselves. Next to the man of old, you will find a man educated by the spirit of the French Revolution; there a man brought up by the circumstances and opinions that immediately followed the French Revolution; next to him is a man imbued with the order of things that began on solid ground in Europe with the fall of Napoleon; finally, among them you will meet a person of the last time, and - each will have his own special physiognomy, each will be different from all others in all possible circumstances of life, in a word, each will appear before you as an imprint of a special century. Some believe that this rapidity of changes in the spirit of the times depends on the very essence of these changes; others, on the contrary, think that it comes from extraneous circumstances, from the random characters of the characters, etc., while others see its cause in the spirit of real enlightenment in general. We will not look for the degree of validity of each of these explanations; Let us only note the existence of the fact itself, and try to determine historically the peculiarity and essence of the last of these changes in the dominant direction of Europeanism. At the end of the eighteenth century, when the struggle between old opinions and new demands of enlightenment was still in its very heat, the dominant trend of minds was certainly destructive. Sciences, life, society, literature, even the finest arts, all revealed one desire: to overthrow the old. It is remarkable that even the thought of the new, which was supposed to take the place of the old, almost never appeared except negatively. These electric words, the sound of which so shocked minds: freedom, reason, humanity - what did they mean during the French Revolution? None of these words had any original meaning; each received meaning only from its relationship to the previous century. Freedom was understood solely as the absence of previous constraints; by humanity they meant the only material majority of people, that is, the opposite of those few persons in which, according to previous concepts, it consisted; the kingdom of reason was the absence of prejudice, or that which was considered prejudice; - and what is not prejudice before the court of an unenlightened crowd? Religion fell along with its abuses, and frivolous unbelief took its place. In the sciences, only what was tangibly experienced was recognized as true, and everything supersensible was rejected not only as unproven, but even as impossible. The fine arts turned from imitation of classical models to imitation of external inanimate nature. The tone of society has moved from refined artificiality to uneducated naturalness. Philosophy was dominated by crude, sensual materialism. The rules of morality were reduced to calculations of unenlightened self-interest. In a word, the entire edifice of the previous way of thinking was destroyed at its foundation; the entirety of moral life fell apart into its component parts, into the elementary, material principles of existence. But this destructive trend, of which the French Revolution can serve as a clear and bloody mirror, produced in the minds a direction opposite, a counter-revolution, which, although it did not take place everywhere at the same time, was expressed unambiguously everywhere. Systematic speculation took precedence over tangible experience, which was no longer the only guide in the sciences. Mysticism spread among people who did not succumb to the fascination of frivolous unbelief. Society, humiliated to the level of common people, tried to elevate itself with the brilliance of external splendor and pomp. In the arts, imitation of external nature was replaced by sentimentality and dreaminess, which cast the monotonous color of exceptional feeling or systematic thought over all reality, thus destroying the originality and diversity of the external world. In the field of philosophy, as opposed to previous materialism, purely spiritual systems began to develop, deriving the entire visible world from one immaterial principle. Thus, in all branches of the mind and life, the need for unity, opposite to the previous destructive principle, was more or less noticeable. This need for unity produced that forced harmony, that artificial monotony, which relates to the former anarchy in the same way as the great thief of the French throne relates to the French Republic that raised him. But these two opposite directions, destructive and forcibly connecting, agreed on one thing: in the fight against the previous century. From this struggle the need for peace was born; out of contradictory emotions - the need for a calming balance, and the third change in the spirit of the nineteenth century was formed; the desire for a peaceful agreement between the warring principles. Tolerance, together with respect for religion, appeared in the place of bigotry, unbelief and mysterious dreaminess. In philosophy, idealism and materialism were reconciled by the system of identity. Society recognized as its highest law the grace of educated simplicity, equally removed from that crude simplicity that comes from a discordant mixture of states, and from that unnatural sophistication that reigned at the court of Louis XIV, and from that splendor of the uneducated that surrounded Napoleon in his greatness. In poetry, imitation of visible reality and dreaminess were replaced by a historical direction, where free dream is imbued with unchangeable reality, and beauty is synonymous with truth. And this historical poetry almost did not borrow its subjects either from ancient history or from modern history; its content was almost exclusively middle history, that is, the time from which the recently past order of things developed, which was in struggle with new aspirations. Historical investigators were also limited primarily to the Middle Ages, excluding some German philologists, who were far from making up the majority. Even fashion was looking for the Gothic in its minute outfits, in the decoration of rooms, etc. In general, in the whole life of the most enlightened part of Europe, a new, complex order of things was formed, which included not only the results of new aspirations, but also the remnants of the old century, partly still surviving, partly renewed, but in both cases changed by new relations. The dominant trend of minds corresponding to this new order of things was the desire for a soothing balance of the new spirit with the ruins of old times and to reduce opposite extremes into one common, artificially found middle. But how long did this trend last? It continues even now, but significantly changed. Let us prove this by the state of literature. In literature, the result of this trend was the desire to harmonize imagination with reality, the correctness of forms with freedom of content, the roundness of artificiality with the depth of naturalness, in a word, what is in vain called classicism, with what is even more incorrectly called romanticism. Goethe, in his last works, and Walter Scott, in his novels, can in many respects serve as examples of such aspiration. Ten years ago, Goethe and Walter Scott were the only models for all imitations, they were the ideals of the qualities that the European public demanded from their writers. But now the majority of the public is looking for something else. This is noticeable not only from the fact that imitation of previous models has decreased significantly; but even more from the fact that literature is now dominated by this kind of writers and works of this kind, whose enjoyment is incompatible with the preference for Goethe and Walter Scott. Unnatural sophistication next to tasteless ordinariness in thoughts; the tension and at the same time the baseness of the style, and in general the ugliness of the talents that dominate the most enlightened literature, clearly prove that the taste of our time requires something new, which is lacking in previous writers and for which a true poet has not yet appeared. True, these ugly talents are admired by the half-educated crowd, which makes up the material majority of the public, while people with enlightened taste look at them with nothing but pity. However, we must not forget that this half-educated crowd is the same one that once admired Shakespeare and Pope, Racine and Voltaire, Schiller and Lessing, and more recently Byron, Walter Scott and Goethe. The only thing is that for her beauty is a secondary virtue, even in poetry, and that the first thing she requires is correspondence with the current moment. It seems there is no need to prove this position: it is confirmed by thousands of mediocre poets who had short-term success only because they expressed the way of thinking or feeling that prevailed in their time. And so, in order to determine this correspondence between the requirements of the current moment and the present state of poetry, it is necessary to find common qualities that would be equally characteristic of all writers who enjoy undeserved success. For the less talent a happy writer has, the more he reveals the demands of his audience. In my opinion, in the most sophistication and unnaturalness, in disgusting pictures mixed with lyrical antics, in the incongruity of tone with the subject, in a word, in everything that is called bad taste by most of the happy writers of our time, the following distinctive qualities are noticeable: 1st. More enthusiasm than sensitivity. 2nd. Thirst for strong shocks, without respect for their harmony. 3rd. An imagination filled with reality alone in all its nakedness. Let's try to combine these three qualities in our minds, and ask ourselves: what do they suggest in a person who seeks them in poetry? Without a doubt, these qualities presuppose coldness, prosaism, positivity and, in general, an exceptional desire for practical activity. The same can be said about the majority of the public in the most enlightened states of Europe. This is why many people think that the time of poetry has passed, and that real life has taken its place. But is there really no special poetry in this desire for real life? – It is precisely from the fact that Life supplants Poetry that we must conclude that the desire for Life and for Poetry have converged, and that, therefore, the hour for the poet of Life has come.. The same convergence of life with the development of the human spirit, which we noticed in poetry, is also found in the modern state of the sciences. As proof, let us take the most speculative and most abstract of human knowledge: philosophy. Natural philosophy, so called because of the accidental peculiarity of its origin, was the last stage to which modern philosophy rose. The idealism of Fichte and the realism of Spinoza, the dogmatism of scholasticism and the criticism of Kant, the pre-established harmony of Leibniz and the material sequence of English and French materialism, in a word, the entire development of modern thinking from Descartes to Schelling, was combined in the latter’s system and found in it its final development, addition and justification. It seemed that the fate of philosophy had been decided, its goal had been found, and its boundaries had been pushed to the impossible. For, having comprehended the essence of reason and the laws of its necessary activity, having determined the correspondence of these laws with the laws of unconditional existence, having discovered in the entire volume of the universe the repetition of the same eternal reason, according to the same principles of eternal necessity, where else could the inquisitive thought of man strive? This was the opinion of almost all adherents of the identity system, that is, not only the Schellingists, but also the followers of Hegel, Oken, Ast, Wagner and other leaders of the latest German philosophy. And as this wisdom spread outside Germany, the confidence spread along with it that it constituted the last link and the supreme crown of philosophical thinking. But the same Schelling, who first created the system of identity, now himself opens a new goal and paves a new road for Philosophy. True knowledge, he says, positive, living knowledge, which constitutes the ultimate goal of all the demands of our mind, does not lie in the logical development of the necessary laws of our mind. It is outside the school-logical process, and therefore alive; it is higher than the concept of eternal necessity, and therefore positive; it is more essential than mathematical abstraction, and therefore individually determined, historical. But all the systems of modern wisdom, no matter what forms they were revealed under, no matter what names they were hidden under, pursued only the development of the laws of mental necessity, and even the newest materialism was based on a purely logical conviction, derived from the abstract concept of the laws of our reason, but not from living knowledge of the essence of things and being. The entire result of such thinking could only consist in negative knowledge; for reason, which develops itself, is limited by itself. Negative knowledge is necessary, but not as the goal of knowledge, but only as a means; They cleared the way for us to the church of living wisdom, but they had to stop at its entrance. It is left to the positive, Historical philosophy to penetrate further, for which the time is now just coming; for now the development of negative and logical philosophy has only been completed. It is obvious that this demand for historical significance and positivity in philosophy, bringing the entire circle of speculative sciences closer to life and reality, corresponds to the same direction that prevails in modern literature. And the same desire for significance, the same rapprochement of spiritual activity with the reality of life is found in religious opinions. We have already noticed that the frivolous and mocking disbelief widespread by Voltaire and his followers was fought by a dreamy mysticism, which, however, in its essence, was accessible only to a few and, therefore, could not overcome the almost universal Voltairean freethinking. But what mysticism could not accomplish was accomplished by the successes of enlightenment in general, which eradicated some abuses and destroyed prejudices that interfered with impartiality. Now, thanks to these successes of enlightenment, respect for religion has become almost universal, with the exception, perhaps, of Italy, where the tone of frivolous unbelief given by Voltaire is still in full force, but where enlightenment has lagged behind educated Europe in more than one way. But this respect for religion was for the most part accompanied by a kind of indifference, which was contrary to the further development of enlightenment, and which is now beginning to pass along with the spread of truer concepts. For just recently: how did most enlightened people understand religion? Either as a set of rituals, or as an internal, individual conviction of known truths. But is this Religion? No, Religion is not one ritual and not one belief. For the full development of not only true, but even false religion, the unanimity of the people is necessary, sanctified by vivid memories, developed in single-minded traditions, intertwined with the state structure, personified in unambiguous and nationwide rituals, reduced to one positive principle, and palpable in all civil and family relations. Without these conditions, there is belief, there are rituals, but there is no actual Religion. This truth is especially spreading in our time, when the life of peoples is more deeply developed and multifaceted, and when the need for religion has become felt not only in speculation. It is remarkable that the Papists, and the Jesuits, and the Saint-Simonists, and the Protestants, the Supranaturalists and even the Rationalists, in a word, all the religious parties that are now agitated in such a multitude throughout Europe, and that disagree with each other on everything else, nevertheless all agree on one thing: in the demand for a greater rapprochement of Religion with the life of people and nations. The same need to get closer to life is noticeable in the whole world of European education. Everywhere the purely practical and actively positive direction prevails. Everywhere action takes precedence over system, essence over form, materiality over speculation. Life and society become more direct and simpler in their relationships, clearer and more natural in their demands. That artificial balance of opposing principles, which was recently revered in Europe as the only condition for a solid social order, is beginning to be replaced by a natural balance, based on the enlightenment of general opinion. Perhaps this enlightenment of general opinion is just a dream that will be destroyed by experience. Perhaps this is a happy truth that will be confirmed by the prosperity of societies. But dream or truth - Providence will decide; we will only note that faith in this dream or in this truth forms the basis of the dominant character of the present time, and serves as a connection between practical activity and the desire for enlightenment in general. For the practical direction can only then be the crown of enlightenment when private life is one with public life; when real life, formed by common opinion, is arranged together according to the laws of reason and nature. Otherwise, that is, when the enlightenment of general opinion is in disagreement with the basic opinions of enlightened people, life goes along one road, and the successes of the mind along another, and even in extraordinary people who constitute an exception from their time, these two roads rarely converge and only at some points. And can one person create a special life for himself in the midst of a society formed differently? No; in the inner, spiritual, lonely life, he will seek a complement to the outer and real life. He will be a poet, he will be a historian, a detective, a philosopher, and only sometimes a man; for the field of his practical activity is concentrated in a close circle of a few. That is why the main character of enlightenment in Europe was previously alternately poetic, historical, artistic, philosophical, and only in our time could it become purely practical. The man of our time no longer looks at life as a simple condition for the development of the spiritual; but he sees in it together both the means and the goal of existence, the peak and root of all branches of mental and heartfelt enlightenment. For life appeared to him as a rational and thinking being, capable of understanding him and responding to him, like the artist Pygmalion’s animated statue. Let us now turn to the enlightenment of our fatherland and see how the life of European enlightenment was reflected on it. The life of the European Enlightenment of the nineteenth century did not have the influence on Russia that it had on other European states. The changes and development of this life resonated with us in the way of thinking of some educated people, were reflected in some shades of our literature, but did not penetrate further. Some kind of Chinese wall stands between Russia and Europe, and only through some openings does the air of the enlightened West pass to us; the wall in which the Great Peter broke through the wide doors with a blow of his strong hand; the wall that Catherine tried for a long time to destroy; which is being destroyed more and more every day, but despite that it still stands tall and interferes. Will it collapse soon? Will our education soon rise to the level reached by the enlightened states of Europe? – What should we do to achieve this goal or contribute to its achievement? – Should we borrow our enlightenment from within our own life, or receive it from Europe? – And what principle should we develop within our own lives? And what should we borrow from those who were enlightened before us? To answer these questions, it is necessary to determine the nature and degree of European enlightenment, and their mutual relations. How does Russian enlightenment relate to European education? – We hear as many answers to this question every day as we meet people who consider themselves educated. Meanwhile, our judgments about what can speed up or slow down our enlightenment depend on the concept that we have about Russia’s relations with Europe; about what gives him a false or true direction; about what we should strive for and what to avoid; about what is useful and harmful to us, what we should borrow from our neighbors and what we should move away from, and therefore, the whole totality of our thoughts about Russia, about the future fate of its enlightenment and the present situation; the totality of our hopes and expectations; the whole totality of our desires and hatreds, and - if we want to agree with ourselves - the very nature of our practical activity, indirectly or directly, must depend on the concept that we have about the relationship of Russian enlightenment to the enlightenment of the rest of Europe. So, there is no truth that is more important to acknowledge; there is no opinion in which general agreement would be more beneficial. But the general opinion is made up of private ones. Where it has not yet been compiled or has not been clearly revealed, no one’s voice can be superfluous; – on the contrary, everyone is obliged to pronounce his own sentence; for the sentence of each can contribute to the formation of the common. That is why I will try to express my opinion here, although in general terms and as much as the necessary conditions of a journal article will allow me. If the reader finds my thoughts erroneous, then at least he will see in them a sincere desire for truth, and therefore, I hope, will not ignore them; I also hope that well-meaning writers will not refuse to honor them with their comments, correct what is wrong and confirm what is right. I know that general thoughts, not developed in tangible detail, are rarely understood in the sense in which they are intended to be represented; for rarely, even a person with talent, manages to find a simple and uncomplicated expression when he speaks with general conclusions about complex subjects and subject not to reason alone, but also to experience, memory, and personal considerations of everyone. Therefore, I would never have decided to begin this article if I had not looked at it solely as an introduction to a detailed presentation of my thoughts; if I had not hoped to develop each of them especially, and in applications to reality to confirm and explain what in a short essay cannot be presented otherwise than speculatively. – Russia was not born yesterday; a thousand years have passed since she began to remember herself; and not every educated state in Europe can boast of such a long chain of such early memories. But despite this long life, our enlightenment has barely begun, and Russia, among the established states, is still considered a young state. And this recently begun enlightenment, which included us in the composition of European societies, was not the fruit of our previous life, a necessary consequence of our internal development; it came to us from outside, and partly even by force, so that its external form is still in conflict with the form of our nationality. It is obvious that the reasons that kept Russia away from education for such a long time cannot be accidental, but must lie in the very essence of its inner life; and although in each era of our history we find special and different circumstances that hindered our development, the totality of these circumstances forces us to conclude that their hostile influence depended not so much on their accidental occurrence as on the radical formation of the initial elements of our life, and, perhaps, the same circumstance that harmed enlightenment in Russia could contribute to its success in Italy or England. But even if random, external reasons stopped the progress of our education, then still the influence of these reasons had to be determined by the internal state of Russia; and the external circumstance, acting in this way, became one of the elements of inner life, one of the constant springs of subsequent development. Therefore, before we get down to the question: what relationship exists now between the education of Russia and Europe? we must also consider: what elements of personal and civic education does the past life of Russia represent to us, and in what relation were these elements to European enlightenment? From the very fall of the Roman Empire to our times, the enlightenment of Europe appears to us in gradual development and in uninterrupted succession. Each era is conditioned by the previous one, and the previous one always contains within itself the seeds of the future, so that in each of them the same elements appear, but in full development. These elements can be summed up in three principles: 1st, the influence of the Christian Religion; 2nd, the character, education and spirit of the barbarian peoples who destroyed the Roman Empire; 3rd, remains of the ancient world. From these three principles the entire History of Modern Europe developed. -Which of them were we missing, or what did we have in excess? – Even before the tenth century we had the Christian Religion; We also had barbarians and, probably, the same ones who destroyed the Roman Empire; but the classical ancient world was lacking in our development. Let's see what difference happened from that in our History. It is known, and after the learned research of Savigny, after the thoughtful considerations of Guizot, it is already beyond doubt that throughout the middle, so-called Barbarian centuries, Roman laws, the Roman structure, varied in various ways, sometimes mixed, sometimes pure, but always obvious, existed in all places of Europe where Roman rule previously extended. These laws, these devices, mixed with the customs of the barbarians, naturally should have contributed to their education and acted on their civil life, and often on their personal enlightenment. But most obvious is their influence on the organization of trading cities, which, having become independent, became one of the strongest springs and one of the necessary elements of European education. We also had Novgorod and Pskov; but their internal structure (occupied for the most part with relations with foreigners) could only then contribute to our enlightenment if the entire state of the rest of Russia did not contradict it. But given the order of things that existed then in our fatherland, not only Novgorod and Pskov had to be crushed by their strongest neighbors, but even their enlightenment, which flourished for such a long time, left almost no traces in our History - it was so inconsistent with the whole totality of our life. But even more important than the formation of free cities, the structure of the ancient world influenced the external formation of the Roman Church and its political influence during the Middle Ages. It is known that the civil power of the clergy in Europe was a direct legacy of the Roman structure, and that the secular government of bishops was organized according to Roman models, which still survived in parts when the whole had already collapsed 1 . The very opposition that exists between the spirit of the ancient pagan world and Christianity was supposed to serve to strengthen the latter and to its multifaceted development; for, being in constant struggle with everything around it, Christianity constantly received new strength from constantly new successes, and, defeating paganism, subjugated its enlightenment. Thus it appeared in two different forms to two opposing and struggling elements; Christianity acted on the remnants of the ancient world as its opposite, a renewing, transforming principle that destroys in order to create a new one; to the barbarians it appeared as a creative, formative principle, as a source of enlightenment, order and unity, in the midst of discordant, discordant and ignorant fermentation; and this dual relationship of Christianity to the new and the ancient world made it the center of both and the focus of all elements of European development. Because of this, the church, in a renewed Europe, became not only a source of spiritual education, but also the head of the political structure. It was the first link of that feudal order which united all the different states of Europe into one system; the Saint was established on it; Roman Empire; she was the first element of that chivalry, which spread one moral code among heterogeneous political relations; she was the only link between all the discordant elements and all the different peoples; she gave one spirit to all of Europe, raised the crusades and, being a source of unanimity and order, stopped the raids of the barbarians and put a barrier to the invasions of the Muslims. In Russia the Christian Religion was even purer and holier. But the lack of the classical world was the reason that the influence of our church, in uneducated times, was neither as decisive nor as omnipotent as the influence of the Roman Church. The latter, as the center of the political structure, aroused one soul in different bodies and thus created that strong connection of the Christian world, which saved it from the invasions of infidels; - with us this power was not so palpable, not so omnipotent, and Russia, fragmented into destinies not connected spiritually, fell under the rule of the Tatars for several centuries, who stopped it on the path to enlightenment for a long time. I consider it unnecessary to prove here that the system of fragmentation was not characteristic of Russia alone, that it was present throughout Europe and especially developed in France, despite the fact that it stopped the rapid onslaught of the Arabs 2 . But the small kingdoms, connected among themselves by dubious and weak political subordination, were united more palpably by the bonds of religion and church. It is also known that the children of the rulers of such kingdoms inherited equally the possessions of their father, thus fragmenting it more and more; and that the image of their internal government was in many ways similar to the image of the management of our Appanage Princes. However, it does not follow from this that the feudal system and the system of appanages are one and the same, as some writers have argued among us; for, not to mention anything else, the mere dependence of the feudal system on the church, which serves as the first basis of all feudal rights and relations, already posits such a difference between the two systems that it is incomprehensible how many of our writers, even for a moment, could consider them the same. But on the other hand, the feudal system is so similar to our destinies that one cannot help but assume that the system of destinies was one of the elements of feudalism 3 . This element, alienated from the rest of the formation of Europe, produced in us that structure, the consequence of which was the Tatars, to whom we could not oppose either mature education or the strength of unanimity. Not having enough enlightenment to unite against them spiritually, we could get rid of them only through a physical, material union, which we could only achieve over the course of centuries. Thus, it is obvious that both the invasion of the Tatars and their influence on our subsequent development had one reason: the lack of the classical world. For, even now, divide Russia into the same destinies as it was divided into in the 12th century, and tomorrow new Tatars will be born for it, if not in Asia, then in Europe. But if we had inherited the remnants of the classical world, then our religion would have more political power, we would have greater education, greater unanimity, and consequently, our very division would not have had either that barbaric character or such harmful consequences. This same lack of education in the general developing spirit, resulting from the lack of the classical world, is echoed in the very era of our liberation from the Tatars. We had no other means to get rid of the oppression of foreigners than through the unification and concentration of forces; but since our forces were predominantly physical and material, our union was not so much an expression of unanimity as a simple material copulation; and the concentration of forces was the only physical concentration, not softened, not enlightened by education. Therefore, our deliverance from the Tatars happened slowly and, having been accomplished, should have stopped Russia for a long time in that severe ossification, in that numbness of spiritual activity, which came from too great a preponderance of material strength over the strength of moral education. – This explains a lot to us, and among other things shows the reasons for the geographical vastness of Russia. The fifteenth century was for Europe a century of inventions, discoveries, intellectual and civil successes. But the fifteenth century was prepared by the fourteenth, which itself was a consequence of the previous ones, developed under the influence of the remains of the ancient world. This influence was first revealed by the education and strength of the Roman Church; but later, when enlightenment had already spread into the very life of the people and took root in secular citizenship, then the Church ceased to be the only conductor of education; - and Europe turned directly to its mental forefathers - to Rome and Greece. And this new, self-recognized desire for the classical world is found not only in the highest minds, in people who stand ahead of their people; it is found not only in the sciences and arts, which breathe only the refreshed memories of the Greeks and Romans; but even in the very people’s life of the enlightened lands, in the very structure of their citizenship and nationality. And even before the fall of the Greek Empire, the Italian republics were already formed on the model of the ancients; meanwhile, architecture, painting, sculpture, science and patriotism itself in Italy bore the deep stamp of one ideal: the classical world. Thus, for the new Europe, the circle of complete inheritance of the previous enlightenment of mankind was completed. Thus, the latest enlightenment is not an excerpt, but a continuation of the mental life of the human race. Thus, the states involved in European education, within themselves, combined all the elements of world enlightenment, intertwined with their very nationality. And in the West, almost at the same time as in our country, a similar crystallization of forces and elements took place: small kingdoms united into large masses, private forces were concentrated in subordination to one general force. But this concentration and connection had a completely different character from the fact that private forces, private elements were formed, developed and original. And here and there there is a struggle for nationality, independence and integrity; both here and there the desire for concentration and unity; - but there enlightenment is already developed, therefore, the banner of struggle, the goal of striving, is always religious or political thought; here the place of thought is taken by a person, a private event, an impostor. Only from the time when our History allowed us to get closer to Europe, that is, from the time of Minin and Pozharsky, did enlightenment in the true sense of the word begin to spread among us, that is, not the separate development of our particularity, but participation in the general life of the enlightened world; for a separate, Chinese-specific development is noticeable in us even before the introduction of European education; but this development could not have universal success, because it lacked one of the necessary elements of the universal progression of the mind. That this European enlightenment began to be introduced among us long before Peter and especially under Alexei Mikhailovich is proven by a thousand remaining traces and legends. But despite this, this beginning was so weak and insignificant in comparison with what Peter accomplished that, speaking about our education, we usually call him the founder of our new life and the ancestor of our mental development. For before him, enlightenment was introduced to us little by little and abruptly, from which, as it appeared in Russia, it was distorted by the influence of our overpowering nationality. But the revolution carried out by Peter was not so much a development as a turning point in our nationality; not so much by internal success as by external innovation. But could enlightenment come to us otherwise than through a turning point in our development, otherwise than in the form of an external force opposite to our previous way of life, fighting with our nationality for life and death, and having to not make peace with it, but defeat it, subjugate it to its dominion, transform, give birth to something new? The answer to this question is clear from the previous one; and if in our previous life one of the necessary elements of enlightenment was missing: the classical world, then how could we achieve education without borrowing it from outside? And should not borrowed education be used in the fight against a nationality alien to it? The enlightenment of mankind, as thought, as science, develops gradually, consistently. Each era of human existence has its representatives in those nations where education flourishes more fully than others. But these peoples serve as representatives of their era as long as its dominant character coincides with the dominant character of their enlightenment. When the enlightenment of mankind, having completed a certain period of its development, goes further and, consequently, changes its character, then the peoples who expressed this character through their education cease to be representatives of World History. Their place is taken by others, whose characteristics are most consistent with the coming era. These new representatives of humanity continue what their predecessors began, inherit all the fruits of their education, and extract from them the seeds of new development. Thus, ever since the very first memories of History begin, we have seen an inextricable connection and a gradual, consistent progression in the life of the human mind; and if at times enlightenment appeared as if stopping, falling asleep, then from this dream a person always woke up with greater vigor, with greater freshness of mind, and continued yesterday’s life with new strength. That is why the enlightenment of each people is measured not by the sum of its knowledge, not by the sophistication and complexity of that machine called citizenship, but solely by its participation in the enlightenment of all mankind, by the place it occupies in the general course of human development. For enlightenment is lonely, Chinese-separated, and must also be Chinese-limited: there is no life in it, there is no good, because there is no progression, there is no success that is achieved only by the combined efforts of mankind. What is the basis of those who accuse Peter, claiming that he gave the wrong direction to our education, borrowing it from enlightened Europe, and not developing it from within our life? – For some time now, these accusers of the great creator of new Russia have become more widespread among us than ever before; and we know where they got their way of thinking. They tell us about national, original enlightenment; they do not order us to borrow, they scold the innovation and want to return us to the indigenous and ancient Russian. But what? If we look carefully, then this very desire for nationality is nothing more than an incomprehensible repetition of the thoughts of others, the thoughts of Europeans, occupied by the French, the Germans, the British, and thoughtlessly applied to Russia. Indeed, about ten years ago the desire for nationality was dominant in the most enlightened states of Europe: everyone turned to their nationality, to their own special; but there this desire had its own meaning: there enlightenment and nationality are one, for the former developed from the latter. Therefore, if the Germans were looking for the purely German, then this did not contradict their education; on the contrary, their education in this way reached only their consciousness, received more originality, more completeness and firmness. But with us, looking for something national means looking for the uneducated; to develop it at the expense of European innovations means to banish 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 the enlightenment of the ancient world? – Doesn’t she now represent the enlightenment of universal humanity? – Isn’t it in the same relationship to Russia as the classical enlightenment was to Europe? – True, there are moments in Peter’s life where, having acted differently, he would have been more in agreement with himself, more in agreement with the thought that animated him throughout his entire life. But this thought, but the general nature of his activities, but the education of Russia that he began - this is the basis of his greatness and our future prosperity! For our prosperity depends on our enlightenment, and we owe it to Peter. Therefore, let us be careful when it comes to the transformation he accomplished. Let us not forget that judging him frivolously is a matter of ingratitude and ignorance; Let us not forget that those who condemn him are not so often carried away by a false system as they hide under it their selfish hatred of enlightenment and its beneficial consequences; for ignorance, like a criminal, does not sleep at night and fears the day. Catherine II acted in the same spirit in which the Great Peter worked. She also set the enlightenment of Russia as the goal of her reign, and also tried by all means to convey European education to us. Perhaps these means were not always the most suitable for the then state of Russia; but, despite this, European education began to spread visibly and perceptibly among us only during the reign of Catherine. The reason for this lies, in my opinion, not so much in the fact that Catherine found much already prepared in Russia, but in the special direction that the enlightenment of Europe began to take in the middle of the eighteenth century. We have seen that since the middle of the eighteenth century, enlightenment in Europe has taken the opposite direction than before. New beginnings and old ones appeared in the struggle, variously changed, but always of the same mind. We have seen that in the sciences, in the arts, in life, in literature, in a word, in the whole sphere of intellectual development in Europe, new successes, 4 although they were a consequence of previous development, nevertheless took on a character opposite to it and incompatible with it, like a fruit that was born and ripened on a tree, but, having ripened, falls away from it and serves as the seed of a new tree that displaces the old one. To further clarify, let's take a few more examples. There is no doubt that the invention of steam engines is a consequence of the European Enlightenment, that it is beneficial for the human race in general, and for the future success of industry. But the present state of European industry, which is also a consequence of the previous one, contradicts the successes of this invention. Millions of people must seek new means of subsistence, while these means are already difficult as a consequence of the previous structure of industry. But steam engines are still at the beginning of their applications; thousands more new works will be replaced by them: what a strong revolution must take place in European industry! What a contradiction between the old order of things and the new successes of enlightenment! The same thing that can be said about industry can also be said about jurisprudence. Roman laws, we have seen, were the foundation of education and the beginning of legal order. But their usefulness has already ended, and now they are in conflict with the needs of the civil structure. Meanwhile, in many states they still have living force and cannot be replaced except with a complete transformation of the codes. The external structure of the Roman Church was the first source of European learning; but precisely because of this, the forms of this device had to be completely consistent with the time in which they occurred. Naturally, with the change of time, these forms in some states in many respects were not combined with new needs. This led to reformations that disrupted the unity of the European Church, and in some lands complete unbelief was established, which is now difficult to overcome by the successes of secular enlightenment. Thus, European education appears to us in two forms: as the enlightenment of Europe before and after half of the eighteenth century. The old enlightenment is inextricably linked with the whole system of its gradual development, and in order to be involved in it, one must relive the entire former life of Europe. The new enlightenment is opposite to the old and exists in its own way. Therefore, a people beginning to form can borrow it directly and adopt it without the previous one, directly applying it to their present life. That is why, in both Russia and America, enlightenment began to noticeably spread no earlier than the eighteenth and especially in the nineteenth century. What we have said is sufficient to derive all the necessary results and data to determine the real nature of our education and its relationship to human enlightenment. But we leave this conclusion to the readers themselves; for if we have managed to express our thoughts clearly and convincingly, then their results are obvious. If, while reading this article, readers do not share our opinion, then the consequences of this opinion will seem to them arbitrary and unfounded. Even the Roman emperors granted the bishops almost unlimited power over the cities, and “this power,” says Thierry, “incessantly increasing after the fall of the Roman Empire, almost everywhere was transformed into feudal rule.” Seulement en Belgique et sur les bords du Rhin on a compté jusqu'à cent vingt-trois grandes terres, possédées par les rois de la seconde race. Augustin Tkiery, Lettres sur l’Histoire de France, Lettre XII. This similarity serves as one of the most convincing evidence of the common origin of the Varangians, who attacked Russia, and the Germanic peoples, who destroyed the Roman Empire. But the identical customs of these barbarians had to change differently, depending on the differences in the lands where they appeared, and probably the same beginning that in our country produced the system of appanages, in Europe formed into a system of feudal structure. One should not confuse true successes with imaginary ones, and dreamy, harmful innovations with the necessary development of enlightenment. You might be interested in: