XIX century: Slavophiles, Westerners, L.N. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky, Vl. Soloviev, K. Leontiev. Russian religious philosophy (N.F. Fedorov, F.M. Dostoevsky, V.S. Solovyov)

The work of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (1821 - 1881), which relates to the highest achievements of Russian national identity, has a particularly deep philosophical meaning. Its chronological scope is the 40s-70s. XIX century - a time of intensive development of domestic philosophical thought, the formation of main ideological trends. Dostoevsky took part in the understanding of many philosophical and social ideas and the teachings of his time - from the emergence of the first socialist ideas on Russian soil to the philosophy of unity of V.S. Solovyov.

Understanding the moral essence of a person, from his point of view, is an extremely complex and diverse task. Its complexity lies in the fact that a person has freedom and is free to make a choice between good and evil. Moreover, freedom, a free mind, “the outrage of a free mind” can become instruments of human misfortune, mutual destruction, and can “lead into such a jungle” from which there is no way out.

A special place in Dostoevsky’s work was occupied by the theme of love for the motherland, Russia and the Russian people, associated not only with his “soil-based” ideas and with the rejection of the “alien ideas” of nihilists, but also with ideas about the social ideal. The writer makes a distinction between the popular and intellectual understanding of the ideal. If the latter presupposes, in his words, the worship of something floating in the air and “for which it is difficult to even come up with a name,” then nationality as an ideal is based on Christianity. Dostoevsky did everything possible, especially in the philosophical and journalistic “Diary of a Writer,” to awaken national feeling in society; he complained that, although Russians have a “special gift” for perceiving the ideas of foreign nationalities, they sometimes know the nature of their nationality very superficially. Dostoevsky believed in the “worldwide responsiveness” of the Russian people and considered it a symbol of the genius of Pushkin. He insisted precisely on the idea of ​​“all-humanity” and explained that it did not contain any hostility to the West. “...Our aspiration to Europe, even with all its hobbies and extremes, was not only legal and reasonable, at its core, but also popular, completely coinciding with the aspirations of the people’s spirit.”

Dostoevsky as a writer and thinker had a huge impact on the spiritual atmosphere of the 20th century, on literature, aesthetics, philosophy (primarily on existentialism, personalism and Freudianism), and especially on Russian philosophy, passing on to it not just some system of ideas, but something what the philosopher and theologian G.V. Florovsky called “the expansion and deepening of metaphysical experience itself.”

A major representative of religious philosophy of the 19th century. is Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853-1900)

Characteristics Solovyov's philosophy is its systematicity and universalism. In his work, Solovyov solved many key problems of philosophy, covering ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of history, and social philosophy. The systematic nature of Solovyov’s philosophy lies in its plan: “Do not run away from the world, but transform the world.” But, unlike K. Marx, he understood the change of the world not as its reconstruction on completely new, revolutionary grounds, but as a return to the foundations of Christian civilization, to the ideas of antiquity. At the same time, Soloviev did not at all reject the European philosophy of the New Age. He knew the works of Western philosophers very well and actively used them in his work (Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Comte, Schopenhauer, Hartmann). However, he considered the experience of modern philosophy to be a transition to that state of philosophy that can be interpreted as the implementation in history of Christian teaching - in other words, this is an understanding of history in the form of a divine-human process, where man is seen as a union of God with material nature. In a more specific sense, this position is connected with Solovyov’s idea of ​​the “Christian community”, set out in his “Readings on God-manhood” (1878-1881). Thus, in Spinoza, Soloviev finds the idea that would later become the philosophical core of his entire work - the idea of ​​unity, although this idea is filled with new content.

The pinnacle of Solovyov’s creativity is his moral philosophy, set out in his largest work, “The Justification of Good” (1897-1899). Here are categories of morality based on feelings of shame, pity, compassion and reverence.

Soloviev pays great attention to the issue of the relationship between morality and law.

A significant part of Solovyov’s philosophical journalism, especially in the last period of his work, is devoted to reflections on the place of Russia in world history. He advocated for the unity of Russia and Europe, for the unification of all three directions in Christianity - Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. This explains his rejection of identifying Christianity with the Orthodox religion.

Philosophy of Russian cosmism

This philosophical trend emerged at the end of the 19th century, and today cosmism is spoken of as one of the leading traditions of original philosophical thought in Russia. The foundations of “Russian cosmism” are laid in the works of N. F. Fedorov, K. E. Tsiolkovsky (1857–1935) and V. I. Vernadsky (1863–1945).

Modern researchers identify several trends in “Russian cosmism”. The religious and philosophical direction is represented by V. S. Solovyov, N. F. Fedorov, S. N. Bulgakov, P. A. Florensky, N. A. Berdyaev.

The natural science direction is reflected in the works of K. E. Tsiolkovsky, N. A. Umov (1846–1915), V. I. Vernadsky, A. L. Chizhevsky (1897–1964).

The poetic and artistic direction is associated with the names of V. F. Odoevsky, F. I. Tyutchev, A. L. Chizhevsky.

In general, “Russian cosmism” is characterized by an orientation towards the idea of ​​cosmocentrism (anthropocosmism), a conviction in the presence of a cosmic whole and a cosmic mission of man in nature and significance. The semantic content of space acts as the basis for the ethical, cultural and historical self-determination of man and humanity. For many representatives of this movement, the acceptance of the idea of ​​evolutionism and an organic perception of the world is indicative. They place the practical-active principle of man in the foreground.

N. F. Fedorov occupies a special place in the development of the ideas of Russian cosmism. For him, the cosmos is the Christian cosmos. It is not given, but given, because now it is disorder and chaos, a world of unreason. This state is a consequence of the fall of man. It will be eliminated when the entire world between people and God is illuminated by consciousness and controlled by will.

Due to the fall of man, nature also becomes his enemy, a hostile and deadly force. To avoid this, it is necessary to regulate nature. The main task in this case is the resurrection of the fathers. Hence the main idea of ​​Fedorov’s cosmism is the motive of the deed, the embodiment of the Christian myth into man-made reality. The thinker’s main work is “Philosophy of a Common Cause.”

Supporters of the emotional approach in “Russian cosmism” are imbued with the conviction of the cosmic role of man as the mind (“noosphere”), the consciousness of nature. Those who gravitated more towards its religious forms believed in God’s providential plan for man, in the necessity of human participation in the Divine economy, in the restoration of the fallen nature of the world and man.

The works of these thinkers substantiate the need for the religiousization of science, the cooperation of faith and knowledge.

The ideas of cosmism are developed in the works of A.K. Gorsky (1886–1943) and N.A. Setnitsky (1888–1937). These philosophers took the position of Christian evolutionism, which affirms the fact of ongoing creation and history. They believed that only through individual salvation can one escape from the world. Transforming the world requires not only internal work, but also external labor.

Gorsky and Setnitsky believed that today we can talk “about the completed or near completion of the external unification of humanity on our entire planet.” Such a unification presupposes the abolition of ethnic and national forces and the posing of “the question of the meaning of culture and, in particular, the question of replacing the spontaneous unconscious emergence of its meaningful and planned creation.” Humanity has the responsibility to transform the entire cosmos, the entire society, the entire human nature. But for this, the world must prepare for the universal acceptance of the Gospel, and these preparatory processes in the life of mankind must be replaced by an era of activity in the body and work of Christ.

Nowadays, the ideas of “Russian cosmism” attract the attention of not only philosophers. They are becoming increasingly widespread in the public consciousness and are arousing significant interest outside Russia.

28 Philosophy of the "Silver Age"

Conventionally, the beginning of the “Silver Age” in philosophy can be associated with the time between the two Russian revolutions. If before the first revolution of 1905 the Russian intelligentsia was more or less united on the issue of the need for political reforms (considering the form of government main reason unsatisfactory state of affairs in the country and society), then after the introduction of basic constitutional freedoms in 1905, public minds were directed to the search for new forms of views on the world and life.

Philosophers of the Silver Age traditionally include N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov, B.P. Vysheslavtsev, S.L. Frank, N.O. Lossky, F.A. Stepun, P.B. Struve, V. N. Ilyin, L. P. Karsavin, P. A. Florensky, Lev Shestov, S. N. and E.N. Trubetskoy, V.F. Erna, A.F. Losev, G.G. Shpeta and others.

The era of the “Silver Age” of Russian culture is rich in experiences of expressing metaphysical ideas in artistic creativity. Such examples of “literary” metaphysics are the works of two writers and polemicists - D.S. Merezhkovsky and V.V. Rozanov.

The philosophers of the Silver Age had different fates: some of them left their homeland with the “white movement”, some were expelled from Soviet Russia and lived in exile, some were subjected to repression and died during the Stalin years. There were also those who were able to fit into university and academic philosophical life in the USSR. But, despite this, the conditional association of these thinkers under the name “philosophers of the Silver Age” is legitimate on the basis of a combination of broad erudition, based on the European cultural tradition, and literary and journalistic talent.

The world of the mysterious and unknown has always attracted the mass reader, so the inexplicable and magical were often the focus of attention of the authors of works of art of the 19th century. V. S. Solovyov used elements of the mysterious in his novels in a very diverse way. He describes in detail the ideas and teachings of the sectarians and depicts the famous founder of the “Seekers of Christ” sect E.F. Tatarinov, lifts the veil over the ideas and rituals of the Freemasons (“Old House”); tells about the origins of Freemasonry in Russia and makes one of the main characters the famous adventurer Count Cagliostro (“The Magi”, “The Great Rosicrucian”); discusses the problems of spiritualism and occultism on the pages of the magazine “North”; finally, he dedicates the book to the founder of the Theosophical Society, H.P. Blavatsky.

V.S. Solovyov’s interest in the area of ​​the mysterious and mystical, which manifested itself from an early age, remained for many years. Soloviev wrote that “with mediumship<…>encountered in the early years<…>youth and since then, for many years, observed its essence and followed its development and spread” 1. The writer went through several stages: from studying the theoretical studies of occultists and Kabbalists of different times to learning in practice all kinds of spiritualistic and mediumistic phenomena, which was reflected in his artistic works. He lingered over the works of Paracelsus, Eckartshausen, Flamel, Trissmegistus, “which opened up new horizons for him in the area he was studying. And one can say that every day he grew stronger and stronger in mysticism” 2. According to the author, he himself liked his mystical works more: “I write these works with true pleasure. I like them incomparably better than my big historical novels. These are still the fruits of the mind, with the pursuit of ideological goals, with an attempt to disseminate information about our historical past among the people. Creativity is creativity, but various other considerations are mixed in here. In “fantastic” works, I only create, without thinking about anything else. My soul dictates them to me, I don’t invent anything, I don’t compose anything. My hand is moved by deep faith in the mysterious and close connection of this world with the life world” 3. Soloviev himself repeatedly participated in spiritualistic seances, which strengthened his faith in the other world, which will be discussed further. In addition, in one of his letters to Dostoevsky, he reported: “I acquired a medium in the person of my wife’s 16-year-old brother, who, being a student at a Reformed school, where the authorities read Darwin to the boys in the class, at first very bravely laughed at everything that happened to him. was happening; but now he has become the most convinced spiritualist. I took him to Wagner, and now we have weekly sessions there. Sometimes I reach the point of extreme amazement - tables and chairs all around me are absolutely going crazy; but this is not enough: the other day my young brother-in-law was strongly pushed away from the table, and the chair with him rolled across the room. Then we forced him to sit on a chair with his legs crossed, cross-legged - and the chair continued to roll, even though it did not have wheels” 4.

The world of the mysterious and unknown is most fully depicted by Solovyov in the mystical novels “The Magi” and “The Great Rosicrucian”, which he published in the magazine “North”: “The Magi” were published during the first year of publication (North. 1888, Nos. 1-46), “The Great Rosicrucian” - in 1889 (North. 1889, nos. 38-52). In the same year, 1889, “North” twice addressed the problems of spiritualism in articles of a journalistic nature.

The author of the first article was Soloviev himself; it can be considered a kind of introduction to the second part of the dilogy, the novel “The Great Rosicrucian”. In the regular column “Conversations of the “North””, in the article “Search for Religion”, Solovyov describes the incident when he “about twelve years ago<.. .>I had to observe highly developed mediumistic phenomena together with the late Dostoevsky. When we had to stop at recognizing the real presence of these figures outside of us, he, with his characteristic passion, began to repeat: “These are devils! They lie, calling themselves dead - people - these are devils! devils!!!"" 5 .

In the “Diary of a Writer” for 1876, Dostoevsky refers several times to spiritualistic phenomena, analyzes the attitude towards such sessions in society, and also mentions the spiritualistic session that Solovyov writes about.

The session took place on February 14, 1876 in the house of A.N. Aksakov, who was interested in mediumship and spiritualism from the second half of the 1860s 6: Ed. magazine "Rebus", 1884; Aksakov A. N. Harbingers of spiritualism over the last 250 years. Outstanding cases of spontaneous mediumistic phenomena from 1661 and the transition to experimental ones in 1848.<.>St. Petersburg, 1895]. At this session, the Englishwoman Claire demonstrated her mediumistic abilities.
Clair's session was not the first in Russia: in the 1870s, Hume and Brediff had already demonstrated their mediumistic abilities, numerous controversies surrounding their sessions, attempts to expose them made the topic very relevant. On the initiative of D.I. Mendeleev, who was seriously afraid of mysticism, which separated from a healthy view of objects, a special commission was created. In October 1875 A.N. Aksakov brought at his own expense from England two famous mediums, the Petty brothers. As proof of their mediumistic power, 16 printed reviews were submitted to the commission. The brothers demonstrated the appearance of drops of liquid on paper and caused the bell to ring. Based on the results of six sessions, they were recognized as deceivers 7 . It is possible that Dostoevsky also attended a spiritualistic seance on February 2, 1876, as mentioned by N.P. Wagner in a letter to V.S. Solovyov: “Be so kind as to bring V.V. with you today. Krestovsky. I would very much like the phenomena of light to acquire a definite character so that photography can begin. I also called Dostoevsky today, I promised to come” 8. Wagner was a keen spiritualist and persistently tried to convince Dostoevsky of the scientific nature of his connections with the “other world”, and soon after Dostoevsky’s death he even intended to call his spirit “from the other world” in order to find out whether the writer’s views on the matter of spiritualism had changed. At the request of Wagner A.G. Dostoevskaya responded with a decisive refusal 9 .

One of the chapters of the January issue of “A Writer’s Diary” for 1876 indirectly confirms Dostoevsky’s words about “devils” quoted above by Solovyov and shows that Dostoevsky’s attitude towards “spirits” developed before the famous seance. The chapter is titled “Spiritism. Something about devils. Extreme cunning of devils. Unless they're devils." The author calls this topic funny and at the same time fashionable, talks about it with humor, but at the end he clarifies: “Without any doubt, I was joking and laughing from the first to the last word, but this is what, however, I would like to express in conclusion : if you look at spiritualism as something that carries within itself, as it were, new faith(and almost everyone, even the most sober of spiritualists, is inclined a little towards such a view), then some of the above could be taken seriously” 10. Society's fascination with spiritualism caused Dostoevsky serious concern. In the March 1876 issue of “A Writer’s Diary,” in the chapter “A Word on the Report of the Scientific Commission on Spiritualistic Phenomena,” he wrote about the failed hope that the commission’s report “will crush and crush this obscene (in its mystical meaning) new teaching” 11 . An impressive commission of 32 people, created on the initiative of D.I. Mendeleev, initially became familiar with the literature on spiritualism, which was provided by its ardent supporters: A.N. Aksakov, professor A.M. Butlerov and N.P. Wagner. Then numerous experiments were carried out in order to expose it. The commission’s conclusion was that spiritualism is a superstition, but Dostoevsky was still disappointed: the report “sinned in its presentation and editing. This presentation is of such a nature that in it opponents of the report will certainly find a “biased” attitude towards the matter (hence, very unscientific), although, perhaps, there was not so much of this “bias” in the commission that it could be blamed for it.” 12 . In addition, “the commission allows itself, for example, to conclude about such phenomena of spiritualism (about the materialization of spirits, for example), which, by its own admission, it did not observe at all. Let us suppose that she did this in the form of, so to speak, a moral teaching, in a moralizing and warning sense, looking ahead of events, for the benefit of society, in order to save frivolous people from temptation. The idea is noble, but hardly appropriate in the present case” 13. A similar impression was made on Dostoevsky by Mendeleev’s lectures and reports, which are mentioned in the April issue of “A Writer’s Diary”, in the chapter “Again, just one word about spiritualism” - they did not convince that spiritualism is an extremely dangerous phenomenon.
Soloviev in “The Quest for Religion” very carefully expresses his opinion regarding spiritualism. Not only the famous sessions of the 1870s played a role here. By this time, Soloviev already knew a lot more about spiritualism, and managed to become interested in the teachings of E.P. Blavatsky and become disappointed in him.

In “The Quest for Religion,” Soloviev, on the one hand, notes that “nowhere, it seems, there are and have not been so many deceptions as in mediumism, nowhere have there been so many charlatans and more or less dexterous magicians. So-called spiritualistic seances, taking place in the dark, represent the widest and most convenient field for all sorts of deceptions and mystifications” 14. On the other hand, “despite trickery, deception and self-deception, do mediumistic phenomena exist or not? I must answer: of course - they exist” 15. According to the memoirs of P.V. Bykov, Soloviev believed “in the real existence of spirits”, in real signs close communication between people and the world hidden from us” 16. Dostoevsky also, with all his negative attitude towards spiritualism, was forced to admit: “...the spiritualist phenomena, with which I was somewhat familiar even before the session with the medium, I was never able to completely deny, even now” 17.

Dostoevsky understood that what is attractive about spiritualism is the mystery and unknownness of it as a phenomenon, therefore, if “they finally decide that this is not devils, but some kind of electricity, some new type of world power, then complete disappointment will immediately set in: “ They will say, this is incredible, what a bore!” - and immediately they will abandon everything and forget spiritualism, and will continue to get busy with business.” Soloviev explained many amazing cases at spiritualistic seances by “little-studied properties and phenomena of both physical and mental nature man" 18, which will soon be excluded from the sphere of spiritualism. Soloviev believed that the mechanisms of these “miracles” needed to be comprehensively studied, moving forward modern science.

The main idea of ​​“The Quest for Religion” coincides with Dostoevsky’s idea of ​​the need to rid society of spiritualism as an extremely dangerous phenomenon: “In the years that followed, I had to become even more familiar with these phenomena and I find that these beings and half-beings, whoever they were , for the most part such “rubbish” with which a self-respecting person and a Christian should not establish friendship and acquaintance” 19 .

However, Solovyov does not agree with Dostoevsky on everything, although he does not say so directly. Dostoevsky, responding to Mendeleev’s lecture, wrote: “He also praised the spiritualists (and again with “honor and glory”) for the fact that in our material age they are interested in the soul. Even if not in science, they say they are firm in faith, they believe in God. The venerable professor must be a great scoffer. Well, if he does this naively, not as a mockery, then, therefore, the opposite is true: he is not a big mocker” 20. Soloviev, on the contrary, believed that “in the fight against materialism, spiritualism provides great services, and from this point of view, one can, perhaps, recognize it as a bridge thrown over the abyss separating unbelief from faith” 21.

A spiritualist, Soloviev believed, “is not one who studies mediumship for scientific purposes or treats it from a Christian point of view, but one who is passionate about it, who believes in these spirits and makes a “religion” for himself from communication with them. The spiritualistic religion, the main founder of which should be recognized as the Frenchman Allan Cardin, is a sad delusion. She is some kind of pathetic afterlife material. It transfers into the spiritual world all the pettiness of earthly interests, all the earthly dust, clouds a person, makes him live here on earth a fantastic, dual life 22.

In the same 1889, “North” once again turns to the problems of the mysterious and mystical in the article “Modern revival on the scientific basis of astrology, alchemy, magic and other secret (occult) knowledge of former times.” The author notes: “Even quite recently, the words: alchemy, magic, astrology were used almost in a derogatory sense to designate any out-of-the-ordinary absurdity. The latest advances in knowledge, however, to the considerable embarrassment of modern scientists, are beginning little by little to reveal all the blatant injustice of this kind of attitude towards the occult” 23. Next, the author explains to readers the essence of alchemy, magic, astrology, and tries, with the help of modern scientific research, to prove the legitimacy of the existence of such sciences, to free readers from superstitions that make it difficult to understand modern world, simplify a complex phenomenon to the familiar and familiar, explain the incomprehensible with the help of examples taken from the experience of readers, history.

The magazine “North” adhered to the educational direction, therefore, turning to mysterious phenomena, it still sought to explain them from the point of view of science: “The miracles of modern hypnosis, the reality of which has already been finally recognized by modern scientists, the miracles of mental suggestion, the reality of which is beginning little by little Even the most zealous skeptics are convinced that miracles of clairvoyance, etc., etc., in reality do not represent anything new, since the essence of all these phenomena was known to occultists in ancient times. Let us recall, for example, the ancient treatment of diseases through spells, reprimands, etc. (modern treatment of diseases using hypnotic suggestion; psychotherapy by some authors); Let us recall the facts of the insensitivity of witches, sorceresses, etc. to the most severe torture by fire, hot iron, etc. (modern experiments on the insensitivity to pain of hysterical people, immersed in magnetic sleep (hypnotized), etc.); Let us recall the invocation of “spirits” using loud spells (modern experiments on loud verbal suggestion of visual hallucinations in subjects immersed in a magnetic sleep (hypnotized)); Let us recall the evocation of spirits by means of a magician’s touch on clients who came to him (modern experiments on inducing visual hallucinations through mental suggestion); Let us recall the facts of clairvoyance, which we have repeatedly discussed in scientific chronicles, the facts of so-called crystallomancy<…>, facts of so-called physical mediumship, forcing us to admit the possibility that thought (spirit), under certain conditions, can act on the physical world directly, without the mediation of the neuromuscular apparatus” 24.

The article on occultism is not signed, however, in the same issue of the magazine, readers are notified that V. S. Solovyov’s novel “The Great Rosicrucian” will soon begin to be published. The article prepares the reader for the problems raised in the novel, interests him and even fills in some gaps in knowledge about the mysterious phenomena that will be depicted in the work. Without claiming that the author of the article was the publisher of Sever, we note that Soloviev shared this point of view. In “The Modern Priestess of Isis” he admits: “I am not at all afraid of anyone’s smile, declaring that I recognized then and now recognize the possibility of the existence anywhere, even perhaps in the caves and wilds of Hindustan, of such a person whose knowledge far exceed everything that is known to our modern science.” Biographer of Solovyov P.V. Bykov notes that Solovyov’s attraction to the realm of the mysterious “went hand in hand with the achievements of science in this area” 26; he “is trying to prove that the mystics and Rosicrucians, an outstanding example of which is represented in the person of Prince Zakharyev-Ovinov, carried within themselves exactly those knowledge that in our days is destined to become the property of science, although not in full” 27 .

The positions of Dostoevsky and Solovyov, reflected in their works, are very close. Both writers, who were on close friendly terms for a long time and probably repeatedly discussed both spiritualism as a phenomenon and its specific manifestations, consider it their duty to warn the reader how far interest in the sphere of the mysterious and magical can lead.

Notes

1. (Soloviev V.S.) The quest for religion. Conversations of the North. XXVI. // North. 1889, No. 9. P. 174.
2. Bykov P.V. Vsevolod Sergeevich Solovyov: his life and work (essay). St. Petersburg, 1916. P. 40.
3. Right there. pp. 43-44.
4. Right there. pp. 43-44.
5. (Soloviev V.S.S.) Conversations of the “North”. XXVI. The quest for religion. P. 174.
6. A. N. Aksakov’s views on spiritualism were expressed by him in the preface to the publication “Spiritism and Science” (<Аксаков А. Н.>Spiritualism and science / Comp., trans. and ed. A. Aksakov. St. Petersburg, 1872), as well as in his other works: Aksakov A. N. Mediumship and philosophy. Memories of Moscow University professor Korevich // Russian Bulletin. 1875. January. pp. 442-469; Aksakov A. N. Positivism in the field of spiritualism. Regarding the book by A. Dassier “On Posthumous Humanity”. [SPb.
7. For more details, see: Spiritualism // Brockhaus F. A., Efron I. A. Encyclopedic Dictionary. In 86 vols. Ed. I. E. Andreevsky / St. Petersburg, 1890-1907. T. XXXI. pp. 224-226.
8. Wagner N.P. - Solovyov V.S.S.<С.-Петербург>. February 2<1876 г.>// Dostoevsky F. M. New materials and research / Ch. ed. V. R. Shcherbina / Literary heritage. T. 86. M.: Nauka, 1973. P. 444. It is also known that Dostoevsky visited the French fortune teller Field (see: Solovyov V.S.S. Memories of F.M. Dostoevsky // Dostoevsky in the memoirs of his contemporaries. In 2 vols. M., 1964. P. 224-227).
9. For more details, see: Dostoevsky F. M. New materials and research. Note to letter 107.
10. Dostoevsky F. M. Complete. collection op. T. 22. pp. 36-37.
11. Right there. P. 100.
12. Right there.
13. Right there.
14. Right there.
15. Bykov P.V. Vsevolod Sergeevich Soloviev. P. 40.
16. Dostoevsky F. M. Complete. collection op. T. 22. P. 127.
17. Right there.
18. (Soloviev V.S.) Conversations of the “North”. XXVI. The quest for religion. P. 174.
19. Dostoevsky F.M. Full collection op. T. 22. P. 132.
20. (Soloviev V.S.) Conversations of the “North”. XXVI. The quest for religion. P. 174. According to E.F. Pisareva, Blavatsky also “those mental manifestations with which she so amazed those around her,<.>hoped to achieve a certain goal: to shake disbelief in the invisible world, to prove that next to the physical there are other, incomparably more subtle, but no less real phenomena” (Pisareva E. F. Elena Petrovna Blavatskaya // Solovyov V. S. S. Modern Priestess of Isis: My acquaintance with H. P. Blavatsky and the “theosophical society” / Compiled by G. K. Lvova, L. M. Sharapkova, N. N. Yurgeneva: Republic, 1994. P. 195-196) .
21. Soloviev V.S. Conversations of the North. XXVI. The quest for religion. P. 174.
22. Modern revival on the scientific basis of astrology, alchemy, magic and other secret (occult) knowledge of former times // North. 1889, No. 28. P. 552.
23. Right there. P. 554.
24. Soloviev V. S.S. A modern priestess of Isis. P. 15.
25. Bykov P.V. Vsevolod Sergeevich Soloviev. P. 39.
26. Right there. P. 42.

Fundamentals of Philosophy

"Russian philosophy of the 19th-20th centuries"

1. Slavophiles. ( A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov and others) considered religion, church and faith as the foundation of all socio-historical changes; they believed that Russia had a mission to lay the foundations of a new public education based on truly Christian principles preserved in Orthodoxy. Only Orthodoxy, according to the Slavophiles, is characterized by a free element of spirit, a striving for creativity. Orthodoxy is deprived of that obedience to social laws that is characteristic of Western European society with its rationalism and the dominance of material interests over spiritual ones. This led the West to disunity, individualism, and the fragmentation of the spirit into its constituent elements.

Slavophiles denied the possibility of comprehending truth through individual human cognitive abilities: feelings, reason, faith. Only the spirit in its living integrity (the unity of cognitive, emotional, moral, religious abilities) is capable of understanding the truth in all its depth.

At the same time, true knowledge among the Slavophiles is accessible not to an individual person, but only to a collection of people united by a single love - conciliarity, conciliar consciousness (primarily church consciousness). Moreover, conciliarity in the philosophy of the Slavophiles acts as a general metaphysical principle of being. Only in conciliar unity does a person acquire his true spiritual independence. Sobornost is the opposite of individualism and denies subordination to any authority.

Slavophiles opposed inner freedom external necessity, they emphasized the advantage of freedom of a person’s internal convictions over his subordination to external circumstances: a person must be guided by his conscience, and not by the rationalism of profit.

Ultimately, the Slavophiles believed, the Orthodox faith determines the movement of history, life, morality, and thinking. Therefore, the idea of ​​true faith and true church lay at the basis of all their philosophical constructions.

Slavophilism, thus, represented a distinctive and original branch in Russian philosophy in a new way, and sometimes anew, developing individual philosophical ideas.

Westerners.– N.V. Stankevich, T.N. Granovsky, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen and others emphasized the primacy of the universal human principle in history. They defended the need for Russia's development in the direction indicated by advanced Western European civilization, highly appreciating the dynamism of European culture, its orderliness and spirituality.

Westerners emphasized the decisive role of the creative capabilities of the enlightened mind, capable of ensuring the dominance of a rationally thinking individual over the unbridled forces of nature and history.

In the field of socio-economic policy, the main demands of the Westerners were: the destruction of the peasant community, the elimination of legal inequality of classes, the replacement of serf labor with wage labor, the industrialization of the country and the development of transport, the removal of any restrictions on private enterprise and the free market.

In moral terms, Westerners advocated instilling in people such qualities as: respect for individual personality, dignity, respect for one’s fatherland and all humanity in general.

F.M. had a significant influence on the formation and problems of Russian and world philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuries. Dostoevsky (1821-1881) and L.N. Tolstoy (1828-1910).

Dostoevsky, on the one hand, he had antipathy towards “professorial” philosophy, considering it to be far from life. On the other hand, he loved philosophy and always raised philosophical questions and discussed them: in particular with Solovyov, Belinsky, Strakhov and others.

The thirst for life and the desire to understand it led to the fact that Dostoevsky’s philosophy was embodied in the form of a philosophical novel. It is characteristic of Dostoevsky deep penetration into what the writer called the “secret of man” - “Man is a mystery. It must be unraveled...": the meaning of life, freedom and responsibility, faith and unbelief, good and evil, passion and duty, reason and conscience - these are the problems that Dostoevsky is trying to solve.

Criticizing European moral rationalism and utilitarianism, overcoming the Enlightenment view of man as a rational being, Dostoevsky proceeds from the fact that reason is only an integral part of our freedom, our nature, and it is not he who leads to good, but will, strength of spirit.

Rational hardness Western culture, according to Dostoevsky, hides the volcanic nature of man; it is not suitable material for revealing limit states human soul. Therefore, Europe for Dostoevsky is “an expensive cemetery”; at the same time, he claims that “we, Russians, have two homelands - Europe and our Rus'!” The issue of freedom was the pinnacle of Dostoevsky’s ideas about the essence of man: it is in his freedom that man goes to good and evil. The good in man in his high morality comes from God, immorality is a loss from the sense of God. For Dostoevsky’s heroes, a person’s path to freedom begins with extreme individualism, which does not bring happiness to either themselves or those around them, leading them into the abyss of destruction. Such is the fate of Raskolnikov, Stavrogin, Kirillov and Karamazov.

However, it is not freedom itself that is harmful, but its development into arbitrariness and self-will. A person, according to Dostoevsky, must inevitably pass the test of freedom and can choose two paths, either to man-divinity, and here is the end and death of the individual, or to god-manhood, and here is salvation and the final affirmation of human essence. For goodness in man is “natural”; it is a “hidden” shrine, a great power.

However, a person does not have enough ability to “control” this deity. Therefore, only through suffering and often through crime is a person freed from the temptations of evil, from this chaos and stinking underground. He turns to goodness and God. Faith in man triumphs in Dostoevsky; for him there is nothing more precious and significant than man, although there is nothing more terrible than man. Man is mysterious, woven from contradictions. Exploring “lost souls,” Dostoevsky believed that even in the face of the most insignificant person one can awaken such Russian traits as “universal love,” “universal responsiveness,” and “universal pain for everyone.” Therefore, the reconstruction of society must begin not with the alteration of living conditions, but with the alteration of the spiritual nature of man.

Dostoevsky’s work is characterized, on the one hand, by an analytical approach, hence a deep psychological and philosophical insight into the essence of man and social phenomena: for example, in “The Possessed”, in a subtle chronicle of social events, he saw what later came to be called Bolshevism.

On the other hand, Dostoevsky also has irrationalism - the recognition that the key to understanding a person lies deeper than his consciousness, his conscience and reason. The key is in that “underground” where he is “himself”.

In general, Dostoevsky is characterized by a search for harmony in spiritual life and a steady desire for it, expressed in the formula “beauty will save the world.”

2 . The essence and meaning of life, its conditioning by nature and social environment, the unity of the divine and human, the ideal and the environment for its achievement, the essence of art, etc. were the themes of creativity L.N. Tolstoy.

According to L.N. Tolstoy, the drama of human existence lies in the contradiction between the inevitability of death and the thirst for immortality inherent in man. All this crystallizes into the question of the meaning of life.

The answer to this question is none scientific theories they cannot give, only religious ideas and age-old folk wisdom suggest that the meaning of life is in something that cannot be destroyed by death, that there is God and love for him.

And since a person does not have the opportunity to directly communicate with God, and every individual person has the divine, then love for God must manifest itself in love for people, a correct attitude towards oneself (thus Tolstoy showed an unorthodox, non-confessional, rational understanding of God).

The correct attitude towards oneself is the awareness of one’s imperfection in relation to the ideal - God. Hence a person’s dissatisfaction with himself, suffering, and the presence of mutually denying aspirations. However, a person constantly strives to overcome himself, to become different.

There is an idea that with the help of economic growth, engaging in art and science, a person can free himself from suffering and find the meaning of life. But this, according to L.I. Tolstoy, a dead end path because here only change takes place external forms. The meaning of life is faith in the power of life, in love that resists violence. Therefore, non-resistance to evil through violence is the main theme of L. N. Tolstoy’s philosophy.

At the same time, the concept of “violence” has a broad meaning in Tolstoy as evil, like any external coercion contrary to a person’s wishes. Violence tends to self-perpetuate and expand in scale. Therefore, the very idea of ​​​​limiting violence to violence is false: executing a murderer is an even greater evil than committing murder due to passion. Only then can you truly resist violence when you refuse to respond in kind - conviction, argument, protest.

In this regard, Tolstoy criticized the existing state institutions: the apparatus of power, the court, the church, calling for refusal to participate in state violence - military, judicial, economic, ideological. He also criticized socialist ideas.

From Tolstoy's philosophy the conclusion followed about the need to abandon resistance to the historical process, which only increases the amount of evil in the world. It is necessary to follow the path of personal moral self-improvement. It is necessary that everyone himself seeks the “eternal moral law” written in his soul.

Tolstoy's teachings gained wide popularity throughout the world. Tolstoyan communities were founded in England, Bulgaria, India, the USA, and Japan.

The common point of the religious searches of Dostoevsky and Solovyov. Christ as an eternal ideal. Theocracy as a free union of the Divine with humanity. Reflections on the three temptations of Christ. "The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor", and "A Brief Tale of the Antichrist".

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

TWO PHILOSOPHIES (ABOUT DOSTOEVSKY AND SOLOVIEV)

Personal acquaintance of F.M. Dostoevsky and V.S. Solovyov took place at the beginning of 1873. A.G. Dostoevskaya recalled: “... this winter Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov, then still very young, who had just completed his education, began to visit us.” In his first letter to Dostoevsky dated January 24, 1873. Soloviev addressed him as the editor of “Citizen” and offered to submit for the newspaper-magazine “ brief analysis negative principles of Western development". In January - April 1878 Soloviev reads a series of 12 lectures “Readings about God-manhood” from the St. Petersburg society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment. It is known that Fyodor Mikhailovich attended these lectures, however, there is no information about which ones, all or not. Evidence of the close relationship established between the writers is the fact that Dostoevsky already mentions Solovyov in the May-June issue of “A Writer’s Diary” for 1877. In June 1878, after the death of the Dostoevskys' son Alexei, Solovyov and Dostoevsky made a trip to Optina Pustyn. About this event A.G. Dostoevskaya writes: “Visiting the Optina Pustyn was a long-standing dream of Fyodor Mikhailovich, but it was so difficult to realize it. Vladimir Sergeevich agreed to help me and began to persuade Fyodor Mikhailovich to go to Pustyn together.” Literary critic N.N. Strakhov in his memoirs confirms the fact of the trip: “In 1878, in June, I made it together with Vl. Solovyov's trip to Optina Pustyn, where they stayed for almost a week. Readers will find a reflection of this trip in The Brothers Karamazov.

The common point of the religious searches of the two thinkers was the evangelical New Testament figure of Christ.

At the center of all Dostoevsky's philosophical quests stands Christ as an eternal ideal. He carried the exclusive, unique feeling of Christ throughout his life. This is proven by Dostoevsky’s letter to N.D. Fonvizina: “...I formed a symbol of faith within myself...

This symbol is very simple: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, deeper, more sympathetic, more intelligent, more courageous and more perfect than Christ. Moreover, if someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth, and it really were that the truth is outside Christ, then I would rather remain with Christ than with the truth.” Fyodor Mikhailovich's appeal to New Testament images and humanistic commandments attracted Solovyov's attention. Solovyov’s “Readings on God-Humanity” are important for understanding the mutual influence of the two thinkers. In them, Soloviev approaches the idea that only Christianity represents a positive and real universalism. Christianity, according to the philosopher, is determined by the following triad: 1) the appearance and revelation of the God-man - Christ; 2) the absolute promise of the Kingdom of God; 3) rebirth of all personal and public life in the spirit of Christ. The personality of Christ and His resurrection are important for Solovyov, because for him this is an indisputable fact: “The mystery of God-manhood revealed in Christ - the personal union of perfect Divinity with perfect humanity - does not constitute only a theological and philosophical truth - it is a knot in world history.” These feelings of the thinker were shared by F.M. Dostoevsky, which is confirmed by N.P.’s letter. Peterson dated March 24, 1878, in which Dostoevsky writes about N. Fedorov, and asks how Fedorov understands the resurrection of Jesus Christ - allegorically, like E. Renan, or literally, adding: “I warn you that we are here, i.e. . Solovyov and I believe in a real, literal, personal resurrection and that it will be on earth.” Soloviev considered the main idea of ​​Christianity not only faith in God, but also faith in man: “... faith in God and faith in man converge in the one complete and complete truth of God-manhood.” The philosopher comes in the “Readings” to “Christocentricity”: “In the sphere of eternal, divine existence, Christ is the eternal spiritual center of the universal organism.” He believes that it is possible for the Kingdom of God to be realized on earth, which will be accomplished gradually. Solovyov counts five kingdoms of perfect existence in the history of world progress: 1) inorganic, 2) plant, 3) animal, 4) natural-human, 5) spiritual-human, or the Kingdom of God. The philosopher proves that if before Christ the world moved towards the God-man, then after Christ it will move towards the God-man. In God-manhood collectively the same union of two natures must take place as individually happened in the God-man - Christ. The question of what role the church will play in God-manhood worried the philosopher. The Church is the body of Christ, the thinker believed. This is not only the Divine-human basis for the salvation of individual people, but also a phenomenon for the salvation of “the whole world.” The social ideal and the ultimate goal of universal development was the church for Dostoevsky. For the writer, the state is a pagan institution, coming from the Roman Empire, the church is a divine phenomenon. Dostoevsky, in his novel The Brothers Karamazov, resolutely insists on the need for the Orthodox Church as the unconditional spiritual principle of life and the bearer of the true culture that Russia should bring to the world.

Soloviev in “Readings” defines theocracy as a free union of the Divine with humanity. The Kingdom of God cannot be realized through coercion and violence. In his reasoning, Solovyov goes from God to man, and Dostoevsky - from man to God. In the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” Dostoevsky solves the question: will the world be saved by Christ (the God-Man) or by another principle - the Man-God (Antichrist). Christianity is not only a given, Soloviev reflects, but also a task addressed to the human soul. Christ revealed the truth to people, and people should strive to achieve this truth. Solovyov develops the idea of ​​brotherhood on the basis of a single and universal religion through reconciliation with Catholicism and Protestantism.

However, in 1900, twenty-two years after the trip to Optina Pustyn and twenty years after the publication of the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov", the Russian philosopher Soloviev writes the final literary essay "Three Conversations" with an insert

"A short story about the Antichrist". At that time, Soloviev was at the climax of “faith” and “reason”; he was completely disillusioned with his theocratic utopia, and did not believe in God-manhood. He experienced many hobbies and abandoned them completely, including a common fascination with Dostoevsky with the thoughts of N. Fedorov, and although faith remains unchanged, the consciousness of the nearness of the end, the premonition of the end, does not give him peace. Solovyov’s Slavophil dreams dissipated, and at the same time, faith in the possibility of the Kingdom of God on earth gave way to the hope that this Kingdom would come in a different way. Previously, Solovyov had a weak sense of evil, but now it becomes predominant. He sets himself a very difficult task - to draw the image of the Antichrist - and does it in the form of a story. The unfinished manuscript of the monk Pansophius, buried in the Danilov Monastery, from the end of the 19th century appeals to us - people living at the beginning of the 21st century.

“The twentieth century after the birth of Christ was the era of the last great wars, civil strife and coups...”. Already in the first lines of the story one can hear the rhythm of “The Revelation of John the Theologian,” which is also heard in the chapter “The Grand Inquisitor” of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov.” During the great turmoil, the death of Russia, as Pansofia tells in the story, one remarkable man appears who initially has no enmity towards Jesus, recognizes his messianic significance, his dignity. “He was still young, but thanks to his high genius, by the age of thirty-three he became widely famous as great thinker, writer and social activist. Conscious of the great power of the spirit in himself, he was always a convinced spiritualist, and a clear mind always showed him the truth of what he should believe in: goodness, God, the Messiah. He believed in this, but in the depths of his soul he involuntarily and unconsciously preferred himself to Him.” It was he who considered himself the Son of God, recognized himself as what Christ really was. He, the first Savior, was imperfect, he was only a forerunner. “That Christ is my forerunner. His calling was to anticipate and prepare my appearance.” This new Messiah talks about what he will give to people: “I will give all people everything they need. Christ, as a moralist, divided people with good and evil, I will unite them with benefits that are equally needed by both the good and the evil.”

The action of Dostoevsky's Legend of the Grand Inquisitor takes place in the 16th century in Spain, during the period of the rule of the Spanish Inquisition. Christ appears in his earthly form and begins to heal the sick and raise the dead. But the elderly Inquisitor, who appears at that moment in the cathedral square, orders Christ to be seized and thrown into prison. When the “breathless night of Seville” sets in, the Inquisitor comes to the dark dungeon to confess. The appearance of Christ is unexpected for the Grand Inquisitor - when life is controlled by one principle, the appearance of another is only a hindrance. The head of the Spanish Inquisition declares to Christ that with great difficulty he arranged the lives of people, and that the freedom with which Christ came is not needed by anyone: “For fifteen centuries we have suffered with this freedom, but now it is over, and it is over firmly.” It took Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor fifteen centuries to “correct” Christ's legacy. However, he eventually accomplishes this task, and so he is now the master of history. Now the crowds worship him, follow his instructions and, falling on their knees, accept his blessing with delight.

Soloviev directly draws an analogy with the Grand Inquisitor, calling his hero the Great Chosen One. The Great Chosen One, having waited 33 years and not receiving divine blessing and a sign of his power, is afraid that that Christ will turn out to be real and will return to earth. Then he, a supergenius, a superman, will be forced to stretch out in front of him “like the last stupid Christian.” This cannot be allowed in any way, and the Great Chosen One furiously renounces the faith three times: “Not resurrected, not resurrected, not resurrected!” . The personality of Christ and His resurrection are important for Solovyov, because for him this is an indisputable fact. The Great Chosen One in God loves himself, or rather, he loves himself more than God. Denial of Christ is the first condition for a person if he has fallen under the power of the Antichrist. A person may recognize peace and goodness, progress and democracy, but the denial of Christ inevitably leads him into the camp of the enemies of God. In this regard, Soloviev brought a lot of clarity with his story about the Antichrist. He presents the Antichrist as an unusually capable, brilliant man who, barely reaching 33 years of age, becomes known as a great sage, writer and social activist. He writes a very original work called “An Open Path to Universal Peace and Prosperity.” Everything in it is coordinated, balanced, connected in such a way that any person could find their views, feelings, thoughts in it, and everyone agreed with the author’s beliefs. The book captured the minds, everyone was surprised and admired it. To everyone it seemed to be an expression of complete truth. Only one thing was missing from it: the name of Christ. This is an unchanging beginning; it always lives. Both Solovyov and Dostoevsky understood this. “Fifteen centuries have already passed since He promised to come in His kingdom. But humanity is waiting for Him with the same faith and tenderness.” According to Dostoevsky, the reality of Christ not only does not diminish in history over time, but even intensifies. Dostoevsky believes that people have not forgotten Christ and his covenants. Solovyov intuitively felt that people worship imaginary, false ideals, and Christ - “an eternal ideal from time to time” (according to Dostoevsky) - will remain unnecessary and surpassed. This will be the preaching of the imaginary Kingdom of God and the imaginary Gospel, which will be without the Good News - this is what Dostoevsky feared, this is what the Russian philosopher, following him, warns against.

Dostoevsky thought a lot about the teachings of Christ according to the Gospels. The center of the Inquisitor's confession is a reflection on the three main temptations of Christ. The “fearful and intelligent spirit” who offered Christ “miracle, mystery and authority” found in the Inquisitor his best lawyer. Three temptations 16 centuries after the crucifixion The Inquisitor invites Christ to remember: “Do you see these stones in this naked hot desert? Turn them into bread, and humanity will run after you like a herd, grateful and obedient.” The first temptation - to turn stones into bread - contained the thought of the slave nature of man, but the Inquisitor considers people slaves: “No science will give them bread while they remain free, but it will end with them bringing their freedom to our feet and they will tell us: “Better enslave us, but feed us.” The Grand Inquisitor would like to belong to the disciples of Christ, to preach His teaching, but he comes to the conclusion that people are unable to bear the principles of Christ, they are too weak to implement them. The Inquisitor reproaches Christ for the fact that He came down from heaven with a mighty, strong spirit and forgot about the weak. It took the Grand Cardinal fifteen centuries to correct the covenants of Christ, making them accessible and feasible for the weak. The second temptation is the temptation about a miracle, a mystery. “If you want to know whether you are the son of God, then jump down, for it is said that the angels will pick him up and carry him and will not fall...” - the Inquisitor recalls the words of the desert spirit. Christ’s mistake, according to the Inquisitor, is that he did not understand the nature of the human mind, did not understand that it is easier for a person to submit to a fact, a “miracle.” The truth about the finitude of human life, about the absence of future heavenly harmony with its justice and retribution, is known, according to the Inquisitor, only by the chosen ones who take on the burden of the “secret”. In the face of Christ, there is no point in hiding this secret any longer: “And I will not hide our secret from you. Maybe you just want to hear it from my lips, listen: we are not with you, but with him, that’s our secret!” . The concept of authority is closely related to the concept of “secret”. The inquisitor interprets “authority” as a necessary factor on the path of a person’s renunciation of his freedom: “They will marvel at us, and will consider us gods because we, having become their leader, agreed to endure freedom and dominate them - so terrible they will finally be free!” . Dostoevsky emphasizes in the “Legend...” that the Grand Inquisitor acts in the name of Christ, destroys the freedom of people in the name of the “Christian” world, prosperity, in the name of Christ quenches hunger and thirst, just as the Son of God declares a mystery, creates signs and wonders, and determines with authority people's conscience.

It did not take Solovyov’s Antichrist so many centuries to radically change the teachings of Jesus. Christ gave the peoples a sword, he himself predicted that until the end of history there would be struggle, and He, the Great Chosen One, would give the peoples peace and tranquility. The manifesto he issued is having the desired effect. “More important than these details was the lasting establishment of the most basic equality in all humanity - the equality of universal satiety,” “And now the peoples of the Earth, blessed by their ruler, in addition to universal peace, in addition to universal satiation, will also have the opportunity to constantly enjoy the most diverse and unexpected miracles and signs ". The Great Chosen One in “The Tale...” invites a miracle worker from the Far East, who gives the opportunity to enjoy all sorts of miracles and signs. Those who are well-fed also need entertainment, so the superman turns out to be “on top”, understanding what his crowd needs. All actions carried out are lies, deception. Soloviev portrays the Antichrist as a true humanist, a man of strict virtues. This is the Antichrist: in word, in deed, and even alone with his conscience - embodied virtue, even Christian-colored, although radically destroyed by the lack of love and excessive pride.

Solovyov's Antichrist will receive everything that the Grand Inquisitor lacked: he will truly be a genius of all sciences and arts. He will receive a semblance of immortality, he will build an “earthly paradise.” A worldwide, absolute tyranny will be created.

Dostoevsky's Inquisitor also strives for this. Thirsting for the happiness of others, he returned from the desert, where he ate roots and locusts, and joined those who undertook to correct the feat of Christ. Love for people leads him in the wrong direction; he builds for them a “common and harmonious anthill.” The Inquisitor finds confirmation of this idea in the historical past: “Mankind as a whole has always strived to establish itself universally.” The Inquisitor's thought moves far into the depths of history, finding the need of the anthill there too. He says: “The great conquerors, Timurs and Genghis Khans, flew like a whirlwind across the earth, trying to conquer the universe, but they, although unconsciously, expressed the same great need of humanity for universal and universal unity.” But the world of the Legend is not closed in the historical past, but is given in an open time perspective. So the Inquisitor unfolds before Christ a picture of the future harmonious life of people: “... we will give them quiet, humble happiness, the happiness of weak creatures... Yes, we will force them to work, but in the hours free from work we will arrange their life as a child’s game... Oh, we will allow it’s a sin for them... and they will adore us as benefactors... They will die quietly, they will quietly fade away in your name.” Introducing Christ's future power, the Inquisitor turns to fantastic images of the Apocalypse: “But then a beast will crawl to us and will lick our feet and sprinkle them with bloody tears from its eyes. And we will sit on the beast and erect a cup and on it will be written: “Mystery!” But only then will the kingdom of peace and happiness come for people.” But the Inquisitor will create a new Tower of Babel instead of Christ’s ideal. The Great Chosen One in “The Tale...” speaks loud words and calls for him. Not having the Spirit of Christ, he calls himself a Christian. In an outburst of brotherly love, he wants to make him happy by learning what is most precious to believers in Christianity. The Great Chosen One is a false messiah, involved in satanic grace. He looks with angelic eyes and seduces like the Antichrist. “My sincere love for you, beloved brothers, yearns for reciprocity. I want you, not out of a sense of duty, but out of a feeling of heartfelt love, to recognize me as the true leader in every matter undertaken for the good of humanity.” Offering believers spiritual authority in society, veneration of the Holy Scriptures, symbols and regalia of Christianity, the Great Chosen One cleverly ignores the Son of God himself. Assuming that worldly assistance to religions guarantees him the support of churches, he returns the exiled popes to Rome, establishes a world institute for the study of Holy Scripture, an academy of liturgy, and convenes a congress of the three main Christian denominations in Jerusalem. For believers, Christ himself is most important, and Elder John asks to publicly recognize Jesus, who suffered, died and rose again. Here the Great Chosen One takes off his mask and turns from a philanthropic sage into a disgusting tyrant. The “face” has changed: the features of the Grand Inquisitor, ready to burn Christ, are distorted by hatred, rage, fear, envy. A hellish storm rises inside the Antichrist, the Great Chosen One, a huge dark cloud covers the windows of the temple - believers raise their heads to the altar and recognize Satan, the Antichrist, in the newly-minted impostor. From this moment on he enters into open war against the Lamb. The Antichrist kills all the devoted disciples of Christ, seduces the people, distributing “sheets with full and unconditional indulgences for all sins past, present and future,” and declares himself “the one true incarnation of the supreme deity of the universe.”

The Inquisitor in the “Legend...” reflects on the second coming of Christ, when he will judge the living and the dead: “They say and prophesy that you will come and conquer again, you will come with your chosen ones, with your proud and powerful, but we will say that they saved only ourselves, and we saved everyone." The inquisitor thought over and prepared the words that he would dedicate to Christ on the day of the Last Judgment: “Judge us if you can and dare!” Christianity for him is not a religion of resurrection, but a religion of Golgotha. The inquisitor wants to destroy Christ: “I repeat to you, tomorrow you will see this obedient herd, which, at my first wave, will rush to rake hot coals to your fire, on which I will burn you because you came to disturb us.” Denial of Christ, struggle with the Son of God is the true sign of the Antichrist beginning. Dostoevsky portrays the Inquisitor and answers the question: can a person endure a complete rejection of God. And Vladimir Solovyov realized that the loss of faith in Christ, when a person is told: “...that beggar crucified is a stranger to me and you,” is the best ground for the temptations of the Antichrist. “It is clear and understandable to the point of obviousness that evil lurks deeper in humanity than modern socialist doctors assume...” warns F. M. Dostoevsky. “Is evil a natural flaw or is it an actual force?” - Vladimir Solovyov asks in “The Tale...”.

Our history is governed not only by a positive principle - Christ, but also by a second, negative, opposite principle. It is also real, and Dostoevsky does not doubt its existence at all, therefore he depicts it not in an abstract form, but in the image of a living and concrete person. In Dostoevsky, Christ is opposed to the Inquisitor, in V. Solovyov - the Antichrist. In Solovyov, the Antichrist has features akin to the Grand Inquisitor. In Dostoevsky's "Legend..." they both stand one against the other, eye to eye. In ordinary life they are rare, and in Solovyov these two principles do not converge in a dark dungeon, but only replace each other.

In “The Legend...” Dostoevsky expressed the greatest feelings of Christ, and Solovyov in “The Tale” - the feeling of Satan. Releasing Christ from prison is just another way of removing Him from history. Instead of destroying Him physically, the Inquisitor wants to remove Christ spiritually. Thus, the Grand Inquisitor enters into a new hypostasis to incarnate as the evil Antichrist. Dostoevsky ends “The Legend...” with Christ walking off into the darkness, into the black streets of Seville. The kiss of Christ burns in the heart of the Inquisitor, but he opens the doors, lets Christ out and asks: “Go and don’t come again... don’t come at all... never, never!” . V. Solovyov’s apocalyptic story ends with the collapse of the Antichrist. The demonic body of the Great Chosen One falls into pieces and goes into oblivion: “But as soon as the vanguards of the two armies began to converge, an earthquake of unprecedented force occurred - under the Dead Sea, near which the imperial troops were located, the crater of a huge volcano opened, and streams of fire, merging into one fiery lake, swallowed up the emperor himself and all his countless regiments...” “The Tale...” ends with the majestic “second coming”: “When the holy city was already in sight, the sky opened with great lightning from east to west, and they saw Christ descending to them in a royal robe and with nail marks on his outstretched hands ".

This is how one of the images of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky developed in the poetic consciousness of Vladimir Solovyov. V. Soloviev was not only able to distinguish the wheat from the chaff, but also helped us better understand the “Legend...” and emphasized what was hidden in it, barely outlined. AND

"The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor", and " A short story about the Antichrist” are aimed at eternity, addressed to people living in the new millennium with the idea of ​​human salvation.

LITERATURE

religious search Dostoevsky Soloviev

1. Dostoevskaya A.G. Memories. - M., 1987. - P. 277.

2. Literary heritage. T.83. - M., 1971. - P. 331.

3. Nasedkin N.N. Encyclopedia. Dostoevsky. - M., 2003. - P.726.

4. Dostoevsky F.M. Writer's Diary. - M., 1989.

5. Strakhov N.N. Memoirs // Dostoevsky in Russian criticism. -

M., 1956. - P.319.

6. Dostoevsky F.M. PSS: in 30t. M., 1986. T. 28 1, P. 176. The following volume and page are given in the text. The volume is in Roman numerals, the page is in Arabic numerals.

7. Soloviev V.S. Readings about God-manhood // Solovyov V.S. Philosophical journalism. - M., 1989. - T.II.

8. Soloviev V.S. Three conversations. About war, progress and the end of world history, including a short story about the Antichrist and with applications. - M., 1991.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov is a classic of Russian idealistic philosophy. The formation of his religious beliefs, the philosophy of eternal femininity. Personal qualities and friendships of Solovyov. Reflections on the meaning of human love in the philosopher’s articles.

test, added 02/26/2011


Biography of V.S. Solovyova. Basic principles of Solovyov's philosophy. Place in the history of Russian philosophy. The theory of “all-unity”: its concept in ontological, epistemological and axiological terms. Theosophy, the concept of Sophia. Truth, beauty and kindness.

abstract, added 02/27/2017


Vladimir Solovyov and the influence of Spinoza’s works on his worldview. Philosophical work"Justification of the good" and problems of ethics. General outline of Solovyov's philosophy. The unity of the world soul in its desire for realization. The union of the divine principle with the soul of the world.

abstract, added 03/22/2009


Philosophical positions of Solovyov. The concept of unity and the idea of ​​God-manhood. Religious and philosophical justification for world theocracy. Soloviev as the first Russian philosopher to create a system covering all traditional sections of philosophical knowledge.

abstract, added 02/27/2010


Analysis of the life path and philosophical development of V. Solovyov, an outstanding Russian thinker. The impact of his work on the development of Russian religious philosophy at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Study of the philosophy of "all-unity", the idea of ​​eternal God-manhood.

abstract, added 08/14/2010


Stages of development of Russian philosophy and their general characteristics. Historical orthodox-monarchical philosophy F.M. Dostoevsky, P.Ya. Chaadaeva, L.N. Tolstoy. Revolutionary-democratic, religious and liberal philosophy. Westerners and Slavophiles.

test, added 05/21/2015


Religious and philosophical quests of Russian writers (F. Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy). Westerners and Slavophiles. Metaphysics of all-unity Vl. Solovyova. Materialistic and idealistic directions in Russian philosophy of the second half of the 19th century-beginning of XX centuries

training manual, added 06/16/2013


abstract, added 11/02/2012


Category of consciousness in philosophy, its motivational and value potential. The genesis of this category and social nature. The relationship between consciousness and language, its connection with the unconscious. The concept of the ideal, its relationship with reality, the ideal and the ideal.

abstract, added 02/03/2016


A brief sketch of the life, personal and creative development of the Russian philosopher of the second half of the 19th century V.S. Solovyova. The essence of Solovyov’s philosophy of unity, its distinctive features. The ethical teaching of the philosopher and its place in modern science.

Sun. S. Soloviev

Memories of F. M. Dostoevsky

F. M. Dostoevsky in the memoirs of his contemporaries. Volume two Series of literary memoirs Under general editorship V. V. Grigorenko, N. K. Gudziya, S. A. Makashina, S. I. Mashinsky, B. S. Ryurikov M., "Fiction", 1964 Abbreviations restored from the journal "Historical Bulletin" Vsevolod Sergeevich Solovyov ( 1849-1903) - writer, son of the famous historian S. M. Solovyov and older brother of the philosopher and poet Vl. Solovyova. He graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow University in 1870. Since 1864 Sun. Solovyov published his poems in various Moscow publications ("Pchela", "Moskovskie Vedomosti", "Russian Bulletin"), and then, having moved to St. Petersburg, was published in "Zarya" and "Bulletin of Europe". Having met F. M. Dostoevsky, Vs. Soloviev published several poems in "Citizen" (see No. 46 and 51 for 1873). In the second half of the 70s, he led the critical department in the St. Petersburg Gazette, and then in the Russkiy Mir. Since 1876, he became mainly a novelist, the author of numerous historical novels and stories that were popular in his time ("Princess of Ostrog", "Obsession", "Sergei Gorbatov", "Flowers of the Abyss", etc.). Sun. Soloviev met Dostoevsky in early January 1873. On January 31, in a letter to S.A. Ivanova, Dostoevsky wrote about Solovyov: “I recently met him, and under such special circumstances, that I could not help but fall in love with him immediately.<...>If only Vsev. Soloviev was one of my ordinary acquaintances; I would not have sent him to you personally. He's quite a warm soul." (Letters, III, 48-49). Soon after they met, Dostoevsky introduced Vs. Solovyov into the literary circle of the book. Meshchersky. Obviously, from the very beginning of meeting Vs. Solovyov personified for Dostoevsky that part of Russian youth who, as it seemed to him, in their moral and philosophical quests came closest to his, Dostoevsky’s, perception of life. That is why Dostoevsky took great interest in his new young friend. In 1876-1878, Dostoevsky met less often with Solovyov, they sometimes corresponded, and in 1878-1880 both meetings and correspondence stopped. Sun. Solovyov was one of Dostoevsky’s most enthusiastic admirers and, even during the writer’s lifetime, published a number of critical essays about him in the St. Petersburg Gazette (No. 32, 58 for 1875) and the Russian World (No. 38, 65, 98, 189, 196 for 1876). In 1878 in "Niva" Sun. Soloviev published a biographical note about. Dostoevsky, in which he expressed the opinion that it was impossible for contemporaries to appreciate the full depth of the writer’s talent. After Dostoevsky's death, he published an obituary in "Niva" (No. 7 of February 14, 1881) "In Memory of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky." A man has just been lowered into his grave. Death overtook him almost suddenly, overtook him in a period of full development of mental and moral powers, amid vigorous and fruitful activity. He did not expect it, had no idea that it was approaching, or rather, he had been waiting for this death all his life and had become accustomed to this expectation. He died away without finishing his word, but he spoke for a long time and a lot, and the work of his life cannot be called begun and unfinished: he did his job, left behind a bright, tactile trace that cannot be erased and forgotten. A man has just been lowered into the grave - and his unexpected death is on everyone’s lips, his memory is so fresh, everyone wants to talk about him, about the meaning of the loss they have just suffered. But how can one talk about him now - in these first, sad days? Now more than ever, he, already forever absent, must speak about himself with his numerous creations - after all, he is entirely contained in them, in these ardent creations, which for a long, too, long time were poorly understood, poorly appreciated. But the last years of his working, hard life were illuminated with happiness, which he had already ceased to count on: his word finally reached the hearts of those to whom it addressed. He finished this word, surrounded by universal sympathy, gratitude, and delight. He will not add anything more to what they said, and to remember him means to remember his every word, to ponder over it, to understand every thought of his, the meaning of every poetic image he created. But such memories of the artist-thinker can only be the fruit of a true, impartial critical assessment of his creations. Whether Dostoevsky's memory will soon receive such an assessment is difficult to say given the extremely sad state of our criticism. And in any case, not now, not in these sad first days, is the time for attempts at criticism: it should be calm, impartial, and should not be mixed with personal feelings caused by the unexpected death of our dear writer. A serious assessment of his activities and the significant significance of this activity for Russian society remains in the future. But to everyone who knew him personally, who lost in him not only one of the most prominent and influential literary and public figures, but also loved one, now I think with longing not about the inspired writer, but about Fyodor Mikhailovich, whom you will never see again, whose hand you will never shake again. It’s as if you can hear his sometimes irritated, sometimes affectionate voice, and all those little things flash in every detail, the totality of which makes up both the external and internal image of a person, and which you begin to especially appreciate when the person is gone... I knew Fyodor Mikhailovich not just as an acquaintance - he was my teacher and confessor. Special circumstances helped my rapprochement with him from the very first minute of our meeting, and this rapprochement dates precisely to that period of his life when he was almost alone and maintained contact only with a limited circle of his old friends. At that time Dostoevsky had a decisive influence on me and I attached great importance almost every word he said to me. Therefore, I had the custom at the same time to write down many of our conversations, his stories, and mostly stories about myself. I keep some of his interesting letters. All this now gives me the opportunity to immediately and easily understand my memories, without fear of errors in my memory. I’m only sorry that I can’t currently tell everything that I have written down and that I remember - I don’t want accusations of immodesty, I don’t want to talk a lot about people still alive, and therefore I can only present excerpts from my memories about Fyodor Mikhailovich. I also regret that, speaking about him, I inevitably have to talk about myself; but the very property and form of personal memories should justify me in this to the readers. Dostoevsky became my favorite writer from the very moment when I read the first of his stories that came to my hand, and this happened at the very early years of my adolescence. Every artist-writer then easily captured my soul, captivated me and forced me to be transported into the world of his images and fantasies. But I got out of this charm, and now I became sober. That’s not what happened to me when reading Dostoevsky. This reading was the highest pleasure and at the same time torment for me. The passionate, suffering author grabbed me from the very first page and carried me away against my will into his dark kingdom, where he collected everything that is dark, sick, painful and ugly in our public and personal life, where the bright and healthy images are an exception. I felt that he revealed such a depth of humanity I and illuminates such phenomena in it that it became scary. He found expression for the most elusive sensations and thoughts. It was some kind of fever dream - vivid, painful, amazing. I was dreaming of something huge and complex. Everything is confused, everything is spinning, rushing in a passionate whirlwind, and one languid, oppressive and extraordinary, strong sensation reigns over all of this. And suddenly this darkness, this horror is illuminated by a gentle light, the voice of love, forgiveness, reconciliation is heard. The fear goes away, quiet tears rise from the depths of the soul... The reading is over, but its impression remains for a long time. The nerves are shaken, the mind is working. This fever dream, in which there is almost always such a confusion of images, positions, in which everything is lumped together, often driven into one place, in one minute, despite all its apparent fantasticness, turns out to be full of the most living, the deepest truth of life. This painful world, these groans and cries of the suffering, polluted human soul, breaking out of its filth, seeking truth and light and being saved by love - were always close and understandable even to a half-child who did not know life. But time passed, and what at first was perceived only by instinctively sensitive nerves became more consciously and clearly imprinted in thought every year. The appearance of Crime and Punishment was a huge event for me. I read this book days and nights; I finished and re-read it again. I went through a lot at that time and left this school completely changed. Then, I waited for each new novel by Dostoevsky with feverish excitement. But I was waiting not for just one novel, but also for its author, because this author spoke for every line, and I, having never seen him, was already closely acquainted with him and loved him dearly. I found out everything that could be learned about him, about his life, but it turned out to be very little: I didn’t meet people who knew him well... Years still passed, and it was precisely those years of his first youth that play such an important role in the life of every person, when such restless inner work is going on. Thoughts, views, tastes changed, a lot was altered, but the influence of Dostoevsky’s work and his own moral image, imprinted in his creations, remained unchanged. I finished my university course, moved from Moscow to live in St. Petersburg, and was just beginning to get acquainted with independent life. I did not have any acquaintances with literary circles, and although Alexey Feofilaktovich Pisemsky gave me, before my departure from Moscow, several letters of recommendation to his St. Petersburg literary friends, I did not take advantage of these letters. Wherever I had to, I published lyrical pieces without my signature, and that was all. At the very end of 1872, I read an advertisement in the newspapers about the publication of the magazine "Citizen" under the editorship of Dostoevsky. I thought he was still abroad; but here he is, in the same city as me, I can see him, talk to him. I was overcome with joy and excitement. I was terribly young and didn’t think twice: I immediately went to the editorial office of “Citizen” to find out the address of the new editor. I was given this address. I returned to my room, locked myself in and wrote to Dostoevsky all night long. I would be curious to read this letter now. Perhaps there was a lot of unnecessary stuff in him, but, in any case, I told him everything that I could say to the man whom I had loved for so long and who had such an influence on me 1 . The next morning I mailed this letter and waited. Three, four days passed - no answer. But I was not at all embarrassed, I was absolutely sure that Dostoevsky could not help but answer me. The new year, 1873, has arrived. On the first of January, returning to my room late in the evening and approaching my desk, I saw among the letters waiting for me a business card, the back of which was covered in writing. He looked - “Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky.” With my heart almost stopping, I read the following: “Dear Vsevolod Sergeevich, I wanted to write everything to you; but I put it off, not knowing my time. I was busy from morning to night and at night. Now I’m stopping by and don’t find you, to the greatest regret. I’m at home at about eight o'clock in the evening, but not always. And now everything is so confused about my new position that I don’t know when I could appoint you completely unmistakably. I firmly shake your hand. F. Dostoevsky" . I felt and knew that he would answer me; but these simple and affectionate words, this visit to an unfamiliar young man (in my letter I told him I was 2 years old) - all this touched me, brought me such a joyful feeling that I did not sleep all night, excited and happy. I could hardly wait for the evening. I was transfixed with delight and worried, like a passionate lover who has a first date. At the beginning of eight I went. He then lived in the Izmailovsky regiment, in the 2nd company. I found house No. 14, went through the gate and asked - they showed me a separate outbuilding in the back of the yard. My heart was pounding... I called with a trembling hand. The maid immediately opened the door for me, but for a minute I could not utter a word, so she repeated several times and with visible bewilderment: “What do you want?” - Is Fyodor Mikhailovich at home? - I finally said. - At home, sir, but the lady is not there - at the theater. I climbed up the narrow, dark stairs and threw my fur coat onto some chest in the low hallway. “Please, right here... open the doors, they’re at home,” said the maid and disappeared. I walked through the dark room, unlocked the door and found myself in his office. But could this poor, corner room of a small outbuilding, in which one of the most inspired and profound artists of our time lived and worked, be called an office? Right next to the window, there was a simple old table on which two candles were burning, several newspapers and books lay... an old, cheap inkwell, a tin box with tobacco and shell casings. At the table small closet, on the other wall is a market sofa, upholstered in poor reddish reps; this sofa also served as a bed for Fyodor Mikhailovich, and it, covered with the same reddish, already completely faded rep, caught my eye eight years later, at the first memorial service... Then several hard chairs, another table - and nothing else . But, of course, I looked at all this later, and then I didn’t notice anything at all - I saw only a stooped figure sitting in front of the table, quickly turning around at my entrance and standing up to meet me. In front of me was a man of short stature, thin, but rather broad-shouldered, who seemed much younger than his fifty-two years, with a sparse brown beard, a high forehead, whose soft, thin hair had thinned but not grayed, with small, light brown eyes, with an ugly and at first glance simple face . But this was only the first and instant impression - this face was immediately and forever imprinted in memory, it bore the imprint of an exceptional, spiritual life. There was also a lot of sickness in him - his skin was thin, pale, as if waxy. I have seen people making a similar impression several times in prisons - they were sectarian fanatics who had endured long periods of solitary confinement. Then I soon got used to his face and no longer noticed this strange resemblance and impression; but on that first evening it struck me so much that I couldn’t help but notice it... I named myself. Dostoevsky smiled affectionately, good-naturedly, squeezed my hand tightly and said in a quiet, somewhat dull voice: “Well, let’s talk ...” He sat me down on a chair in front of the table, sat down next to me and began to stuff thick, large cigarettes, often lifting me up quiet, gentle eyes. He, of course, immediately noticed that in front of him was a completely embarrassed and excited young man, and managed to treat me in such a way that after a few minutes my embarrassment disappeared. We met as if we were old and close acquaintances after a short separation. He told me about his affairs and circumstances regarding his new position as editor of the Citizen, conveyed his plans, the hopes that he pinned on this matter. - I just don’t know, I don’t know how I’ll cope with all this, how I’ll figure it out... I have a plot for story 3, a good plot; I told M4, and he begs me to write for the Citizen, but this will interfere with the Diary, I can’t do two things at once, I never could, if I write two different things at once, both are lost... well, and I don’t know myself what to decide... I’ll think about it all night now... As much as I could, I defended the “Diary”, especially at first. “After all,” I noted, “this is such a convenient way to talk about the most essential things, to speak out directly and clearly.” -Speak directly and clearly! - he repeated, - what would be better, and, of course, oh, of course, someday it will be possible; but it’s impossible, my dear, right away, it’s absolutely impossible, haven’t I thought about it, haven’t dreamed of it!.. but what can I do... Well, then, there are things that, if suddenly, no one will even believe. If only about Belinsky (he revealed the issue of “Citizen” with his first “Diary of a Writer”), did I say everything here, really could I say!! And they don’t understand him at all. I would just like to quote his own words - and nothing more... well, I couldn’t. - Yes, why? - Due to unprintability. He told me one conversation with Belinsky, which really cannot be printed and which caused a remark on my part that it is still a long way from words to deeds, every person can have the most monstrous fleeting thoughts, and, however, these thoughts never turn into action , and only other people, at certain moments, like to boast with feigned cynicism about some wild thought. - Of course, of course, only Belinsky was not like that; if he said it, he could have done it; She was a simple, integral nature, whose word and deed were together. Others will think a hundred times before making up their mind, and yet they will never make up their mind, but he does not. And you know, now, lately, there are more and more such natures: I said and did, I’ll shoot myself and I shot myself, I’ll shoot and I shot. All this is integrity, straightforwardness... and, oh, how many there are, and there will be even more - you will see!.. 5 I did not notice how time passed. Moving from one to the other, we began to tell each other information about ourselves. I greedily hung on his every word. He asked me about the year and day of my birth and began to remember: - Wait, where was I then?.. in Perm... we were going to Siberia... yes, it was in Perm... He told, by the way , about the one person who had the greatest influence on him. It was a certain Shidlovsky 6. A few years later, when I asked Fyodor Mikhailovich to provide me with some biographical and chronological information for an article about him that I was preparing for publication, he told me: “Be sure to mention Shidlovsky in your article, there is no need, no one knows him and that he did not leave behind a literary name. For God's sake, my dear, mention - he was a great man for me, and he is worth it so that his name does not disappear... 7 Shidlovsky, according to Dostoevsky’s stories, was a man in whom an abyss of contradictions was reconciled: he had an “enormous” mind and a talent that was not expressed in a single written word and died with it; revelry and drunkenness - and tonsure as a monk. Dying, he did God knows what: he was also in Siberia, in hard labor; when he was released, he made himself a ring from the iron of his shackles, wore it constantly and, dying, - swallowed this ring... I wanted to find out something reliable about the terrible illness - epilepsy, which, as I heard, Dostoevsky suffered from, but, of course, I could not decide even to approach this question from afar. He himself seemed to guess my thoughts and started talking about his illness. He told me that he recently had a seizure. “My nerves have been upset since my youth,” he said. — Two years before Siberia, during my various literary troubles and quarrels, I developed some kind of strange and unbearably painful nervous illness 8 . I cannot tell you about these disgusting sensations; but I remember them vividly; It often seemed to me that I was dying, but really - real death came and then went away. I was also afraid of lethargic sleep. And it’s strange - as soon as I was arrested - suddenly all this disgusting illness of mine went away, neither on the road, nor in hard labor in Siberia, and I never experienced it afterwards - I suddenly became cheerful, strong, fresh, calm... But during hard labor I had my first epileptic fit, and since then it has not left me. Everything that happened to me before this first attack, every slightest incident from my life, every face I met, everything I read, heard - I remember to the smallest detail. I very often forget everything that began after the first seizure, sometimes I completely forget people I knew well, I forget faces. I forgot everything I wrote after hard labor; when I finished writing “Demons,” I had to re-read everything from the beginning, because I even forgot the names of the characters... 9 He told me about his recent second marriage, about his children 10 . - My wife is at the theater, the children are sleeping, - next time you will see... yes, here is a card of my little daughter, I call her Lilya. She looks similar here. Seeing that I liked the card, he said: “Take it for yourself.” Then he spoke about the last four years of his life abroad, about the Russian people who had turned into Europeans and hated Russia, and mainly about one of them, a well-known person... 11 he spoke about the passion for roulette, about any passion, about love ... He confessed me... - No, whoever loves does not reason - you know how they love! (and his voice trembled, and he whispered passionately): if you love purely and love her purity in a woman and suddenly become convinced that she is a lost woman, that she is depraved, you will love her depravity in her, this disgusting disgusting thing, you will to love in her... that's what love is like!.. It was late, I began to say goodbye. He took me by the hand and, holding me, said that he would certainly like to introduce me to the literary circle to which he now belongs. - You will meet very interesting, very, very smart and good people there... 12 - I don’t doubt it at all, but I will be the worst acquisition for these people. Do you know that I am surprisingly awkward, embarrassed to the point of illness, and sometimes capable of being silent as if killed... If I’m not like that today, with you, it’s because I’ve been waiting for this evening for many years, this is completely different... - - No, you absolutely need to be cured - your illness is well understood by me, I myself suffered from it quite a bit... Self-love, terrible pride - hence the embarrassment... You are afraid of the impression you make on a stranger, you analyze your words, movements, you reproach yourself for the tactlessness of some words, you imagine the impression that was made by you - and you are certainly mistaken: the impression made is certainly different; and all this is because you imagine people to be much larger than they are; people are incomparably smaller, simpler than you imagine them... I had to agree with him, gave my word to fulfill his desire, and we agreed that in a few days he would take me into the literary world... The reception given to me by Dostoevsky, and this evening, spent in a frank conversation with him, of course, contributed to our rapid rapprochement. I hurried to see him at every free minute, and if we didn’t see him for a week, then he blamed me. Out of habit, he worked at night, fell asleep at about seven in the morning and got up around two. I usually found him at this time in his small, gloomy and poor office. Before my eyes, in these last eight years, he changed several apartments, and they were all gloomier than the other, and he always had an uncomfortable room in which there was nowhere to turn. He sat in front of a small desk, having just washed and combed his hair, in an old coat, stuffing his thick cigarettes, smoking them one after another, sipping the strongest tea or even stronger coffee. I almost always found him at this time in his darkest mood. This was immediately visible: the eyebrows were knitted, the eyes were shining, the face was pale as wax, the lips were compressed. In this case, he usually began by silently and gloomily holding out his hand to me and immediately taking on the appearance of not even noticing my presence. But I knew him well and did not pay attention to this, but calmly sat down, lit a cigarette and picked up the first book I came across. The silence continued for quite a long time, and only from time to time, looking up from stuffing cigarettes or looking through a newspaper, he glanced sideways at me, flared his nostrils and quietly quacked. I loved him terribly at those moments, and often it was very difficult for me to refrain from smiling. He, of course, noticed that I was looking at him too. He waited, but my stubbornness often won out. Then he would put down the newspaper and turn his sweet face to me, trying with all his might to appear angry. - Is this what decent people do? - he said through gritted teeth, - he came, took the book, sits and is silent!.. - Is this how decent people receive their visitors? - I answered, sitting down next to him - I barely extended my hand, turned away and was silent! He also smiled and every time, as a sign of reconciliation, he handed me his terrible cigarettes, which I could never smoke. -Have you read this? - he continued, taking up the newspaper. And then he began to speak out about some issue of the day, about some news that struck him. Little by little he became animated. His lively, ardent thought was transferred from one object to another, illuminating everything with a peculiar bright light. He began to dream out loud, passionately, enthusiastically, about the future destinies of humanity, about the fate of Russia. These dreams were sometimes unrealistic, his conclusions seemed paradoxical. But he spoke with such ardent conviction, so inspired and at the same time in such a prophetic tone that very often I myself began to feel an enthusiastic thrill, eagerly followed his dreams and images and my own questions, adding heat to his imagination with insertions. After two hours of such a conversation, I often left him with shaken nerves and in a fever. It was the same as in those years when, not yet knowing him, I read his novels. It was some kind of painful, sweet intoxication, a kind of hashish ingestion. Coming to him in the evening, at about eight o'clock, I found him after he had just finished a late dinner, and there was no need to repeat the morning scene - silence and not noticing each other. Here he was usually much calmer and more cheerful. The same black coffee, the same black tea stood on the table, the same thick cigarettes were being smoked, lit against each other. The conversation was usually conducted on closer, more tangible topics. He could be extremely affectionate, and when he became affectionate, he attracted people irresistibly. In this mood, he often repeated the word “darling.” This is indeed a particularly affectionate word that many Russian people love, but until now I have not known anyone in whose mouth it would come out so sincere, so sweet. - Wait, my dear! - he often said, stopping in the middle of a conversation. He went to his small cabinet, opened it and took out various sweets: a tin of royal prunes, fresh marshmallows, raisins, grapes. He put all this on the table and strongly invited us to take a good look at these things. He was a great gourmand, I was not inferior to him in this. And during further conversation we did not forget the tin and baskets. Often, on Wednesdays, after sitting until ten o’clock, we went with him to the literary circle into which he introduced me. It was quite far, but whether we were walking or driving, he was almost always stubbornly silent on the way, and I even noticed that he really did not hear the questions addressed to him. He appeared in the owner’s office, where some of the more or less remarkable literary and public figures were usually present, he appeared somehow hunched over, looking gloomily, bowing dryly and greeting, as if all of these were his enemies or at least people very unpleasant to him . But a few minutes passed, and he perked up, began to talk, argue, and almost always found himself the center of the assembled society. He was the most sincere person, and therefore there were often great contradictions in his words, opinions and judgments; but whether he was right or wrong, no matter what he spoke about, he always spoke with the same fervor, with conviction, because he expressed only what he thought about and what he believed in at that moment. His editorial activity, on which he pinned such hopes on our first meeting, turned out to be not entirely successful, which, however, could have been immediately foreseen, knowing his character and circumstances 13 . The magazine's reputation was already established; almost all of the journalism of that time had already spoken out sharply and even indecently against it. Ridicule, stupid and vulgar, rained down on the new editor from all sides. The author of "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from the House of the Dead" was called a madman, a maniac 14, an apostate, a traitor; they even invited the public to go to an exhibition at the Academy of Arts and see a portrait of Dostoevsky, the work of Perov, as direct evidence that he was a crazy person, whose place is in a mental hospital. By nature, painful, irritable, nervous and extremely touchy, Dostoevsky could not help but pay attention to this outrageous barking. No matter how much they tried to persuade him, by the way, and I, simply not to read this indecent abuse, not to get dirty with it, he bought every issue of the newspaper that talked about him, read, re-read and worried. But, of course, he did not allow himself the slightest step, not a single word in order to improve his affairs in front of the divergent press. He was not capable of bargaining and giving in when it came to his convictions, even if erroneous, but always sincere: it was not in his honest nature. At first, he dreamed of making society listen to himself and his like-minded people through the magazine he edited; But I soon became convinced that this was extremely difficult, almost impossible. The magazine began too one-sidedly, and although several smart and talented people joined its editorial staff, there were very few of them, and, having other responsibilities, they could not devote all their strength to the magazine. Then, the magazine had too few financial resources, the random employees were so bad that there was almost nothing to choose from. Finally, Dostoevsky was not completely independent as an editor; but even if he had turned out to be an independent, full-fledged owner and owner of the magazine, it is still unlikely that this magazine would have been published. Dostoevsky was an artist-novelist, an ardent and sincere publicist-thinker, but he was always an impractical person, a bad administrator; he was not fit to be an editor. At the same time, we must take into account the fact that he was a man of impulse, passion... Once I caught him with some kind of book in his hand; he was in an excited state. -- What is this? what are you reading? -What am I reading?! - go now and buy this book - these are stories by Kokhanovskaya 15. “I know them... read... very nice stories; not particularly strong, but an original and likeable talent. - Be ashamed! - he shouted, - as you judge, do you know, do you understand, what kind of story this is? I would now give away my best things, I would give up “Crime and Punishment”, “Notes from the House of the Dead”, just to sign these stories... What a book this is! Yes, I don’t know where we have the best ones, do they exist?! Who writes like that!.. It was impossible to contradict him, to prove that he himself was fantasizing about the author’s theme and admiring the fruits of his imagination. And the very next day, exactly the next day, he said: “No, our women don’t know how to write at all; For example, Kokhanovskaya, she has talent, she has a feeling, even some thoughts, but the way she writes, the way she writes... is it really possible to write like that?! - For goodness sake, Fyodor Mikhailovich, weren’t you the one who passionately announced yesterday that you were ready to give up all your novels to sign her stories! - I involuntarily shouted. He stopped, looked at me angrily and said through his teeth: “I could never say anything like that... I don’t remember.” And I am convinced, because I knew him well, that he really did not remember what was said. He could have forgotten anything, but both the day before and now he was completely sincere. It was the impression of a minute. .. Yes, he forgot a lot; he was getting too carried away. But throughout his life he did not forget or change his cherished convictions, precisely everything that he was destined to say that was new, true and beautiful, for which he fought and which finally brought him glory. This is proven by all his literary activity, all his works, imbued with one spirit, one pure feeling and one lofty thought. He endured a year of his editorship and found himself extremely tired. It wasn't that there was a lot to do, but he worked very slowly, and the work was not for him. And most importantly, there was a conviction that the expected result could not come from the matter on which such great hopes were pinned. Finally, he could not work two jobs at once. He kept planning to write a new novel and did not find the time, but meanwhile enough material had accumulated, it was time to express himself in images, in a broad picture 16. At the beginning of 1874, he began to complain to me more and more often about his situation and finally announced that he would only last until the summer and in the summer he would be free. It was here, in the spring of 1874, that due to various circumstances I saw him less often. One day he stopped by to see me and, without finding me, left a note in which, among other things, he announced that in a few days he was to sit in the guardhouse as editor of the Citizen 17 . On the morning of March 22, Apollo Nikolaevich Maikov came to me. - Do you know where I’m coming to you from? - he said, - from the prisoner: our Fyodor Mikhailovich is sitting... go to him, he is waiting for you. -What mood is he in? - At the very best; definitely go. We talked for a few minutes, and I went to the famous corner of Sennaya Square. They let me through immediately. I found Fyodor Mikhailovich in a spacious and fairly clean room, where, besides him, in another corner there was a young man, poorly dressed and with the most colorless face. Fyodor Mikhailovich was sitting at a small simple table, drinking tea, smoking his cigarettes, and had a book in his hands. He was happy to see me, hugged and kissed me. “Well, it’s good that you came,” he said affectionately, “otherwise you’ve completely disappeared lately.” I was even going to write to you about something, because I’m starting to dislike you. Tell me why did you disappear? or are you angry with me?.. but I thought, I thought, you have nothing to be angry with me for. “Yes, I don’t even think about being angry, there’s really no reason for it; on the contrary, how many times have I been going to see you, but I just couldn’t get ready: I ​​don’t go anywhere; I sit at home all day. He thought about it. - Yes, that’s what I decided, that’s the way it is... that’s what we’ll talk about, my dear. I looked back at young man, who was in the room. Fyodor Mikhailovich began to tap his finger on the table, which at certain moments was one of his habits. “Don’t pay attention,” he whispered, “I’ve already tried him in every possible way; It’s some kind of tree, maybe I’ll figure out what it is, but there’s no need to be ashamed of it. And indeed, we immediately forgot about the presence of this witness. “You see what I wanted to tell you,” Dostoevsky began, “you can’t go on like this, do something to yourself... and don’t talk, and don’t tell... I know everything that you You want to tell me that I understand your condition perfectly, I experienced it myself. This is my same nervous illness, maybe in a slightly different form, but, in essence, the same thing. Darling, listen to me, do something with yourself, otherwise it might end badly... After all, I told you - fate helped me then, penal servitude saved me... I became a completely new person... And it was just decided that Now all my torment is over, even during the investigation. When I found myself in the fortress, I thought that this was the end for me, I thought that I couldn’t stand it for three days, and suddenly I completely calmed down. After all, what was I doing there?.. I was writing " Little hero"-read it, is it possible to see anger and torment in him? I dreamed of quiet, good, good dreams, and then the further it went, the better it was. ABOUT! This was great happiness for me: Siberia and hard labor! They say: horror, anger, they talk about the legitimacy of some kind of anger! most terrible nonsense! It was only there that I lived a healthy, happy life, I understood myself there, my dear... I understood Christ... I understood the Russian man and felt that I myself was Russian, that I was one of the Russian people. All my best thoughts came to my head then, now they are only returning, and even then not so clearly. Oh, if only you could go to hard labor! 18 This was said so passionately and seriously that I could not help but laugh and hug him. - Fyodor Mikhailovich, why am I going to hard labor?! or will you advise me that I should go and kill someone?! He smiled himself. - Yes, of course... well, think of something else. But you know, this would be the best thing for you. “And hard labor is not only in Siberia,” I said, “it can be found here too, but I still don’t wish it for myself, although what you call my nervous illness torments me very much and worries me about the future; I'm really starting to feel overwhelmed by unbearable apathy, and I would like a way out of it. - So think up... think up, decide on some sudden, desperate step that would turn your whole life upside down. Make sure that everything around you is different, everything is new, so that you have to work, struggle: then everything inside you will be new, then you will know the joy of life, you will live as you should. Oh! life a good thing ; oh, how good life can be sometimes! In every little thing, in every object, in every little thing, in every word, there is so much happiness!.. You know, I feel good today: this room, this consciousness that I am locked, that I am a prisoner, reminds me of so many things, so many good things, and I’m thinking: my God! how little I still valued my happiness; I then learned to enjoy everything; but if that time were back now, I would enjoy it twice as much... He talked for a long time on this topic, and then suddenly grabbed the book I found him reading and said: “This is what I’m reading now: this is a wonderful, great thing.” thing!.. read it by all means. The book was "Les Miserables" 19 by Victor Hugo. And the warm praise for this book, even the admiration for it, turned out to be not a whim, not a momentary impression. Dostoevsky, until his last days, admired this book. In vain I told him that although “Les Miserables” has great merits, there are also great shortcomings, that in places it is drawn out and extremely dry, that the author of “Crime and Punishment” has absolutely nothing to bow to “Les Miserables”; he continued to admire and always found in this book something that was not in it... Meanwhile, it was time for us to part. Yes, he himself hurried me to go to his wife, reassure her, tell her that he was completely healthy and generally felt great. “Only you, my dear, please, quietly, so that somehow the servants don’t hear; otherwise, as soon as they find out that I’m sitting, they’ll immediately think that I stole something... Dostoevsky fulfilled his desire - he freed himself from the editorship of “Grazhdanin” and lived the next winter in Staraya Russa, preparing a new novel for publication - - "Teenager". At the beginning of 1875, he came to St. Petersburg for a few days and visited me. I met him in a completely new environment, among new worries and activities, which shook off the apathy that bothered him so much. We had a lot to talk about, and I was extremely happy about his visit. But immediately, as soon as he entered, I saw from his face that he was extremely irritated and in the gloomiest mood. He immediately expressed the reason for this irritation. - Tell me, tell me straight - what do you think: do I envy Leo Tolstoy? 20 - he said, greeting me and looking intently into my eyes. I, of course, would be very surprised at such a strange question if I did not know it; but I have long been accustomed to the most unexpected “beginnings” of our meetings and conversations. “I don’t know if you envy him, but you shouldn’t envy him at all,” I answered. “You both have your own special roads on which you will not meet—neither you can take anything away from him, nor he can take anything away from you.” In my opinion, there can be no rivalry between you, and therefore, I don’t assume envy on your part... Just tell me what this question means, is anyone accusing you of envy? - Yes, exactly, they are accused of envy... And who? old friends who know me, about twenty years old... He called these old friends. - Well, they told you so directly? - Yes, almost directly... This thought is so ingrained in them that they cannot even hide it - they say it in every word. He paced around the room irritably. Then he suddenly stopped, took me by the hand and spoke quietly, almost whispering: “And you know, I really do envy, but not in the way, oh, not at all in the way they think!” I envy his circumstances, and right now... It’s hard for me to work the way I work, it’s hard to rush... Lord, and all my life!.. I recently read my “Idiot”, I completely forgot about it, I read like a stranger, like the first time... There are excellent chapters... good scenes... oh, what! Well... remember... Aglaya’s meeting with the prince, on the bench?.. But I still saw how much was unfinished, hurried... And it’s always like that -> and now: “Domestic Notes” are in a hurry , you have to keep up... if you take the lead, work it out, and then move forward again... and so it always is! I never talk about it, I won’t admit it; but this torments me very much. Well, he is wealthy, he has nothing to think about tomorrow, he can finish each of his things, and this is a big thing - when the thing sits ready and then you re-read it and correct it. So I envy... I envy, my dear!.. “Of course, it’s all so,” I said, “and it’s all very sad.” But usually, in response to such reasoning, they notice that the need to work is a great help for work, and that with security, laziness can easily appear. “And this happens, of course, but if someone gets lazy and doesn’t say anything, that means he has nothing to say!” He suddenly calmed down and became meek and affectionate. Such sudden transitions happened to him often. This meeting is especially memorable to me because our further conversation convinced me more than ever of his sincere participation in me. The advice that I received from him that day brought me a lot of benefit and served as great moral support for a long time. But all this is my own business and I limit myself only to the above conversation about “envy”. I considered myself entitled to pass it on because it points to the sad side of the activities of many of our writers, and especially the activities of Dostoevsky. I know what melancholy, what almost despair the lack of money, concern for the future, and the needs of his family sometimes brought him into. He spent almost his entire life in financial difficulties; he could never rest or calm down. All this weighed heavily on his works and he was not satisfied with almost any of them. He always worked in a hurry, often without even having time to read what he had written. And yet he did not write easy stories. Sometimes, in hot, inspired moments, he would pour out deeply poetic scenes, pages of extraordinary beauty, of which there are many in each of his novels. But this was not enough: he had deep psychological problems, original and wonderful solutions to serious moral issues flashed in his head. Here, minutes of ardent inspiration were not enough; calm work of thought was required, and circumstances did not allow his thoughts to work calmly. That’s why there is so much that is unclear and confusing in his novels, that’s why his novels, and especially the last ones, which are broadly conceived, generally give the impression of only the richest material for real novels... Sick, exhausted, he got more and more tired; but I was tired not in thought, not in feeling, but simply physically tired. It became difficult for him to work and he worked slowly. He sold his novel in advance, which was eagerly awaited. The editors kept pressing him to send the manuscript as quickly as possible. These compulsions irritated him, he was worried, he was in a hurry, he sent the beginning and then, rushing to continue, he almost forgot this beginning. As the novel developed, the need arose to change this or that, but it was no longer possible to do this - what needed to be changed and reworked turned out to be already printed. Thus, there were magnificent episodes, but in general the novel was a rather formless and, in any case, uncontained work. He himself was well aware of this, and such consciousness for the artist was bitter torment. He was aware, and at the same time he painfully wanted others not to notice what he himself saw. Therefore, any praise gave him great pleasure: it deceived him. Therefore, the understanding of his mistakes that he noticed in anyone irritated him, insulted him, tormented him... But I testify that he himself, in other frank, warm moments, admitted his mistakes, and grieved that fate placed him in the impossible during fix them. It was a grief that could not be more bitter for a creative artist! And his pale, exhausted face stands before me at the moments of these painful confessions. I remember one incident. Speaking in one of the newspapers about "The Teenager", pointing out the wonderful episodes and many advantages of this novel, I still had to talk about its shortcomings 22. A few days later I came to Dostoevsky. He met me as a person who had deeply offended him, and such a large conversation took place between us that I took my hat and wanted to leave. But he held me back, locked the doors of his work room and began to make excuses, to prove to me that I was wrong in my article. It was about the old man Makar Ivanovich, one of his most beloved characters in “The Teenager.” He began to explain Makar Ivanovich to me. And of course, now I can no longer take upon myself an impartial judgment about “The Teenager”: I know this novel not as it is in print, but as it was in the author’s intention. Dostoevsky spoke for two hours, perhaps even more, and I could only regret that there was no stenographer who would record his words exactly. If what he told me then appeared before the court of readers, they would see one of the highest and most poetic images ever created by an artist. - So that’s what Makar is! - said Dostoevsky, finishing his heated speech and instantly weakening, - and now won’t you agree that what you wrote was not at all what you offended me and I had every right to be angry with you?! It was hard for me to tell him that today’s Makar was not the one I was talking about, judging by the printed text... I was afraid of the impression my words made on him: he suddenly became so suffering, so pitiful. He sat motionless for several moments, his head bowed, his eyebrows compressed - and suddenly he raised his eyes to me, in which there was not a shadow of either recent irritation or recent delight. These eyes were gentle and very sad. - Darling! - he said, pronouncing his favorite affectionate word especially sincerely, - I know that you are right, and you know that I love what you write, because you always write sincerely; but it was so hard for me that it was you who touched the most painful place!.. Now forget what I said, and I will also forget... Enough... enough!.. He invited me to walk together; but on the street he was so gloomy, silent and irritable that it became difficult for me, and I said goodbye to him. Having finished "The Teenager", that is, having expressed his favorite thoughts, embodying images that had long flashed in his imagination, Dostoevsky could not immediately begin similar work - a new novel. Meanwhile, it was necessary to work for two reasons: firstly, every day exposed new phenomena of social life that vividly affected the thinker-psychologist, about which he wanted to have his say; secondly, work was required for life, for supporting the family, for the final arrangement of complicated affairs, which finally, little by little, began to unravel. It was necessary to decide on some work. There was nothing to even think about the new editorship - I was tired of it and I no longer believed in its success, in its benefit. An idea began to come again, which had begun to be realized in “The Citizen”, but was then forgotten.” Dostoevsky was thinking about publishing his “Diary of a Writer” monthly. In the fall of 1875, having again moved to St. Petersburg from Staraya Russa, he told me about this, but only more as an assumption. He did not dare, he was afraid of failure. "Teenager" didn't make much of an impression. Will there be enough subscribers for the “Diary of a Writer”, will he have to endure a new failure, a new offensive disappointment - there have already been quite a few of them!.. In December, his children fell ill with scarlet fever, and during the entire six-week quarantine I could not be with him see each other out of fear for your child. But we corresponded at this time. At the end of December, he announced in the newspapers a subscription to the Writer's Diary. He made up his mind, but his fears still did not leave him. “I don’t know what will happen,” he wrote to me, “everything will depend on the 1st No., which I will issue at the end of January” 23. I predicted success for him, hoping that the unusual, original form of publication would initially interest the public, and then the author himself would be interested. But this was not the opinion of literary and magazine circles. At an evening with Yakov Petrovich Polonsky, where one could usually meet representatives of all kinds of editorial offices, people of the most diverse views, I listened with different sides a pre-signed verdict on "A Writer's Diary". They decided that the publication would certainly collapse, that no one would be interested in it. They said: “He’ll probably start again about Belinsky, about his memories.” Who needs this now, who is interested?! 24 - Well, what if he starts talking about yesterday and today? - I asked. “In that case, it’s even worse... what can he say?!” he will be delirious!.. But even after this general verdict, I did not cease to count on success. With his ardor, with his sincerity, addressing directly to society, in the form of a simple conversation - how could he not interest? After all, he himself is the most interesting person among the most interesting persons his best novels- and, of course, he will be all, entirely in this “Diary of a Writer”! It’s just curious where he’ll start... January 1876 had already arrived, and the quarantine in his house was still going on; I couldn't see him 25; but he himself brought me out of obscurity: on January 11, by the way, he wrote to me: “In the 1st No there will be, first of all, the smallest preface, then something about children- about children in general, about children with fathers, about children without fathers in particular, about children at Christmas trees, without Christmas trees, about children-criminals... Of course, these are not some strict studies or reports, but just a few hot words and instructions... "Then about heard And read, - everything or something that struck me personally during the month. Without a doubt, the “Diary of a Writer” will be similar to a feuilleton, but with the difference that a feuilleton for a month naturally cannot be similar to a feuilleton for a week... Here the report on an event is not so much about news, but about what is from it (from the event) will remain for us more permanent, more connected with the general, with an integral idea. “Finally, I do not at all want to bind myself to giving an account... I am not a chronicler: this, on the contrary, is a perfect diary in the full sense of the word, that is, a report on what interested me most personally - there’s even a whim here... “I don’t know myself... whether anything good will come of it, sometimes it seems that I undertook it in vain; , that God will send, only (between us) almost not a single line has been written yet. The materials (on the 1st No.) have been collected and recorded more than 4 printed pages..." On the appointed day, the first issue came out and immediately made a strong impression, it was sold out like hot cakes. Even the newspapers forgot about the "madman", "maniac", "traitor" and started talking in a favorable tone - nothing else for them there was nothing left 26. The subscription exceeded all expectations. Success finally began to smile on the exhausted worker. I will not dwell on the gradual increase in the influence that Dostoevsky’s passionate, sincere speech received over the minds of his readers and especially over the minds of the younger generation. difficult moments. His opponents tried to ridicule Dostoevsky’s bold, inspired thoughts. The time was hot, alarming; the “Eastern question” was again on the agenda, the Serbian war, Chernyaev, the volunteers... there was a feeling of inevitability, the need for a great struggle... Dostoevsky spoke boldly, originally, in his own way; he raised unexpected questions and illuminated them unexpectedly, and prophesied with inspiration 27. Many did not like the cherished thoughts and feelings of a truly Russian and sincere person, and this man, in addition, already had great influence - and again. ridicule arose. "Paradoxes!" - the newspapers shouted - and again these shouts had an irritating effect on Dostoevsky 28. In July 1876, he wrote to me from Ems, where he usually went for treatment: “...I left without deciding with some of my own, the most necessary things. But now, here, in boredom, on the waters, your letter decisively revived me and went straight to my heart, otherwise I began to feel very sad, because, I don’t know why, how I get to Ems, now I begin to feel painfully sad, with hypochondria, sometimes almost pointlessly. Whether this is due to the solitude among the crowd of eight thousand, or the climate here, I don’t know, but I feel sad here like no one else. You write that you need to see me; but I kind of wanted to see you now. “And so you liked the June notebook of the Diary. I am very glad about that and have a great reason for that. I have never before allowed myself, in my writings, to bring NotTootorse my convictions to the end, to say most recent word. One smart correspondent from the provinces even reproached me for talking about a lot in the Diary, touching on a lot, but not bringing anything to the end and encouraging me not to be timid. And so I took and expressed the last word of my convictions - dreams about the role and purpose of Russia among humanity and expressed the idea that this will not only happen in the near future, but is already beginning to come true. “And well, just what I predicted happened: even newspapers and publications friendly to me immediately shouted that I had a paradox upon a paradox, and other magazines didn’t even pay attention, while it seems to me that I touched upon the most important question. This is what it means to bring a thought to the end! Set up any paradox you like, but don’t carry it through to the end, and you’ll come out with something witty, subtle, and comme il faut; bring another word to the end, say, for example, suddenly: “this is the Messiah” - directly and not by hint, and no one will believe you precisely because of your naivety, precisely because you brought it to the end, said your very last word. But, on the other hand, if many of the most famous wits, Voltaire, for example, instead of ridicule, hints, half-words and omissions, suddenly decided to express everything they believe, showed all their lining at once, their essence, then Believe me, you wouldn’t get even a tenth of the previous effect. Moreover, they would just laugh at them. Yes, a person in general somehow does not like the last word, the “expressed” thought in anything, he says that:

"A spoken thought is a lie."

“And so, judge for yourself whether it’s dear to me or not, after all this, your friendly word for June No. It means that you understood my word and you accepted it exactly as I dreamed when I wrote my article. Thank you for that , otherwise I was already a little disappointed and reproached myself for hurry up. And if there are such understanders if there is a little more in the public, then my goal has been achieved and I am satisfied: it means that the spoken word has not been lost... And then they were just happy: “paradoxes! paradoxes!..” and this is said precisely by those who have never had a single thought of their own never happened in my head... “I will stay here until August 7th (our style). I drink water here, but I would never have decided to endure the torment of living here if these waters had not really helped me. There is nothing to describe Ems, nothing! I promised the August “Diary” in double the number of pages, and yet I haven’t started yet, and I’m so bored and apathetic that I look at the upcoming writing with disgust, as if it were an impending misfortune. I have a presentiment that the worst No. will come out. me here, my dear..." In the winters of 1876-1877 and 1877-1878 we continued to see each other quite often. And although we lived on two opposite ends of the city, Dostoevsky sometimes spent evenings with me. I will note here one circumstance, of course, accidental, in which there is nothing funny, but which meanwhile gave rise to rather comical scenes. He almost always came to me after his painful attacks of epilepsy, so that some of our mutual acquaintances, when they learned that he had a seizure, said that they should look for him with me. Poor Fyodor Mikhailovich had enough time to get used to his seizures; his old acquaintances also got used to them and their consequences, to whom all this no longer seemed scary and was considered an ordinary occurrence. But it was sometimes completely impossible after a seizure; his nerves were so shaken that he became completely insane in his irritability and oddities. He used to come to me, enter like a black cloud, sometimes even forget to say hello and look for all sorts of excuses to scold, to offend; and in everything he sees an insult to himself, a desire to tease and irritate him... Everything seems out of place for him and not at all as it should be - sometimes it’s too light in the room, sometimes it’s so dark that it’s impossible to see anyone ... They will serve him strong tea, the kind he always loved - they serve him beer instead of tea! they pour weak water - it's hot water!.. We try to joke, make him laugh - even worse; it seems to him that they are laughing at him... However, I almost always managed to calm him down quickly. It was necessary to gradually lead him to one of his favorite topics. Little by little he began to speak, became animated, and all that was left was not to contradict him. An hour later he was already in the sweetest mood. Only his terribly pale face, sparkling eyes and heavy breathing indicated his painful condition. But if by chance on such a day he met strangers, strangers , then things got more complicated. Once, during one of his evening visits, two ladies came to see my wife, who, of course, had read Dostoevsky, but had no idea about him as a person, who did not know that it was impossible to pay attention to his oddities. When their call rang, he was just looking around and was terrible; the appearance of unfamiliar faces irritated him even more. However, I somehow managed to take him to my office and calm him down there. The matter apparently turned out well; we talked peacefully. He was already smiling and did not find that everything was out of place. But then it was time for evening tea, and my wife, instead of sending it directly to our office, came in herself and asked: where do we want to drink tea - in the office or in the dining room? - Why here? - Dostoevsky turned to her irritably, - why are you hiding me? no, I'll go there, to you. The matter was completely ruined. And laughter and grief!.. It was necessary to see how he entered the dining room as a personification of darkness, how fearfully he looked at the innocent ladies who continued their cheerful conversation, not at all caring about what they could say in front of him and what it is forbidden. He sat, looked, was silent, and only in his every gesture, in every new clanking of his spoon on the glass, I saw undoubted signs of a thunderstorm that was about to break out. I don’t remember why one of the ladies who arrived asked where Gutuevsky Island was? — How long have you lived in St. Petersburg? - Dostoevsky suddenly said gloomily, turning to her. - I live here permanently, I am a native here. - And you don’t know where Gutuevsky Island is!.. Wonderful! It’s just us and it’s possible to have a similar attitude towards the environment... how can a person live his whole life and not know the place where he lives?! He became more and more irritated and ended up with a whole indictment, which made the most difficult impression on the criminal and the listeners. We, the owners, did not know what to do. Fortunately, our guest, at first very puzzled due to the unexpectedness, soon realized that it was impossible for her to be offended, and managed, while continuing to remain cheerful, to calm him down little by little... I told this little incident because it’s impossible to talk about Dostoevsky about his oddities would mean under-drawing his image. Many stories are told about his oddities, and there are people who blame him greatly for these oddities. One hears such accusations even now, after his death... Of course, he was not created for society, for the living room. From a man who almost always lived in solitude, who spent four years in hard labor, who worked for decades and struggled with poverty, from a man whose nervous system was completely shaken by a terrible, incurable disease, it was impossible to demand the ability to control oneself. For such a person - and not at all due to the fact that he was a wonderful writer, one of the famous Russian people, but simply due to all the circumstances of his life, due to the exceptional, painful state of his body - special standards were needed. His oddities could outrage people who did not know him, who had nothing to do with him, but everyone who knew him closely was not and could not be embarrassed at all by these oddities. We knew his mind, his wonderful talent, his kindness and nobility, the most diverse properties of his bright, richly gifted nature. Morbid oddities provided food only for good-natured, cheerful stories about those improvised vaudeville scenes in which he played a sad-comic role. And now that he is gone, these poor oddities are remembered as something dear and sweet, with a sad smile - and it hurts that all this has passed. Along with these oddities, the unexpected grave took away so much warmth, so much light... Now I will tell you about one circumstance that made a strong impression on Dostoevsky, which I witnessed, and which very few people know about yet. At the end of 1877, in November, I called on him, as usual, at about two o’clock and found him, which did not happen often at these hours, in a good, even cheerful, mood. Nothing irritated him, he loved everyone and everything, preached leniency... Having sat there until four o'clock, I was about to leave, when suddenly he stopped me and asked: - Yes, I almost forgot - you know the fortune teller - Frenchwoman Field? - I know, but what? “Your brother told me about her; told a lot of interesting things. How do you know her? “Several years ago,” I answered, an old lady I knew, who then lived in Moscow, begged me to visit this Field, show her her photographic portrait, listen to what she had to say and then tell her. The old woman assured me that this Field could not be called an ordinary fortune teller, that she was a wonderful fortune teller; at the same time, she conveyed to me many interesting cases of her prophecies coming true. I was little interested in these stories, but wanting to fulfill the promise I made to the venerable old lady, having arrived in St. Petersburg, I immediately went with her portrait to this French woman. -- So what? What impression did she make on you? Dostoevsky asked lively and with visible interest. “It’s strange,” she’s a small, lively old woman with some special, black eyes and an extraordinary gift of speech. She completely started talking to me and interested me, because she very correctly and definitely described the character of my friend, whose portrait I came with... - Didn’t you ask her anything about yourself? - I asked. She predicted for me for more than an hour, talked a lot of nonsense, but among this nonsense she also said things that, as it seemed to me then, could not happen in any way and which, nevertheless, happened to me in all the smallest details that she predicted. I visited her again and she again told me a lot of nonsense and a lot of truth. Anyway this is interesting woman and it seems to me that she has moments of inspiration. - Well, yes, all this is exactly what I have heard about her more than once. You see, it is impossible not to believe in the possibility of predictions, absolutely impossible... this is nonsense! not to mention that much of this kind has been preserved in history, but almost every person knows it himself. Everyone believes, and if they don’t admit it, it’s only out of cowardice, of which there is so much in us. He himself believes, believes, maybe even more than he should - and at the same time laughs, mocks a sincere person who will say so directly that he believes... Do you know her address? let's go now, I want to know what she will tell me!.. - Let's go, if she only lives in the same place where I was with her last time; it's not far - in Baskov Lane. We went. Field lived in the same house and took us in. Fyodor Mikhailovich was very serious. He asked her to predict for him in my presence. But the Frenchwoman resolutely refused - this was not in her rules. “In that case, there’s nothing to do,” he whispered to me, “but I give you my word, without holding back, to tell you everything she tells me.” I was left waiting in the tiny living room and was bored for more than an hour. Finally Dostoevsky came out. He was excited, his eyes sparkled. - Let's go, let's go! he whispered mysteriously to me. We got out and set off on foot. He walked in silence for several minutes, head down. Then he suddenly stopped, grabbed my hand, and said: “Yes, she is an interesting woman and I’m glad we went to see her.” She may have lied, but I haven’t felt such a strong impression in a long time. Oh, how she knows how to draw people! If only you knew how she told me my situation! -What did she tell you? After all, you gave me your word to tell everything without hiding! “And I’ll tell you, just don’t spread it among strangers too soon, maybe she lied and it will turn out stupid... He told me everything that she told him about his various family circumstances.” Then it turned out that more than half did not come true, but some did come true. She told him, among other things, that in the spring he would have death in the house. And although there was a lot of nonsense in the details of this prediction, death actually happened that same spring: he died little son, whose sudden death greatly shocked him. But the point is not this, but other predictions. Not knowing who he was and not being able to determine his activities, Field predicted great fame for him, which would begin soon. “She said,” he said, that such fame and honor awaited me that I could never even dream of. Believe her, they will carry me in their arms, shower me with flowers - and all this will increase every year, and I will die at the height of this glory... Well, my dear, maybe she is a liar, only interesting... interesting liar! But now I’ll still be waiting for this glory, and that’s comforting! “It’s good that she predicted your glory,” I noted; but she also predicted family grief... “Yes, and now I think that it will probably happen.” I'm telling you: she made a very strong impression on me. After all, others speak in generalities, more or less cleverly; but now you notice the quackery, every prediction can be turned one way or another - well, but with her everything is clear, definitely. Interesting woman!.. We began to recall historical facts of predictions that came true; but he kept returning to Field’s words, repeating her every phrase. I left him in a very excited state. Returning home, I found my brother at my place, that same evening Apollo Nikolaevich Maikov was with me, and since they were both close to Fyodor Mikhailovich and I knew that what he reported would not be spread, I decided to tell them the details of the prediction made French. Then Fyodor Mikhailovich himself told someone about this prediction. He did not have to wait long for its fulfillment - all the general sympathy and ardent worship of the youth came suddenly, intensifying every day, expressed by noisy applause, offering wreaths and flowers. Dostoevsky achieved such popularity as had never before befallen a Russian writer... And he died at the height of this fame, which was sufficiently proven by his significant funeral. IN last days In the life of this eternal worker, poorly appreciated for so long, happiness smiled... glory smiled. He managed to look at this smile, which not many even the most famous figures manage to do. And it’s good that the “interesting” Frenchwoman could not predict that he had so little time left to live, it’s good that death came suddenly and found him among plans, hopes, among thoughts about life... A sad consolation - but still he died good death for him. I remember another one of our dates. I needed biographical information about Fyodor Mikhailovich for article 29, and I turned to him for it. He willingly volunteered to tell me everything he remembered about himself. He began by limiting himself to a list of numbers and facts, but soon, as usual, he got carried away and began to tell: “Eh, it’s a pity that you can’t put a lot of interesting things from my life in your article, but still remember, maybe later.” tell someone. Do you think I have friends? Ever been? Yes, in my youth, before Siberia, I probably had real friends, but then, except for a very small number of people, who, perhaps, were somewhat friendly towards me, I never had any friends. This has been proven to me, too proven! Listen, when I returned to St. Petersburg, after so many years, many of my former friends did not even want to recognize me, and then always, all my life, friends appeared to me along with success. Success went away - and immediately friends left. It’s funny, of course, it’s old, it’s known to everyone, but meanwhile it’s painful, painful every time... I learned about the degree of success of my new work by the number of friends who visited me, by the degree of their attention, by the number of their visits. The calculations never failed. Oh, people have a sense, a subtle sense! I remember how everyone rushed to me after the success of Crime and Punishment! Those who had not been there for years suddenly appeared, so affectionate... and then they all subsided again, two or three people remained. Yes, two or three people!.. “And I needed friends so much, life was hard, creditors grabbed me by the throat, threatened me with prison. And this was in the early stages of my new family life!.. I spent four years pining abroad, but was afraid to return - again the same thing, again creditors and imprisonment for debts... I had to live in poverty more than once abroad - if it weren’t for Katkov, who always helped out, I would have simply disappeared!.. Well, now it’s worth getting great success, great popularity - so much friends will appear, and there will be sincere ones - oh, of course, but how can you recognize them?! Success is, you know, the greatest temptation, here all sense of proportion is lost, a person suddenly goes blind! becomes weak, whoever wants to trick him, trick him in the most rude manner - he will believe everything, take everything at face value. .. - Success, he continued, becoming more and more animated, the success of one is the success of many. On the success of others, many build their plans and achieve something: and they get a piece... Once a person gets great, decisive success, real popularity, which you can’t argue with, which you can’t destroy or reduce with any tricks, - and look : This man definitely has tails... tails! “Near a prominent person, they say, they will notice me.” Oh, how many interesting observations can be made in such cases! only the one behind whom these “tails” will not make such observations, because he suddenly loses his sense of proportion... Yes, just what about this - as long as you live, you will see a lot of this!.. He fell silent and began to tap his finger on the table, frowning his eyebrows . In the last two years of Dostoevsky’s life, I hardly saw him. I spent these two years in Tsarskoe Selo, coming to St. Petersburg only on business, after finishing which I always hurried back home. Business, work, family grief, the inconvenience of communication - everything alienated me at this time from old acquaintances. I was not able to see him in the very last months of Fyodor Mikhailovich’s life, although I moved to St. Petersburg again: the long quarantine that began in my house was the reason for this. During all this recent time, during these short years of Dostoevsky’s dying successes and his fame, many, of course, can report interesting information about him. He no longer led his former solitary life; he was surrounded by connoisseurs who arrived every day. They say that he received many letters from people completely unknown to him from various places in Russia and answered these letters. All this is certainly interesting. During this time, both his old friends and acquaintances, who continued to see him, and his new connoisseurs, who managed to get to know him, get close to him in his dying years, and maybe sincerely love him, can talk about him. Finally, those whom he called “tails” can also talk about him during this time. For now I must limit myself to these fragments of my memories. I just wanted to remember, to use his own expression, a “great” man for me, who brought me a lot of moral benefit... He died mourned in a way that almost no public figure has ever been mourned in our country. He was declared a teacher of the Russian younger generation, representatives of which in great numbers followed his coffin with an expression of the most sincere sadness. One can only wish that the moral image of the teacher and his inspired word are not forgotten and penetrate the lives of those who called him teacher. It remains to grieve that this teacher left us so early, in the dark, ugly days that we are experiencing. It is now, in these dark days, that he would be so needed. He could not, of course, by his own power alone dispel the darkness that envelops us and show us the straight path. For such a feat, the strength of one person is not enough. But we can safely say that Dostoevsky, by the nature of his talent, with the strength of his honest thought, who was always direct, and sincerely, passionately loved Russia, who only thought about its great future, would have been able to raise the most urgent, most significant questions. And this alone would now be no small merit.

NOTES

Published with abbreviations from the journal "Historical Bulletin", 1881, No. 3, pp. 602-616, No. 4, pp. 839-853. 1 Letter Sun. Solovyov published in the comments to volume III Letters(pp. 298-300). It talks about the disputes of student youth, who were then carried away by positivism. Sun. From the very beginning, Soloviev was sharply hostile to this philosophy. He saw confirmation of his thoughts in Dostoevsky’s novels. In the same letter, Solovyov called Dostoevsky a “brilliant teacher” and wrote that Russian society “has not yet matured” to understanding and appreciating his talent. 2 In his letter to Sun. Soloviev did not report his years, but the fact that “it’s not yet three years since I graduated from the course.” Sun. Solovyov was about twenty-three years old at this time. 3 It is impossible to establish what plot we are talking about here based on the data at our disposal. This was, in all likelihood, one of those numerous plots that constantly wandered in Dostoevsky’s head and sometimes remained in his drafts in only two or three phrases (see about this Letters, III, 19; IV, 298-299). 4 In book. V. Meshchersky's "My Memories" (St. Petersburg, 1898) does not mention this fact. 5 Already in the process of printing in the “Historical Bulletin” from the text of the memoirs of Vs. Solovyov's presentation of this conversation concerning the problems of "rehabilitation of the flesh" was excluded (see also: "Questions of Literature", 1964, No. 4, pp. 202-203). On Dostoevsky’s attitude towards Belinsky, see vol. 1 present, ed., pp. 146-147. 6 Dostoevsky met Ivan Nikolaevich Shidlovsky in the spring of 1837 at the hotel where he stayed on his first visit with his brother, M. M. Dostoevsky, to St. Petersburg. In the first years of his stay at the Engineering School (1838-1840), Dostoevsky was very strongly influenced by Shidlovsky, who was six years older, was then keen on all the latest literary trends and himself wrote poems of romantic content. Having served briefly as an official (after graduating from university), Shidlovsky soon left for his homeland, the Kharkov province, and there he prepared a large work on the history of the church. It is curious that the hero of “The Mistress,” perhaps a psychological portrait of Shidlovsky, also studied the history of the church. In the 50s, Shidlovsky was briefly a novice in the monastery. As a dual nature, sincere faith and religiosity were often replaced by skepticism and denial. In moments of mental anxiety, he indulged in drunkenness, left home and wandered along the roads, gathering people near taverns and preaching “the word of God” (about Shidlovsky, see: M. P. Alekseev, Dostoevsky’s Early Friend, Odessa, 1921). 7 Article Sun. Solovyov's "F. M. Dostoevsky", in which he wrote about Shidlovsky's influence on the young Dostoevsky, was published in the magazine "Niva", 1878, No. 1. 8 See about this in Dostoevsky's letter to his brother, M. M. Dostoevsky, dated April 26, 1846, where he writes that “he was ill, near death” “from the irritation of all nervous system"See also the following letters to my brother (Letters, 1, 90, 92, 95, 96). 9 About the fact that Dostoevsky did not remember the plots and characters of his novels, see Letters, II, 47, 60. 10 Second wife, A. G. Dostoevskaya; daughter Lyubov and son Fedor. 11 “A well-known man”, “who turned into a European” and “hated Russia” - undoubtedly, I. S. Turgenev, with whom Dostoevsky had a quarrel in Baden. See this in detail in the letter to A.N. Maikov dated August 28, 1867 (Letters, II, 30-32). See also pp. 20, 110-111 present. volumes, as well as approx. to these pages. 12 This refers to the circle of the book. Meshchersky, which included Ap. Maikov, N. N. Strakhov, T. I. Filippov, Vs. Krestovsky, N. S. Leskov, there were M. N. Katkov, N. Ya. Danilevsky, K. P. Pobedonostsev and others. Vs. Soloviev began to attend literary circles in the prince’s house. Meshchersky. 13 About Dostoevsky, the editor of Grazhdanin, see the memoirs of V.V. Timofeeva and M.A. Aleksandrov. 14 Obviously, this refers to an extremely harsh article by P. N. Tkachev in the magazine “Delo”, 1873, No. 3 and 4. Assessing the feuilletons “Citizen” and the novel “Demons”, Tkachev several times speaks of the “mental anomaly” of the author himself, about "not quite normal fantasy of Mr. Dostoevsky." 15 Stories in 2 parts, M. 1863, short included: “After dinner at a party”, “From the provincial gallery of portraits”, “Old time”, “Nut”, “Kirilla Petrov and Nastasya Dmitrova”, “An old meeting”. 16 See memoirs of V.V. Timofeeva, page 176. 17 The note has not survived. On the arrest of Dostoevsky, see pp. 92 and 178, as well as approx. 39 to page 178. 18 This recollection of Dostoevsky about hard labor twenty years later does not coincide with the immediate impression of the Omsk prison, preserved in a letter to his brother, M. M. Dostoevsky, dated February 22, 1854 (see. Letters, I, 136-139). 19 See note. 38 to p. 178. 20 On Dostoevsky’s attitude towards L. Tolstoy, see p. 252. 21 Sun. Soloviev, obviously, during this period was already working on his first historical story, “Princess Ostrozhskaya,” published in the magazine “Niva”, 1876, No. 38-51. 22 Article Sun. Solovyov about “The Teenager” (“Our Magazines”) was published in “St. Petersburg Gazette”, 1875, No. 32 and 52, signed “Sine Irae”. In addition, about the end of the novel Vs. Solovyov speaks in the article “Russian Journals”, published in No. 237 of the Russian World. 23 Letter dated December 28, 1875 (Letters, III, 199-200). 24 This refers to Dostoevsky’s article “Old People” - about Belinsky and Herzen, which opened the “Diary of a Writer” in “Citizen” in 1873. 25 Next Sun. Soloviev cites an excerpt from Dostoevsky’s letter to him dated January 11, 1876, which we omit. (Letters, III, 201-202). 26 “In a favorable tone,” an article by A. Skabichevsky was written in “Birzhevye Vedomosti”, 1876, No. 36; article by P. Boborykin in the St. Petersburg Gazette, 1876, No. 4; article in "Molva", 1876, No. 16. In general, newspaper reviews of the "Diary of a Writer" for 1876 were very different: from characterizing this publication as a useless "confusion" (NV, No. 37) to the point of serious sympathy. "We<...>we agree on things that should be dearer to us than life itself, if only we have<...>some honest and deeply rooted convictions,” - for example, Skabichevsky wrote about the first issues of the “Diary” (“Birzhevye Vedomosti”, 1876, No. 36, signed “Ordinary Reader”). However, Skabichevsky’s opinion changed depending on the content "Diary" (cf. "Birzhevye Vedomosti", No. 70, 159, 187, 306). 27 Dostoevsky wrote about the "Eastern Question" in the "Diary of a Writer" for 1876, June, Chapter II, and October, Chapter II. (Dostoevsky, 1926-1930, XI, 316-330, 427-443). See note 11 to page 388. 28 The following are excerpts from Dostoevsky’s letter to Vs. Solovyov dated July 16, 1876 (Letters, III, 226-228). 2 9 See note. 7 to page 191.