Dunaev Mikhail Mikhailovich (August 22, 1945, Moscow - September 4, 2008) - Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, Doctor of Theology, Doctor of Philology.
In 1963 he graduated from high school, and in 1970 - the philological faculty of Moscow State University. He entered the postgraduate department of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Also at this time he worked as a personal secretary of the famous writer I.S. Sokolov-Mikitov.
From 1976 to 1979 he lectured on the history of Russian literature at the preparatory courses of the Moscow Power Engineering Institute.
In 1979, after defending his Ph.D. thesis, he was awarded the degree of candidate of philological sciences. The research topic was the work of the Russian writer Ivan Shmelev, which was very unconventional for the Soviet era. Dunaev was one of the first philologists in the USSR who dared to write about a Christian émigré writer.
In 1980-1981 he taught at Moscow State University. On September 1, 1990, he became a teacher at the Moscow Theological Academy.
In 1997 he graduated from the academy as an external student and defended his PhD thesis. In November 1998 he defended his master's thesis, and in December he was awarded the title of associate professor.
On September 17, 1999, by the decision of the State Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation, M. M. Dunaev was awarded the degree of Doctor of Philology.
On March 20, 2001, he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology, and on April 6, the title of Professor of the MDA.
On October 14, 2000, he was awarded the medal of St. Sergius of Radonezh, I degree, for hard work and in connection with his 55th birthday.
In 2003 he was awarded the 1st All-Russian Prize "Orthodox Book of Russia" in the nomination "Author of the Year".
On October 14, 2005, he was awarded the Order of St. Sergius of Radonezh, III degree, for diligent teaching work and in connection with his 60th birthday.
Books (4)
Faith in the crucible of doubt
The book is based on a course of lectures given by the author at the Moscow Theological Academy and approved by its Academic Council. Here, for the first time, a systematic presentation of the history of Russian literature of the 17th-20th centuries is given in the Orthodox interpretation.
The author consistently traces the path of religious searches of the largest and little-known writers. On the example of the main characters of the best works of Russian classics, the formation of their Orthodox worldview and their path to Christ through the crucible of doubt is shown.
South of Moscow
We all love to travel, but sometimes we get tired of the monotony of all kinds of popular tours and last-minute trips. Sometimes you want something special, maybe even exclusive.
The book is dedicated to the sights of the Moscow region, located south of Moscow, in the direction of Serpukhov.
A brief historical overview, a large number of photographs.
Orthodoxy and Russian literature
For the first time in literary criticism, a systematized religious understanding of the features of the development of Russian literature is proposed, starting from the 17th century. and ending with the second half of the 20th century. The publication is published in 6 parts.
Part I is devoted to a brief review of Russian literature of the 17th-18th centuries, the work of writers of the early 19th century, the work of A.S. Pushkin.
Part II contains an understanding of the work of M.Yu. Lermontov, N.V. Gogol, as well as an overview of the literary process of the middle of the 19th century.
Part III is devoted to the work of I.S. Turgenev, N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Nekrasova, N.G. Pomyalovsky, I.A. Goncharova, A.N. Ostrovsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, P.I. Melnikov-Pechersky, A.F. Pisemsky, A.N. Muravyova, F.M. Dostoevsky.
Part IV is devoted to the work of L.N. Tolstoy, N.S. Leskova, A.P. Chekhov.
Part VI(1) is devoted to the literary process in Russia during the Soviet period, the work of V.V. Mayakovsky, S.A. Yesenina, N.A. Klyueva, M.A. Bulgakov, B.L. Pasternak, A.A. Akhmatova, O.E. Mandelstam, M.A. Sholokhov, A.P. Platonova, M.M. Prishvina, I.S. Sokolova-Mikitova, K.G. Paustovsky, V.S. Grossman, A.I. Solzhenitsyn, B.A. Mozhaeva, V.G. Rasputin, V.P. Astafieva, V.I. Belova, V.M. Shukshina, V.N. Krupin, L.I. Borodin and others.
Part VI(2) is devoted to the literature of the Russian emigration, as well as literary processes at the end of the 20th century, the work of D.S. Merezhkovsky, B.K. Zaitsev, V.F. Khodasevich, G.V. Ivanova, V.V. Nabokov, M.I. Tsvetaeva, P.N. Krasnova, V.E. Maksimova, N.N. Turoverov, L.M. Leonova, S.N. Tolstoy, D.L. Andreeva, V. Nikolaeva, V.V. Afanasiev, O. Nikolaeva and others.
The book is based on a course of lectures given by the author at the Moscow Theological Academy.
Crime against the future. Reflections on rock culture
Rock culture (and music in it sets the basis for value orientations) is now comprehended as a synonym for the concept of youth culture. The culture of the generation that “chooses Pepsi” strives to “take everything from life”, “to live in a high”, that is, it swallows those easy-to-digest baits that are now thrown in abundance by all sorts of crafty seducers.
In the hands of the youth, the fate of the nation is a banal but true truth: time will pass, and the entire composition of the people will be educated by those who are now entering into life. Therefore, the quality of the spiritual organization of these people should not be completely indifferent to us. But looking at them creates anxiety.
When, in the first decade of the new century, seven volumes of the journalistic work of the philologist and theologian Mikhail Dunaev “Orthodoxy and Russian Literature” appeared in front of me, and I first met Mikhail Mikhailovich’s assessments of the work of certain artists of the word, I remember that at first I was seized by a feeling of bewilderment and even some fear. How is it, I thought, having received Holy Baptism not so long ago, was it really almost all in vain - all these searches for Truth and Beauty, which I was told about at Moscow University, did our literature lead me in the wrong direction, and, most importantly, why did I bitter to realize and trust the correctness of the author of these volumes? What to do now: to study only the holy fathers and the Scriptures? And does Russian literature need such a catechism at all?
... Again and again, let's pay attention to the word order in the title: "Orthodoxy and Russian Literature." Orthodoxy and ... That is, first heavenly and only then - earthly. Not for subversion this second, without which we are unimaginable, but - for understanding him through the first.
“... But let's not be hypocritical: after all, earthly treasures are also very attractive to us. As for the heavenly ones, doubt always lurks, and a person begins to think: “Yes, are they still there, these treasures? Here, earthly - it is clear, understandable, close ... "
And our sinful damage draws us to this earthly.
And on the other hand, in every person there is the image of God, in every person there is a spiritual principle that aspires there, towards Heaven. And man is torn apart by this contradiction: we are pulled both up and down.
And Russian literature - the only literature in the culture of the New Age - shows with immutability this sometimes terrible, tragic contradiction in the life of every person. And always, when a person begins to give himself preference to the earthly, it turns out that he comes to some kind of tragedy. Only from this point of view can we understand the man and hero of Russian literature.
In his speeches, interviews and articles, Dunaev said, by the way, that without reading our literature it would be much more difficult to understand the patristic tradition.
... What else, I remember, then, for the first time, struck me separately: here is an analysis of Russian literature of the 19th century, reflecting, albeit refracted, painfully, the light of the gospel truths, Christianity, the spirit of Orthodoxy (and Mikhail Mikhailovich analyzes in detail Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov…), but our author raised his spiritual view on the culture of the so-called Silver Age!
... An Orthodox Christian, he bravely undertook to rethink the very concept of the Russian literary "revival", a concept with which in secular everyday life it is customary to associate the prose and verses of many, many brilliantly gifted masters of that time, known and loved by readers.
Everything here turned out to be very difficult ...
And at the same time - much easier, in my opinion, than you can imagine.
“We know - the holy fathers write about this again, in particular, St. John of the Ladder talks a lot about this - that all the gifts of God that we have received, a person, by virtue of the freedom of choice given to him, can use not only in good, but also bad. You can serve with the help of beauty both God and the devil ... "
I have only singled out some lines from this work, some important thoughts voiced, as they say now, by the voice of the unforgettable Mikhail Mikhailovich Dunaev. The seven volumes of the book "Orthodoxy and Russian Literature" and a more concise version - the volume "Faith in the Crucible of Doubts" - is, I think, the most important bookmark in our long mastery of the art of spiritual life. And that means - and correctly oriented reading.
And behind it - a meek, kind and wise man who tried to build - the first and so far the only one in such scope - the same Orthodox guidebook, without which my personal reading experience is now unimaginable.
Of course, we won’t talk about various roughnesses in some of my impressions now, that’s for another time, where would people be without them!
Here, I, the host of our "Bookmark" - Pavel Kryuchkov, just once again bow low to the memory of Mikhail Dunaev and his missionary, laborious feat.
Born in Moscow. In 1963 he graduated from high school.
In 1970 he graduated from the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University and entered the postgraduate department of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Also at this time he worked as a personal secretary of the famous writer Sokolov-Mikitov.
From 1976 to 1979 lectured on the history of Russian literature at the preparatory courses of the Moscow Power Engineering Institute.
In 1979, after defending his Ph.D. thesis, he was awarded the degree of candidate of philological sciences. The topic for the Ph.D. thesis was the work of the Russian writer Ivan Shmelev, which was very unconventional for the Soviet era. Dunaev was one of the first who dared to write about a Christian émigré writer.
From 1980 to 1981 he taught at Moscow State University. On September 1, 1990, he became a teacher at the Moscow Theological Academy
In 1997 he graduated from the academy as an external student and defended his PhD thesis.
In November 1998 he defended his master's thesis, and in December he was awarded the title of associate professor.
On September 17, 1999, by the decision of the State Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation, he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Philology.
In 2001 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology. Then he became a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy.
On September 6, a funeral service according to the Orthodox rite was held in the house church of Moscow State University in the name of the Holy Martyr Tatiana, the service lasted more than two hours. The funeral service was led by the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy and Seminary, Archbishop Eugene of Vereya. He was joined by the representative of the Patriarch of Serbia to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', a graduate of the Moscow Academy of Arts, Bishop Anthony of Moravich, many members of the professorial and teaching corporation in holy orders, clerics of the city of Moscow. At the funeral, a message from His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' was read.
Awards
- Medal of St. Sergius of Radonezh, 1st class (October 14, 2000)
- Order of St. Sergius of Radonezh III degree (October 14, 2005)
Winner of the first prize "Orthodox Book of Russia" in the nomination "Author of the Year" in 2003.
Bibliography
- Dunaev M. M. Orthodoxy and Russian literature. - Krutitsy Patriarchal Compound, 1997. - T. 2. - 473 p. - ISBN 5-87727-004-4
- Dunaev M. M. Orthodoxy and Russian literature. - The second edition, corrected, supplemented. - M .: Church of the Holy Martyr Tatiana at Moscow State University, 2002. - T. 3. - 768 p. - 5000 copies. - ISBN 5-900988-09-0
- Dunaev M. M. Orthodoxy and Russian literature. - M.: Christian literature. - T. 4. - 784 p. - ISBN 5–900988–10–4
- Dunaev M. M. Orthodoxy and Russian literature. - 2nd ed., corrected, additional .. - M .: Christian literature. - T. 5. - 782 p. - ISBN 5-900988-11-2
- Dunaev M. M. Orthodoxy and Russian literature. F. M. Dostoevsky. - Church of the Holy Martyr Tatiana at Moscow State University, 2002. - 176 p. - 10000 copies. - ISBN 978-5-901836-05-7
- Dunaev M.M. Faith in the crucible of doubt: Orthodoxy and Russian literature in the 17th-20th centuries. - Prestige, 2003. - 1056 p. - 5000 copies. - ISBN 5-94625-023-X
- Dunaev M. M. Crime before the future. - Holy Mountain, 2006. - 56 p. - 3,000 copies.
- Dunaev M. M. About the novel by M. M. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita". - Holy Mountain, 2006. - 56 p. - 3,000 copies.
- Dunaev M. M. Originality of Russian religious painting of the XII-XX centuries. - M.: Philology, 1997. - 221 p. - (Essays on Russian culture XII-XX centuries). - ISBN 5-7552-0100-5
- Dunaev M. M. On the threshold. The story of one life. - Alta-Print, 2005. - 816 p. - 3000 copies. - ISBN 5-98628-007-5
- Dunaev M. M. South of Moscow. - 2nd ed., revised, additional .. - M .: Art, 1986. - 176 p. - (Roads to beauty). - 100,000 copies.
- Dunaev M. M. Ivan Turgenev - Ivan Turgenev: Life and work. - M.: Russian language, 1983. - 294 p.
- Dunaev M. M. V. E. Borisov-Musatov. - M.: Art, 1993. - 189 p.
- Dunaev M. M., Razumovsky F. V. In the middle course of the Oka. - M.: Art, 1982. - 184 p. - (Roads to beauty). - 85,000 copies.
- Dunaev M. M. On the ground of the Great Battle. - M.: Art, 1976. - 152 p. - (Roads to beauty). - 75,000 copies.
- Dunaev M. M. The originality of Russian icon painting. - 1995. - 79 p. - ISBN 5-88541-003-9
- Vladimirov A. archpriest, Nikolaev S. archpriest, Dunaev M.M. From your words you will be condemned: Foul language. - Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2007. - 80 p. - 15,000 copies. - ISBN 978-5-94625-195-2
- Dunaev M. M. Postmodernist scandals // Church and time. - 2003. - No. 2 (23). - S. 104-127.
- Dunaev M. M. On the literary work of P. N. Krasnov // Church and time. - 2003. - No. 3 (24). - S. 188-210.
Introduction
We are so accustomed to asserting the height and uniqueness of Russian classical literature that this truth has long been beaten to us, requiring no proof or special reflection. And this is bad: not wanting to think, using templates from our school years, we are poorly aware of the originality of Russian literature and more often confine ourselves to swaggering confidence in the artistic superiority of the works of Russian geniuses over all others and in their quantitative abundance compared to other European literatures - than we just nourish our own pride, nothing more.
For many reasons, the properties of the objective and the subjective, the main originality of Russian classical literature, were little touched upon by its numerous researchers and critics. We have to agree with the conclusion of I.A. Esaulova, regrettably: "Unfortunately, it must be admitted that the history of Russian literature as a scientific discipline that would at least to some extent coincide in its main axiological coordinates with the axiology of the object of its description does not yet exist" .
The most important thing in our national literature is its Orthodox worldview, the religious nature of the reflection of reality. The religiosity of literature is not manifested in any connection with church life, nor is it manifested in exclusive attention to the plots of Holy Scripture - by no means in that. But: in a special way of looking at the world. The literature of modern times belongs to secular culture, and it cannot be purely ecclesiastical. However, Orthodoxy for centuries has educated the Russian man in such a way, taught him to comprehend his being so that he, even apparently breaking with faith, could not renounce the worldview instilled in the people.
To begin with, let's trust an outsider's view, let's think about how non-Russian writers perceived the creations of Russian writers.
Stefan Zweig: “Open any one of the fifty thousand books produced annually in Europe, what are they talking about? About happiness. A woman wants a husband or someone wants to get rich, become powerful, and respected, Dickens' goal of all aspirations will be a pretty cottage in the bosom of nature with a cheerful crowd of children, Balzac will have a castle with a peerage and millions. And if we look around, in the streets, in the shops, in low rooms and bright halls - what do people want there? - To be happy, contented, rich, powerful. Which of the heroes of Dostoevsky aspires to this? - Nobody. No one" .
Turkish translator and critic E. Güney: “The ideal of the heroes created by Dickens is a good home, a happy family life. The heroes of Balzac strive to acquire magnificent castles, to accumulate millions. However, neither the heroes of Turgenev, nor the heroes of Dostoevsky, nor the heroes of Tolstoy are looking for anything like that.<…>Russian writers demand a lot from people. They do not agree that people put their interests and their egoism in the forefront.
Ukrainian writer Ivan Franko: "... if we liked the works of European literature, excited our aesthetic taste and our imagination, then the works of Russians tormented us, hurt our conscience, awakened a person in us ...".
The Russian writer, A.I. Solzhenitsyn, it is expressed even more clearly:
“How do Russian literary heroes differ from Western European ones? The most beloved heroes of Western writers always achieve careers, fame, money. And don’t feed the Russian hero, don’t give him water - he is looking for justice and goodness.
Conscience was affirmed by our writers as the basic measure of all things. This is what is essential: not private questions, but the most important, general ones - excited the consciousness and soul of the creators of Russian literature. And in this it is united throughout its history - from the great "Sermon on Law and Grace" by Metropolitan Hilarion. The new literature, although we single it out separately, was built on the traditions of previous centuries, and these traditions were sanctified by the ideals of Orthodoxy.
“Russian culture is “imprinted” with the seal of millennia: baptism in Orthodoxy. This established the spiritual essence of the Russian people, their history and enlightenment, - I.S. Shmelev. -<…>Our literature is also "imprinted": it is exceptionally deep, "strict", as, perhaps, none of the literatures in the world, and chaste. It seems to solder-knit the Earth with the Sky. It almost always contains “questions”, aspirations to “uncover the mystery”, attempts to find the solution to the world riddles posed to humanity by the Unknown: about God, about Being, about the meaning of life, about truth and falsehood, about Evil-Sin, about what will happen there ... and is it there ?.. <…>Russian literature is not admiring “beauty”, not entertainment, not serving fun, namely service, like a religious service."
It was Orthodoxy that influenced a person's close attention to his spiritual essence, to the inner self-deepening reflected in literature. This is, in general, the basis of the Russian worldview and the Russian way of being in the world. The outstanding Russian philosopher I.V. Kireevsky wrote about it this way:
“Western man sought by the development of external means to alleviate the severity of internal shortcomings. The Russian man strove to escape the severity of external needs by internal elevation above external needs.
And this could be determined only by the Orthodox worldview. For the very understanding of salvation underlying Orthodoxy - that is, the goal of all earthly existence - differs significantly from what we can find in Western confessions. Western man understands salvation as a reward for some good deed (Catholicism) or as something that he receives only by virtue of faith (Protestantism). The Catholic “earns” his salvation, “redeems” his own sin by the labor of virtue. For a Protestant, the problem does not even come to light: according to his judgment, the Savior has already "paid" for him. Protestantism generally removes the question of the need for good deeds for salvation, aims a person at external practical activity as the main content of his being in the world.
Salvation in Orthodoxy is comprehended as an internal rebirth of a person, his spiritual transfiguration, leading to deification. Saint Isaac the Syrian wrote:
“Virtue is the mother of sorrow; out of sorrow comes humility; grace is given to humility. And then the reward is no longer for virtue, and not for labor for its sake, but for humility born from them. If it is lost, then the first will be in vain.
This is amazing: it is not virtue that is crowned with a reward and not good deeds for its sake, but humility! Without humility and virtue is in vain! Sin cannot be “worked off” by good deeds; it can be overcome only by inner rebirth, the beginning of which is humility.
“Those who say or do something without humility,” St. Gregory of Sinai warned, “are like building a temple in winter or without cement.” This is where the concentrated attention of every Orthodox, truly Orthodox comes from - to inner work, to inner man.
“For according to the inner man I find pleasure in the law of God” ().
But why is humility at the heart of salvation? Because it establishes a system of true criteria for a sober assessment of the real state of a person's inner world. The desire to comply with the gospel understanding of virtue, to be perfect, How perfect Heavenly Father (), - immediately allows everyone to clearly see the true sinfulness of their own soul (“virtue is the mother of sorrow”). At the same time, striving for virtue becomes not a goal, but a means of self-knowledge of a person, his knowledge of the impossibility of eradicating sin, overcoming passions only by his own efforts, which in Christian asceticism is called humility (“humility is born from sadness”). Humility is the knowledge of the need for a Savior. Awareness of the impossibility of being saved by one's own efforts alone, crying out for God's help, remembering: “It is impossible for men, but for God all things are possible” () - such and such humility becomes the basis of salvation (“grace is given to humility”). The transformation of virtue into an end in itself can give rise to arrogance in the soul when this goal is achieved (not only imaginary, but also genuine), it can lead to intoxication with one’s own perfection and thereby strengthen human pride, the source of world evil. This is the way Pharisee (). That is why the holy ascetic teaches us: without humility, virtue is in vain. Without humility, a person does not realize his need for a Savior. He considers himself to be the agent of his own salvation. That is, he becomes, in the end, an anti-Christian.
And so we see: Orthodoxy establishes the only true point of view on life - and this is what Russian literature assimilates (not always in full) as the main idea, thus becoming Orthodox in its spirit.
Orthodox literature teaches the Orthodox view of man, establishes the correct view of the inner world of man, determines the most important criterion for evaluating the inner being of man: humility.
So, by the way, we are once again convinced that religious dogmas, which are presented to many as something far from life, scholastic-abstract, the subject of meaningless theological disputes, in fact, have a decisive effect on a person’s worldview, his awareness of his place in being, to his way of thinking. Moreover, religious dogmas shaped the character of the nation, the political and economic originality of its history, the fate of peoples.
That is why the new Russian literature (following the Old Russian) saw its task and the meaning of existence in kindling and maintaining the spiritual fire in human hearts. This is where the recognition of conscience as the measure of all life values comes from. Russian writers recognized their work as a prophetic ministry (which the rest, Catholic and Protestant, Europe did not know), the attitude towards literary figures as visionaries, soothsayers has been preserved in the Russian mind to this day - albeit muffled already.
This was sensitively perceived and accurately expressed by N.A. Berdyaev: “... In Russian literature, among the great Russian writers, religious themes and religious motives were stronger than in any literature of the world.<…>All our literature of the 19th century is wounded by the Christian theme, all of it seeks salvation, all of it seeks deliverance from evil, suffering, the horror of life for the human person, people, humanity, the world. In her most significant creations, she is imbued with religious thought.<…>The combination of torment for God with torment for man makes Russian literature Christian, even when in their minds Russian writers retreated from the Christian faith.
It is important that those processes in the literature of the 19th century, which developed, as it were, outside the Orthodox tradition, are characterized not by indifference towards religion, but by active repulsion from it, opposition to Orthodoxy. This allows us to consider these processes in close connection with the general course of the entire literary work of the Russian classics.
It would be wrong to say that the most important feature of Russian literature was not at all touched upon by those who thought about it and wrote about it; Russian religious philosophers, from the Slavophiles to the Vekhi people, undoubtedly looked at literature precisely from this point of view, but literary criticism was not their primary specialty, so references to the work of one or another writer were episodic. This could not have been expected at all from professional critics of the revolutionary democratic persuasion, as well as from the so-called “Soviet” literary criticism that inherited their traditions (we will not talk about the impossibility of religious comprehension of literature under the dominance of an ideology of a certain kind).
The situation has begun to improve only recently. The émigré heritage is being assimilated, in-depth studies of the work of Russian classics, carried out by domestic literary critics, appear. However, we are only at the beginning of a long process of renewed historical knowledge of Russian literature. The most important task of such knowledge becomes clear: the transition from a social or purely aesthetic analysis of literature to a religious one. Our literature was (let us use Gogol's image) an "invisible step" to Christ; it mainly reflected the test of faith that took place in the life of the people and the individual, which, in fact, is the main test to which we are subject in earthly life.
Recently, an essential danger has been revealed that distorts the religious perception of all manifestations of life, in particular literature: a certain worldview is being created that could be called Orthodoxy without shores, self-made Orthodoxy, not recognizing any criteria of truth, except for their own claims and their own ignorance. It should be noted that this is becoming a common misfortune for our literary criticism: too many, on the basis of some external coincidences, are in a hurry to draw far-reaching conclusions regarding the supposedly Christian meaning of certain artistic images. The truth becomes unimportant: the main thing is that there would be an interesting version. However, this was the case before, but now pseudo-religious conjectures are included in the sphere of literary tricks. Now even those writers who, in their spirit, are non-Orthodox and even anti-Orthodox are declared to be purely Orthodox.
This aggravates the question of the criteria for the Orthodox worldview and creativity of any artist.
In our reflections on the most important thing in Russian literature (as well as in the very understanding of life by Russian writers) - what can we rely on in order to understand the essential? As Gogol wrote:
“You can’t invent anything higher than what is already in the Gospel.” Of course, every Orthodox person must look for the criterion of truth in the gospel revelations, he must verify all his reasoning, like everything in general, generated by the human mind, by the word of the Savior.
No matter how hard someone's pride may be, it must be admitted that there are no other criteria of Orthodoxy that would remain outside the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition of the Church of Christ, outside the dogmas of the Orthodox dogma.
A hierarchical interpretation of any phenomenon is possible only with knowledge of the true hierarchy of values, and it is contained only in Christianity. However, in modern social thought, the liberal idea of rejecting the need for Christian criteria in assessing any manifestations of being is being actively imposed - the same idea is spreading in the field of the science of literature. The argument is simple: for a long time, Marxist criteria were imposed everywhere, declared absolute, which only limited the freedom of thought, and as a result, they turned out to be not at all blameless, and the whole area of worldview collapsed, the fruits of many scientific works became meaningless, the tragedies of many lives were revealed; now the same thing is offered, with a slight difference: before, they necessarily referred to the classics of Marxism, now - to the Gospel and the Holy Fathers. And the outcome is the same.
Let's object. Still, let us say, is there a difference between Christ and Marx? And it is a mistake to believe that references to the Gospel are made following the example of Marxist methodology: quite the contrary. It suffices to take any patristic work to see how the author consistently reliance on Scripture in every thought expressed. It cannot be otherwise: the truth of any judgment must be verified by the Truth of the highest level. This is the hierarchical principle of thinking. Marxism adopted precisely this methodology, and could not do otherwise: the devil is the ape of God. And the hierarchy was affirmed monkey. But is it possible to reject God's face if the devil builds his grimaces nearby? Marxist methodology has been discarded, but Orthodox thinking retains, as before, reliance on Truth.
Marxist thinking is normative. Christian is also normative. They just have very different standards. Rejecting one, one should remain faithful to others. It is not normativity that is bad in itself, but the obsession with bad norms.
Every researcher is obliged to find for himself the true criteria for evaluating the subject of his research. And such - only in Orthodoxy.
And in literary criticism, research should be built on the basis of truths ascending to an authoritative source for every believer. This source cannot be anything other than Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition of the Church.
Actually, the methodology of scientific Orthodox literary criticism is precisely defined by St. Tikhon of Zadonsk (although the meaning of his judgment, of course, is much broader):
“What a mirror is to the sons of this age, let the gospel and the blameless life of Christ be to us. They look in mirrors and correct their bodies and purify the vices on their faces. …Let us also offer this pure mirror before our spiritual eyes and look at it: is our life in conformity with the life of Christ? .
So it is in science: every thought must be verified, looking into that mirror : Are the ideas offered to us consistent with the truth of Christ?
What is the value of any proposed idea, system of ideas, than to verify their value? Father Pavel Florensky said about this: “Proper, i.e. the only meaningful form of this value can be found only by inserting the phenomenon under study into some strict monistic system that is competent to evaluate this culture.
Marxism followed this rigorously, constantly holding its crooked mirror in front of it. That's why everything went upside down. So is it really because that curvature distorted everything, and could not help distorting, that we now need to neglect the direct mirror? Strange logic.
We can find support for comprehending Russian literature in the Sermon on the Mount:
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break through and steal ... "().
This great commandment defines the secret essence of two understandings of the meaning of human life, as well as two worldviews, two different types of thinking, two types of culture. In these words of Christ - an indication of the meaning of the division that He brought into the world ( ). The two systems of life values associated with one or another orientation of a person in the earthly world also determine the difference in the understanding of good and evil in general.
After all, if we do not philosophize slyly, then each of us understands by good that which in one way or another contributes to the achievement of the goal of being conscious of us. Under evil is that which hinders such an achievement. And if someone sets himself exclusively material goals (collecting treasures on earth), then everything spiritual will only interfere with him and be perceived as evil. And vice versa.
In this regard, culturologists distinguish two types of culture - soteriological(from the Greek soterio, salvation) and eudaimonic(from the Greek eudaimonia, happiness). The transition from the first to the second in European history was, as you know, the Renaissance, which revived precisely close attention to earthly treasures - and their preference. In Rus', this happened much later. And it is quite logical that adherents of earthly treasures declared the inclination towards the spiritual, the elevation of the heavenly above the earthly - inertia and backwardness.
The preference for one or the other is a matter of conscience and freedom for everyone. It is only necessary to clearly realize that the Western civilization now so glorified is nothing but a striving for the absolute fullness of pleasure. treasures on earth . And the so-called progress - the search for ever more perfect means for mastering such treasures.
The desire for earthly things is understandable and close to everyone: there is no need to explain what it is. It should only be clarified that earthly things include not only immediate material goods and the sensual pleasures associated with them, but sometimes also the rejection of exclusively material values for the sake of, for example, earthly power (recall the external asceticism of many tyrants and despots), fame, craving for self-assertion in society, etc. Even what seems to others to belong to a purely spiritual sphere can also become a purely earthly value. For example, aesthetic experiences that are turned into an end in itself - for the sake of egoistic spiritual pleasure. Or love, understood as possession (not only in the physiological, but also in the moral sense). Even moral searches, when they are carried out for the sake of finding means for a more prosperous earthly arrangement, can turn out to be unspiritual in their basis. This happened with Leo Tolstoy, for example, who rejected the idea of salvation, and from the whole teaching of Christ, he accepted only moral postulates, which he wanted precisely to adapt to the arrangement of social life, but whose value, apart from Divine Revelation, turned out to be very doubtful. The Church of Christ can also become an earthly treasure in the minds of people when they begin to consider it, like other pragmatic politicians, only as a means suitable for use in the struggle for power.
One way or another, but craving for earthly treasures observed at all levels of our earthly existence. And it cannot but become the subject of philosophical and aesthetic reflection.
But where is the criterion for collecting treasures? How to determine exactly what a person collects? Indeed, due to necessity, everyone is forced to exist in the earthly world and cannot do without earthly, material things, connections, thoughts. Christ the Savior stated this criterion clearly and simply:
“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” ().
What we stick with our hearts - after all, we fully feel it if we begin to listen to the voice of conscience (which is why we so often suppress it in order to drive away the unsightly truth from ourselves).
Here is the main theme of Russian literature - the confrontation between two strivings that tear our soul and heart - to treasures of heaven And earthly treasures . This is a topic, a problem not just of literature exclusively, it is a problem of life, creative searches (often throwing) and the writers themselves, whose path was by no means direct and directed only to the Mountain Heights, but marked by many mistakes, falls, deviations from the Truth.
But what is Truth? The question is eternal. True, for the Orthodox consciousness there is no such problem and cannot be: this is the question of Pontius Pilate. In Orthodoxy: Truth is the fullness of the Person of Christ the Savior. Orthodoxy is not occupied with the search for the Truth, but concerns each person with revealing It for himself, with the painful awareness of his remoteness from the Truth, directs attention to inner man. And everyone begins to realize within himself (and not outside himself) that terrible confrontation between good and evil, which determines our final destiny not in time, but in eternity.
A person is doomed to choose between good and evil, but he aggravates the tragedy of his existence contained in this by throwing between different understandings of good and evil. It is this confusion of the soul that Russian literature has highlighted, making it, in fact, the main subject of its compassionate research. She managed to introduce the reader to such inner experiences, such torments of conscience, to plunge him into such abysses of the soul, of which the near-European literature had very little idea.
Western man and generally easier. The "commercial soteriology" of Catholicism, the Protestant denial of the need for any kind of internal struggle with sin make life outwardly clearer and more joyful, in a sense more harmonious, devoid of spiritual torment. It is worth re-reading the reflections of writers cited a little earlier, comparing Russian and Western literature, in order to easily be convinced that the differences are determined precisely by the multidirectional internal aspirations: Western writers (and readers) to treasure purely earthly - and Russians to unearthly . A Western person can, of course, suffer, but from the absence of a million, a title, a cottage, etc. And only in Russian literature is it possible for a hero to appear who suffers, possessing all such benefits in abundance:
I am young, my life is strong;
What should I expect? Longing, longing!..
How to relate to such suffering depends on the understanding of life by each of us. Some will consider it a manifestation of madness. But the Russian people turned out to be doomed to such a thing (although not everyone without exception, of course), and literature accurately reflected this. And this happened because the very vector of spiritual aspirations was turned by Orthodoxy in the opposite direction from earthly blessings.
Undoubtedly, the desire alone does not ensure the achievement of the goal. Otherwise, why bother?
All the problems of Russian literature are exacerbated many times over by the fact that the harmony of the possession of heavenly gifts is not subject to secular art in general. Or, let's make a concession to the vanity of artists, it is almost beyond control. Art feels free and omnipotent only in the element of contradictions and conflicts. We must be clearly aware that the sphere of artistic creativity is limited to the area of the soul - in the system of Christian trichotomy: body, soul, spirit. This does not offend or belittle art at all, but only precisely defines the limits of its possibilities. However, the space of the soul is so vast and boundless that art, even within strictly limited limits, will hardly ever be able to exhaust what is intended for it. Exactly so - a ship can sail only inside the space delineated by the coastline, but the ocean is too vast. The only question is where and why to sail.
Art, and literature in particular, can be closed in the boundless space of the soul in those areas where the soul comes into contact with the bodily nature, but it can also rise to the spheres bordering on the sojourn of the spirit. Such, in its highest achievements, is Russian literature.
One of the most important problems that initially confronted the Russian Orthodox consciousness was, we repeat, precisely the problem of choosing between treasures of heaven And earthly. Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev spoke about this directly, enlightening Rus' in the "Sermon on Law and Grace", back in the 11th century. (In fact, Russian literature in general begins with this work.)
“About the law given by Moses, and about the Grace and truth that appeared in Jesus Christ, about how the Law departed, and Grace and truth filled the whole earth, and faith was extended to all peoples, and to our Russian people.<…>As the light of the moon departed when the sun shone, so did the Law before the Grace that appeared. Humanity is no longer crowded in the Law, but walks freely in Grace. For the Jews affirmed themselves by the candle of the Law, while the Christians build up their salvation by the beneficent sun; for the Jews affirmed themselves by the shadow and the Law, and were not saved, while the Christians, by truth and Grace, did not affirm themselves, but were saved. For among the Jews there is self-affirmation, but among Christians there is salvation. As self-affirmation in this world, salvation - in the next century, for the Jews were concerned about earthly things, while Christians - about heavenly things. For Jewish self-affirmation is stingy with envy, for it did not extend to other nations, it became only for the Jews, and Christians' salvation is good and generously extends to all ends of the earth. .
Thus, from the early years of Christianity in Rus', Truth and Grace were affirmed by the word of the Saint side by side and inseparably. Deep thought: By the Law a person is affirmed in his own egoism, by Grace he is saved in generous self-giving to the whole created world. The preference for one or the other depends on the understanding of the destiny of a person. Those who wish to assert themselves on earth prefer the Law, those striving for salvation in the Heavenly World prefer Grace. What is true? The question for the Orthodox consciousness is rhetorical.
But to know the Truth and to follow the Truth - what an abyss sometimes exists between these two states. And what a torment for a person from the feeling of that abyss not just anywhere, but in his very soul. The holy righteous John of Kronstadt spoke about this: “To be a spirit, to have spiritual needs and aspirations and not find satisfaction with them - what a torment for the soul!”
Such torments became, first of all, the subject of aesthetic reflection and reflection in Russian literature. But not a reason for detached contemplation and cold rational analysis, but the subject of the artist’s own mental torment.
The main reason for such torments was precisely that happy (by the highest measure) circumstance that no matter how strong Western influence was, no matter how victoriously earthly temptation penetrated Russian life, Orthodoxy still remained uneradicated, abiding with all the fullness of the Truth contained in it - and couldn't disappear. Souls were damaged - yes! - but no matter how the public and private life of Russians wandered in the dark labyrinths of temptations, the arrow of the spiritual compass still stubbornly pointed in the same direction, even if the majority moved in the opposite direction. For a Western person, let's say it again, it was easier: for him, intact landmarks did not exist, so even if he went astray, he sometimes could not even suspect it at all.
They marveled at the internal torments of a Russian person, they were perplexed and even mocked, but they gave a strong hardening, strengthened spiritual strength, spread a cleansing influence on the world around them. This is primarily reflected in our literature.
We confine ourselves to one example - but authoritative and instructive. In the memoirs of a well-known church leader of the 20th century, Metropolitan Evlogii (Georgievsky), we find evidence that is too important for understanding the merits of Russian literature. Vladyka Evlogii tells how in his early youth, in the first two years of his seminary life, he was notable for his unworthy behavior and way of life. And what helped to avoid falling? Reading Russian literature. “The educational value of literature for young people is enormous,” says the memoirist based on his own experience. - It is difficult even to take into account the measure of its beneficial influence. It increased self-knowledge, saved from rudeness, licentiousness, ugliness of actions, nourished the tendency of the youthful soul to idealism. I began to straighten up, study well, I had mental inquiries, more serious interests.<…>My Passion for Literature<…>paved the way for further spiritual development ... "
Additional explanations, perhaps, are not required at all.
Nowadays, there have also appeared such deniers of Russian literature who, in "an excess of piety," sometimes try to reject the very necessity of communion with the Russian classics. One of these zealots once said to the author of this study: “Why should we your Dostoevsky? We have our Holy Fathers! If a question is asked, it must be thought through. Why do we need worldly culture when our goal is spiritual growth?
First of all: both Dostoevsky and the Holy Fathers are not “ours” and not “yours”. They belong to everyone who wants to comprehend their spiritual experience. And if there is no desire, then no one imposes. But after all, no one claims that Russian writers should replace the reading of patristic literature. One does not interfere with the other, but it can certainly help.
Behind the unwillingness to join the inner experience of Russian writers lies, first of all, pride, but also simple laziness. We are already so spiritually lofty that we can only look down on Dostoevsky. In fact, it turns out that the Fathers are not studied too diligently.
However, one can object this way (and they often object): it is not necessary to read the Fathers, since there is a Gospel - we will limit ourselves to them.
In fact, it turns out that unauthorized reading and interpretation (and whoever reads, he inevitably interprets) the Word of God leads, as a rule, to errors and heresies. One's own understanding of the gospel must be verified by the wisdom of those who, having reached purity of heart , was able to comprehend unalloyed the depth of Revelation.
The wisdom of the Holy Fathers cannot be comprehended without sufficient spiritual experience of one's own. And it is precisely this experience that can be immeasurably enriched by the depth of experience that is conjugated in the treasury of Russian literature. A person generally cannot live and comprehend in gaining his own experience outside of communication with others like himself. Are Russian writers not the best interlocutors and interlocutors to enrich themselves with the necessary experience? Why, in pride, reject that which can become a true treasure for a non-lazy mind?
Let us think about the testimony of Metropolitan Evlogii: after all, while in the seminary, he read both the Scriptures and the Fathers without fail, and his own experience was so small that everything seemed to be in vain. Literature has helped.
The following objection may also follow: not everything in the works of our classics is light and harmonious, and in the same Dostoevsky so many dark sides of life are displayed - will not reading such descriptions harm the spiritual internal building a man? In addition: noting spiritual errors in the work of this or that artist, we, if we do not adopt them, inevitably fall into the sin of condemnation, and this again is not useful for our soul.
With inept reading, communication with the Holy Fathers can be harmful. Literature needed learn to read. It is necessary to master the skill of comprehending literature in relation to the wisdom of Orthodoxy. As for the "dark" places, they can give us invaluable experience in our work. self-knowledge .
First of all: we are obliged to soberly comprehend all deviations from the Truth in the work and life of any writer (as well as any person), but not to condemn him, for we are commanded not to condemn (). We must realize that in the personality and work of a great artist, those evil properties of human nature that exist in a hidden form in us can be sharply and clearly revealed. A person recognizes sin in another person if he has such sin in himself. I can, due to my own weakness or fear, not guess about my enslavement to this sin, but as soon as I recognized it in another, I recognized it in myself. But not everyone is aware of that.
When we soberly recognize sin in creativity and in the life of a great artist, not to condemn him, but to condemn ourselves, then we get undoubted spiritual benefits from communicating with literature: it helps to recognize what we sometimes did not even suspect. And it's always painful. That is why many people do not want to read about the "dark" sides of life: it is scary to look into oneself.
Our literature has captured in word and image the religious experience of a Russian person: both bright and dark, both saving and dangerous for the soul. The experience of faith and the experience of unbelief.
Both experiences are necessary for self-knowledge And self-awareness . The truth is given in Revelation. But it is impossible to reveal It for oneself without knowing the image of God in oneself. As it is impossible without the knowledge of one's own sinful damage.
“The kingdom of God is within you” ().
But inside us- and hellish abysses. It is necessary to be aware of this. To enter into an inner invisible battle with passions.
It is this kind of self-knowledge that leads a person to meet the Savior. For salvation, affirmation of oneself in the Truth - is co-working with the Truth, synergy. And the richer a person's spiritual experience, the more fruitful is this cooperation.
Literature is capable of enriching with considerable experience, the experience of universal comprehension of being, the experience of self-knowledge, which is irreplaceable by anything. He who wants to neglect such universal experience is not his own friend.
Of course, with a superficial emotional, and not spiritual, understanding of negative experience, the dark sides of life, it is possible to fall under the power of the spirit despondency . Uncreative reading, for example, of Dostoevsky, can plunge a person into gloomy abysses. But the fault lies not with the writer, but with the mediocre reader. You have to learn to read literature. And then Dostoevsky will lead the soul to bright heights, clear the way to comprehend the Truth.
This is always the case: it is necessary to understand what the vector of the artist's aspirations is. One, and depicting sin, calls upward, to the Heavenly, the other, seducing with crafty beauty, draws to the darkness of the underworld.
The proposed study is devoted to the literature of the new time, the period when it becomes dechurched. The ancient literature of Rus' - manifests itself on a qualitatively different level, like the whole culture in general: it does not focus its attention on the problems of a secular society (which did not exist), it has its own special range of interests, its own goals and objectives, albeit not delimited from more later by an insurmountable wall. Therefore, the conversation about it should be special, separate from the chosen topic.
Creations like in the saints of our father Tikhon of Zadonsk. T.4. M., 1889. S. 145.
Bibliophile Almanac. Issue. 26. M., 1989. S. 155, 161.
Evlogii (Georgievsky), Metropolitan. The path of my life. M., 1994. S. 29.
