B archuk returns to the village to his mother, who is interested in the details of her son's sexual life in the capital, the lady instructs the priest to make inquiries, he willingly completes the task. That's the whole plot.
How exactly does the priest fulfill the order of the lady? And available means. The son goes to him for confession, the results of the confession are reported to the mistress.
Everything, Orthodoxy ended there. Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov - a spiritual writer and a real saint in the image of the ancients - a century later (in the middle of the 19th century - Leskov describes the times of Catherine) faced the same practice. As a student of some highest institution, as well as to his misfortune and the discontent of those around him - being a young man, but religious (“raised on his own head”), he somehow bashfully brought “blasphemous thoughts” to confession - not being able and embarrassed to explain that he was embarrassed by the flesh. The next day, he gave a report to the police regarding the preparation of a conspiracy - this is how his confessor regarded the content of the confession of a noble student ... He also had to prove that there was no conspiracy against the autocracy.
The saint overcame this crisis. Did the young Plodomasov overcome him? Looks like no. Violations of the secrecy of confession - a real, unimagined and miraculous Christian shrine - people do not forgive their fathers. And rightly so... It seems that it is not, because if the practice of such assignments and careful execution of instructions lasted for centuries, then what kind of trust can there be in the Church? There is not and cannot be in such circumstances either real confession or repentance. Neither Christianity. Accumulated over decades and fired. You know how.
However, as usual, they are all the nicest people in their own way ...
ESSAY TWO
BOYARIA MARFA ANDREVNA
CHAPTER TWO
MIGRANT FALCON AND HOME WABILO
... Marfa Andreevna suddenly jealously suspected: did her son have
some secret sweetheart in Petersburg.
Dexterously and subtly, now with distant approaches, now with an unexpected, enveloping
she asked her son with tact frankly: where does anyone visit him in Petersburg,
what kind of people does she know, and, finally, she asked directly: who do you live with?
()
Nikolai Semenovich Leskov, "Old years in the village of Plodomasovo", 1869.
Leskov is disliked by patriots and Orthodox. Dangerous - too true.
The publication of the passage was prompted by a reference to the story in Thomas. The article seems to be “not completely”, but thanks to the editors for raising such a topic in the church press at all ... Leskovsky's text is eloquent in itself. So much so that “know comments” could be dispensed with. One question I would like to discuss...
As a practicing priest, I am concerned about the extent to which the possibility of humiliation experienced by the priest and deacon is an exception to general rule. Or is it a rule? The monstrosity of a particular situation (the rope around his neck) and the character of the hero, unique in its savagery, seem to speak of the exclusivity of a particular case. But the general understanding of the mood of the time votes, rather, for the humiliated and subordinate position of the clergy.
And this is not only a sign time. Rus' inherited the real low social status of the Church from Byzantium, from Byzantine Caesaropapism - when serving the interests of the state / society was imputed to the Church as if not its main task. “Spiritual life”, of course, was mentioned by the powerful of this world, but rather as a necessary rhetoric. This scheme was, apparently, reproduced in our country, from the very beginning - through the Baptism of Rus' "from above". And later confirmed by the victory of the Josephites over the non-possessors Reverend Nile Sorsky (it is not clear how he was not burned at the stake then ...)
I remember that I, who had not yet really served as a young priest, was struck by a paragraph in a course of lectures on the history of the Russian Church about the “priest Demka”: “... the ranks of the clergy were replenished with representatives of other strata of society, including even serfs. This was probably beneficial to the boyars, who acquired house churches. Therefore, Patriarch German of Constantinople (Nicaea) in 1228 expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the holy order was dishonored by a slave position in a letter to the Kyiv Metropolitan Kirill. On the whole, it must be admitted that social status of the majority of ordinary parish clergy in Rus' was very low, which is indirectly evidenced by derogatory names - for example, "priest Demka" and others - characteristic of the lower classes of society ”(V.I. Petrushko,“ A course of lectures on the history of the Russian Church ”)... It was especially unpleasant to read this while loving both the Motherland and the Church. We, then seminarians with burning eyes, full of sacrificial feat, were perplexed and laughed, teasing each other with “priests Demka”, “Earrings”, “Vaska” ... Until one not stupid and served more colleague uttered the maxim: pop, whom the cops did not beat "...
Terrible simply crucified the Church, the despotism of Peter the Great cracked down on any dissatisfied (“bells on cannons”), Catherine confirmed the humiliation of the Church with a large-scale secular reform, we read about the beginning of the 19th century here in Leskov, at the end of the 19th the clergy were firmly clamped into economic and consistory grips, everything is clear with the bloody 20th. What about the twenty-first? And the twenty-first repeats everything from the beginning. When claims are made to the priest from Kushchevskaya “and where were you, holy father, when such a disgrace was happening around” - re-read Leskov, he has the answers.
Essay one, chapter six "By midnight young lady."
Rope! - commanded the boyar, turning to one lichard.
- Priest and deacons! he ordered another.
- Hook the noose and lower it through the hook in the ceiling, - he ordered the slave, who brought fresh hemp rope.
(
Plan
Introduction 3
Righteous themes in the works of Leskov N.S. 4
Righteous themes in the works of Solzhenitsyn A.I. 17
Conclusion 32
References 33
Introduction
The path to art lay through the comprehension of multifaceted relationships
people, the spiritual atmosphere of the time. And where specific phenomena were somehow linked with these problems, a living word, a vivid image was born. Writers strove for creative transformation of the world. And the path to true being lay through the self-deepening of the artist. Thus, it is through the self-deepening of the artist that a new image is created that reflects the actual reality. And these images reflect the character of a person. In my opinion, the problem of righteousness is very important and interesting, because for many years it has excited the minds of many writers and scientists. The topic of my essay is very unusual. Righteous themes in the works of Leskov N.S. and Solzhenitsyn A.I. This topic is not widely described in Russian literature, although such writers as Leskov and Solzhenitsyn turned to search for examples of the righteous life of the people. I want to analyze several works. The abstract will consider several works, their analysis and critical articles on these works. In my abstract, I will try to express my thoughts and considerations on this topic.
Righteous themes in the works of Leskov N.S.
Although the name of Leskov is known to the modern reader, he, as a rule, does not have a true idea of the scale of his work. A very small number of the writer's works are heard: "Cathedrals", "Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District", "Lefty", "Dumb Artist", "The Enchanted Wanderer", "The Sealed Angel", "The Man on the Clock", and even anti-nihilistic novels. "Nowhere" and "On knives". Meanwhile, Leskov left a huge legacy - both artistic and journalistic. Active mastery of it is especially important now, because Leskov's work is unusually in tune with our time. The sixties of the 19th century, when Leskov entered literature, are in many ways reminiscent of the period of history that we are experiencing now. It was the time of radical economic and social reforms, the time when glasnost appeared for the first time in Russia. The focus was on the peasant question, the problem of the liberation of the individual, the protection of his rights from the encroachments of the state bureaucratic apparatus and the growing capital, the struggle for economic freedom. A century and a half later, we actually again faced the same problems, which is why it is so important to use the experience of a wise and practical person who knew Russia in breadth and depth.
Now we have already learned to appreciate Leskov the artist, but we still underestimate him as a thinker. Like Dostoevsky, he turned out to be a writer-prophet. The difference between them is that Dostoevsky, in his prophecies about the future, relied on the present, saw in it the sprouts of the future and foresaw what they would develop into. And Leskov, in determining the trend of Russian life, relied on the past of Russia, on the national-historical foundations of life that were stable and unchanged for a long time. He singled out such features in Russian life that remain viable despite all social breakdowns and historical changes. Therefore, Leskov's observations on everyday life, state and public institutions of Russian life seem to be unusually relevant now. Among the persistent troubles of Russian public life, Leskov named mismanagement, the dominance of bureaucracy, protectionism, bribery, the inability of people in power to cope with their duties, lawlessness, and disregard for individual rights. In his opinion, for a successful fight against these ulcers of Russian life, "Russia needs and most importantly knowledge, self-knowledge and self-awareness." Considering that the country, like a person, goes through different age stages of development, he equated Russia with a gifted young man who can still take up his mind.
No other Russian writer paid as much attention to the problem of national character as Leskov. He described the Russian national character in many ways and along the way made very interesting and subtle sketches of the national character of the Germans, French, British, Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, and Tatars. Now, in an era of exacerbation of interethnic relations, the work of Leskov, who preached national and religious tolerance, who saw the beauty of life in the bright colors of national life, various national ways, customs, characters, is very relevant.
Leskov was undoubtedly one of the most interesting religious minds in Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century. In his work, as well as in the work of L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, the intense moral searches of the Russian people were reflected in the period of the crisis of Christian ideology caused by the collapse of the foundations of feudalism. Leskov is a moralist writer and preacher, in this he is very close to Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. But his moral demands are not characterized by maximalism. They are more adapted to the capabilities of the average person, not an ascetic and not a hero. Leskov's interest in the positive beginnings of Russian life is amazingly stable: heroes of a righteous disposition are often found in Leskov's very first and last works. Sometimes they find themselves on the periphery of the narrative (“Little Things of Bishop’s Life”, “Notes of the Unknown”), more often they are the main characters (Elder Gerasim, conscientious Danila, Nemortal Golovan, one-dum Ryzhov, Archpriest Tubrozov, etc.), but they are always present. In our field of vision there will be a cycle of stories about the righteous, created in the 1870s, as well as the chronicles "Cathedrals" and "The Seedy Family", where the topic of interest to us is developed with the greatest completeness. We are interested in how Leskov's concept of righteousness correlates with the senile tradition. Is it possible to talk about the continuity of phenomena, can the righteous Leskov (the righteous type created by him) be considered an old man (senile type)? As you know, eldership is a church institution that determines the relationship between teacher and student in the matter of spiritual development. It is based on the spiritual guidance of the teacher by the student, the principle of which is the relationship of mutual asceticism, the practice of soul-leading and obedience. An elder is an experienced monk, and a disciple is a novice monk who takes upon himself the cross of asceticism and for a long time in need of his guidance. The ideal of elder leadership is the perfect obedience of the disciple to his elder.
Orthodox Russian eldership is genetically a continuation of the ancient Eastern eldership, but it is tolerable, and I went to look for the righteous ... ". Thus, he made an attempt to create bright, colorful characters that are in reality, moreover, they are foundation of the earth and can strengthen the faith of his contemporaries in the Russian people and in the future of Russia. Like L. Tolstoy, Leskov created a kind of moral alphabet, contrasting the contradictory modernity with the foundations developed by the centuries-old way of life. folk life. He called his ideal heroes “the righteous,” for they acted, like the ancient holy ascetics, in everything according to “the law of God” and lived in truth. The main thing that determines their behavior in life is service to a living cause. Every day, his heroes perform an imperceptible feat of kind participation and help to their neighbor. Leskov's righteous people see the meaning of life in active morality: they simply need to do good, otherwise they do not feel like people. It acquired distinctive features, probably due to the originality of the Russian mentality and the cultural and historical demands of later eras. First of all, Russian elders folk, the main gift of the Russian elder is "the ability to spiritually speak with the people." The type of Russian old man-lover of the people is a Russian historical type and ideal, this point of view is generally accepted in Russian religious philosophy (the positions of S. Bulgakov, V. Ekzemplyarsky, V. Kotelnikov, and others). The second half of the 19th century was the heyday of the senile tradition, and it was at this time that N.S. Leskov refers to the image of the Russian righteous man. The gallery of the Leskovsky righteous was created in the 70s - 90s. What is the righteous conception of Leskov? The search for "hearts ... warmer and more sympathetic souls" led the writer to create righteous legendary images. ?… How can the whole earth stand with one rubbish that lives in my soul and yours… I was unbearable, and I went to look for the righteous…” 1 . Thus, he made an attempt to create bright, colorful characters that are in reality, moreover, they are foundation of the earth and can strengthen the faith of his contemporaries in the Russian people and in the future of Russia. Like L. Tolstoy, Leskov created a kind of moral alphabet, contrasting the contradictory modernity with the foundations developed by the centuries-old way of life of the people. Leskov emphasized: “The strength of my talent is in positive types. I gave the reader positive types of Russian people” 2 . The writer was looking for in reality itself "that small number of the three righteous", without which "there is no city of standing." In his opinion, they "were not gone, and they will not be gone ... They just don't notice, but if you look closely, they are." He called his ideal heroes “the righteous,” for they acted, like the ancient holy ascetics, in everything according to “the law of God” and lived in truth. The main thing that determines their behavior in life is service to a living cause. Every day, his heroes perform an imperceptible feat of kind participation and help to their neighbor. Leskov's righteous people see the meaning of life in active morality: they simply need to do good, otherwise they do not feel like people. As has been repeatedly noted, the source of the spiritual strength of Leskov's heroes is the national soil. National Holy Russian the way of life with its views and customs is the only acceptable way of life for Leskov's heroes. “My hero longs for unanimity with the fatherland, he is convinced of the goodness of this life, seeing in its basis the world order, which should be protected as a shrine” 3 . The deep essence of Russian life is at the same time the essence of the Leskovsky hero. Separation by a person of himself from the given world order, especially the opposition of his “I” to it, is unthinkable for the writer.
It is known that some of the stories from the righteous cycle are based on hagiographic plots and represent a kind of artistic stylization with the author's development of the plot, detailing and composition (“The Lion of Elder Gerasim”, “Conscientious Danila”, “The Woodcutter”, “Mountain”). Our task is not to analyze the dialogue between Leskov's righteous cycle and the hagiographic tradition, but it is important to point out the very fact that the writer used hagiographic sources. True Christianity and the official church of clerics are not identical concepts for Leskov. In 1871, he wrote: “I am not an enemy of the church, but her friend, or more: I am her obedient and devoted son, and a confident Orthodox - I do not want to defame her; I wish her honest progress from the inertia into which she fell, crushed by statehood. The church, subordinate to the state, lost its spiritual freedom. Mercy, a meek and kind attitude take on the character of an external duty prescribed by law as a means to please the formidable Lord” 4 .
Having a hagiographic heritage as one of the sources, the writer found the righteous in a living folk environment, because he saw the moral principles that contribute to the improvement of man and society in the people, and Leskov connected the formation of the Russian national character and the very idea of righteousness with Christianity. The people preserve that living spirit of faith,” without which Christianity loses its vitality and becomes an abstraction. Christianity, according to Leskov, “is a worldview plus ethical norms of behavior in everyday life, in life ... Christianity requires not only a Christian worldview, but also actions. Without action, faith is dead.”5 Therefore, his artistic preaching of love, kindness and participation is based on earthly affairs. In 1891, Leskov will say this with all certainty: “Away with mysticism, but“ break and give ”- that’s the point” 6 . Leskov's religion is a religion of action, a religion of good deeds, expressed in the idea of serving people as the most important in Christianity. Driven by a “brotherly” love for people, Golovan (“Golovan”) takes care of the sick during the pestilence with such fearlessness and selflessness that his behavior is interpreted mystically, and he receives the nickname “non-lethal”. Christian worldview for N.S. Leskov is, first of all, a lesson in purely practical morality: the preaching of unassumingly simple and mundane deeds. Leskov's righteous live in the world and find themselves fully involved in the web of ordinary everyday relationships, but it is precisely in adverse life circumstances that the moral originality of Leskov's righteous is manifested, it is in the world that they become righteous. The conscientious Danila (“Conscientious Danila”), while in captivity, teaches the barbarians of the Christian life, which deserves the respect of the infidels, the elder Gerasim (“The Lion of the Elder Gerasim”) gives his goods to the poor, for the sake of harmony among people, and then becomes their adviser. This is due to the fact that in the mind of the Leskovsky righteous man, the ideal is thought of as real. Moral principles are due, and therefore they are strictly observed, regardless of what those around them are (one can draw a clear parallel with the elder Zosima, who argued that one must follow the ideal, “even if it happens that everyone on earth has perverted”) . The Leskovsky righteous man is free from the opinions that prevail around him and this is why he is attractive. The ethical norm of the Leskovsky righteous is an independently worthy service, and service in the world (Father Kiriyak refuses to forcefully baptize pagans, the conscientious Danila does not accept the formal forgiveness of priests, but seeks true forgiveness among people). A distinctive feature of the Leskovsky righteous people is the rejection of the practice of solitary self-improvement that breaks with the world. Leskovsky righteous, as M. Gorky wrote, “there is absolutely no time to think about their personal salvation - they are constantly concerned about the salvation and comfort of their neighbors” 7 . The need to do good as an all-consuming feeling that leaves no room for worries about oneself is a motive that Leskov sounds very insistently. His heroes are characterized by evangelical carelessness about themselves. The essence of righteousness is contained for the writer in the lines of the "Sealed Angel" about Pauma: "... a meekly shining ray calmly accomplishes what a fierce storm is unable to do." Leskov's heroes sometimes evade the struggle even in those cases when, it would seem, it is necessary to uphold high moral principles: they do not go to sow and aggravate discord. Tuberozov in The Cathedral avoids, as far as possible, clashes with Barnabas Prepotensky, while he in every way seeks reasons for them.
Leskov's righteous people feel life as a priceless gift, which is why there is no resentment reaction to life in their being. “Whoever offends him as he wants, he will not be offended and will not forget his dignity,” says Rogozhin about Chervev 8 . His words are consonant with the words of Zosima: “Love all the creatures of God, and the whole, and love every grain of sand, every leaf, every ray of God. Love animals, love plants, love everything.” For the heroes of Leskov, being offended means forgetting about their dignity. Wisdom for them is not in the search for a more prominent and worthy position, but, on the contrary, in living righteously, remaining in one's place. Self-sacrificing kindness and strict fulfillment of moral duty are thought by the writer to be deeply rooted in people's life (although not sufficiently "fixed" by the social order). According to Leskov, what is humanly valuable is formed in the common centuries-old Russian life. The basis of Leskov's ideas about a morally perfect person was the ideals of Christian ethics, the principles of which he associated with the unwritten laws of the "practical morality" of the people.
Doctrine Story >> Literature and Russian language
Dance, gets complete satisfaction from produced arousal and does not need ... harmful, firstly, topics what for works actions of intoxication are needed... the truth Christian worldview, the idea is too proud, insane" (N. S. Leskov from 14 ...
F.M. Dostoevsky and N.S. Leskov
Speaking about the Russian classic writers F.M. Dostoevsky and N.S. Leskov in this capacity, I would immediately like to emphasize that they were not just eyewitnesses of the evangelical awakening in St. Petersburg, but, moreover, its chroniclers and critics. In their writings, they not only captured the events of interest to us, but also gave them their assessment.
At the same time, their written works (articles, diaries, letters), which are a treasure trove of primary material, are little known and insufficiently studied by modern church historians. Therefore, the study of their rich heritage will help in restoring a more complete and detailed historical picture of the evangelical movement in St. Petersburg.
It is noteworthy that the topic is of interest not only to church historians, but also to secular literary critics, which significantly expands the source base, allows you to look at the issue from different angles and come to more reasonable conclusions.
This abstract aims to give a brief overview of the topic raised, to introduce some of the results obtained and to outline ways for further research.
Literary circles and Lord Redstock
It was so pleasing to God that from the very beginning the missionary activity of the English preacher Lord Redstock in St. Petersburg became widely known thanks to publications in the periodical press. The topic was covered by many newspapers and magazines, especially actively by such publications as "Citizen", "Voice", "Church and Public Bulletin", "Russian World", "Pravoslavnoe Obozreniye", "New Time", "Modernity", "Church Bulletin". ”, “News and Exchange Newspaper” and others.
Lord Redstock
The writer Leskov believed that the press did more to make Redstock famous than his followers, who, according to his own testimony, "admired him secretly" (Leskov, N.S. Velikosvetsky split, pp. 2-3). This statement by Leskov can be disputed, but there is no doubt that the topic turned out to be of interest to many writers and writers.
Among those who wrote about Redstock were: Prince V. P. Meshchersky, priest I. S. Bellustin, Count L. N. Tolstoy, rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy John Yanyshev, Bishop Theophan the Recluse, historian and publicist A. S. Prugavin, statesmen K .P. Pobedonostsev, F. G. Turner and A. A. Polovtsov.
Most of all, N.S. Leskov wrote about him for many years. In addition to him, it is necessary to single out F.M. Dostoevsky, who was the first to draw public attention to the figure of Redstock and initiated a discussion about him in the press.
All writers in their attitude towards Redstock were divided into two camps: critics and sympathizers. Dostoevsky belonged to the first camp, Leskov, with some reservations, to the second.
Julia Denisovna Zasetskaya
Yu.D. played a key role in introducing our classics to Lord Redstock. Zasetskaya is a writer, translator, evangelist, philanthropist and friend of Dostoevsky and Leskov, with whom she regularly met and corresponded. From the letters it is clear that these relations were valued mutually. Zasetskaya repeatedly expounded to them the essence of the evangelical dogma and the reasons that prompted her to leave Orthodoxy, tried to convince her opponents of the truth of the evangelical faith. The writers, paying tribute to the mind and personal qualities of the woman, quite actively argued with her.
Julia with her brother
Zasetskaya's acquaintance with Lord Redstock took place in England and produced a spiritual upheaval in her. She became so close to the Lord's family that she later wrote to N.S. Leskov: “I spent my days in their family, including his recently deceased mother and his sister, I visited them as if I were at home” (Leskov A., p. 339).
Returning to Russia, Zasetskaya invested a significant amount of her money in the establishment and opening of the first overnight shelter for the homeless in St. Petersburg.
Here is what Anna Grigorievna Dostoevskaya, the writer's wife, wrote:
“By 1873, Fyodor Mikhailovich met Yulia Denisovna Zasetskaya, the daughter of the partisan Denis Davydov. She had just founded at that time the first doss house in St. Petersburg (according to the 2nd company of the Izmailovsky Regiment) and, through the secretary of the editorial board of Grazhdanin, invited Fyodor Mikhailovich on the appointed day to inspect the shelter she had arranged for the homeless. Yu. D. Zasetskaya was a Redstockist, and Fyodor Mikhailovich, at her invitation, was present several times at the spiritual conversations of Lord Redstock and other prominent preachers of this doctrine. Fyodor Mikhailovich greatly appreciated the mind and extraordinary kindness of Yu. D. Zasetskaya, often visited her and corresponded with her ”(Dostoevskaya A. G., p. 278).
Leskov showed no less disposition towards Yulia Denisovna, writing: “I loved and respected this kind lady, like the late Dostoevsky” (Leskov N.S. New Testament Jews, p. 77).
In 1881, Zasetskaya left Russia forever for Paris, where she lived for a short time and died on December 27, 1882.
Dostoevsky's first publication on Redstock
In 1873-1874, Dostoevsky was the editor-publisher of the weekly magazine Grazhdanin. On February 24, 1874, he received a note from the then secretary of the editorial office of this journal, V. F. Putsykovich, with the words: “On behalf of Yu. D. Zasetskaya, I am forwarding to you (...) the ticket attached to this.” It was the writer's invitation to Lord Redstock's sermon (Chronicle of the life and work of F. M. Dostoevsky, pp. 459-460).
The next day, The Citizen was the first to introduce the Redstock figure to the public. From a lengthy editorial titled "The New Apostle in the St. Petersburg High Society" here is just a small quote:
“The venerable lord arrived in Petersburg the other day. On the next day, the whole big world started up. Ten and twenty invitations a day are received by Lord Redstock from ladies of high society to come and talk about Christ. He speaks in an American kirk - all Russian ladies come there and listen to a sermon in English; conversations are held in private homes; everyone is eager to go there, everyone is eager to know Christ from the lips of Lord Redstock! (…) He speaks well. The ladies listen in rapt awe; their appearance is reminiscent of the pagans of the time of the Apostle Paul, with burning eyes, riveted to the preacher's face, and for the first time recognizing Christ's name and His teaching! And after such a sermon, streams of tears flow from the eyes of these high society princesses and countesses; they thank Lord Redstock for revealing Christ to them” (Citizen, No. 8, 02/25/1874, p.217-218).
According to most literary critics, this article, signed with the pseudonym "N.", was written by the owner of the journal, Prince V. Meshchersky. However, in our opinion, given Dostoevsky's visit to the Redstock conversation and his status as editor-publisher, one cannot rule out at least his co-authorship.
This article, critical of Redstock, provoked controversy in two opposing letters in the next issue of The Citizen. The first letter was signed: "Princess D-ya (mother of five children)", under the second: "One of the listeners of the conversations." The “Listener” (most likely Zasetskaya) cleverly defended Redstock.
The editorial response placed under her letter, entitled “Here is our answer to an anonymous person”, according to the opinion accepted in academic circles, belongs to Dostoevsky’s pen, and this is what the writer saw:
“A beautiful hall, well furnished, with an elegant audience, where (...) I heard him (Redstock); he is not very eloquent, makes rather gross mistakes and knows the human heart rather poorly (namely, in the topic of faith and good deeds). This is the gentleman who announces that he is bringing us "precious liquid"; but at the same time he insists that it must be carried without a glass, and of course he would like to break the glass. He rejects forms, he even composes prayers himself”; (...) he “spoke to Mrs. Zas(ets) in the hall, where there were up to 100 invited according to printed notes” (Dostoevsky F.M. PSS in 30 vols., L., 1990, vol. 30, book 2, pp. 22-24, 80-83).
This article ended with:
“No, Mesdames, for you, in your great light, one excellent word, a name, has been invented for denunciation and edification. It was you who was called: "the priestless high society." You can't think of a better one. N." (Citizen, No. 9, 03/04/1874, p. 247-248).
Ten days later, the Russkiy Mir newspaper published feathered Leskov "The Diary of Merkul Praottsev", containing a response to this article. Leskov describes the visit of two cousins, listeners of Lord Redstock's sermon, who were offended by this speech by Dostoevsky: “He called us “secular priestlessness”. This is impolite, this is rude” (Russkiy Mir, No. 70, 03/14/1874).
Leskov, who at that time had a painful polemic with Dostoevsky, writes in the heat of the moment:
“Dostoevsky offended them in The Citizen and called them “secular priestlessness”. What to do? Sorry. He did not realize that people baptized in the church and performing its sacraments and rites cannot be called priestless. This is chronic with him: whenever he talks about anything related to religion, he will certainly always speak out in such a way that all that remains is to pray for him: “Father, let him go!” ”(Chronicle of the life and work of F.M. Dostoevsky V.2, St. Petersburg, 1999, p.466).
Dostoevsky on Redstock and Pashkov
Particularly important for understanding Dostoevsky's position is the chapter "Lord Redstock" from the "Diary of a Writer" for March 1876. Learning about the new arrival of an English preacher in the capital, Dostoevsky writes:
"I happened to him then ( approx. ed.- in 1874) to hear in one “hall”, at a sermon, and, I remember, I did not find anything special in him: he spoke neither especially intelligently nor especially boringly. Meanwhile, he works wonders on the hearts of people; cling to him; many are amazed: they are looking for the poor in order to do good to them as soon as possible, and almost want to give away their property. (…) He makes extraordinary conversions and arouses magnanimous feelings in the hearts of his followers. However, it should be so: if he is really sincere and preaches a new faith, then, of course, he is possessed by all the spirit and fervor of the founder of the sect. I repeat, here is our deplorable isolation, our ignorance of the people, our break with nationality, and at the head of everything is a weak, insignificant concept of Orthodoxy ”(Dostoevsky F.M. Writer’s Diary, pp. 189-190).
V.A. Pashkov
On Dostoevsky's attitude towards Redstock's successor, Colonel V.A. We learn Pashkova from the writer's response to two articles about the Pashkovites, as the Redstockists began to be called. These articles were published one after another in the Novoye Vremya newspaper on May 11 and 13, 1880. The short text of the second note is given in full:
“In the“ Church (ram). Vestn(ike)." an exposition of the "doctrine" of the famous Mr. Pashkov is given according to his letters to o.I. Yanyshev. Reporting in these letters that he "has no theological knowledge whatsoever," but acts on inspiration, Mr. Pashkov says among other things: The Lord has appointed me to serve Him - to the service to which I have been surrendering myself with joy for nearly five years now; it consists in testifying to people about Him, about His boundless love, which He daily allows to experience. And in our opinion, Mr. Pashkov is doing well.”
This note, sympathetic to Pashkov's sermon, evoked a painful reaction from Dostoevsky. The writer immediately wrote to the publisher of the newspaper A.S. Suvorin:
“May 14, 1880. Staraya Russa. Dear Alexei Sergeevich, thank you for your kind letter. (...) Why are you praising Pashkov and why did you write (I just read in the issue of May 13) that Pashkov does well what he preaches? And who is this clergyman who, three days ago, published an article in your defense in defense of the Pashkovites. This article is ugly. Please excuse this frankness. It is precisely for this reason that I am annoyed that all this appears in Novoye Vremya, the newspaper that I love. Sincerely respecting you, F. Dostoevsky ”(Dostoevsky F.M. PSS in 30 vols.; vol. 30, kn. 1, p. 336).
So, on the one hand, Dostoevsky recognized the success of Redstock, on the other hand, he did not sympathize with either Redstock or his successor Pashkov, believing that the success of their preaching was due only to ignorance of Orthodoxy and the separation of part of the high society from it.
The writer had a better opinion about the simple Russian people. In his last "Diary of a Writer" (1880, August), Dostoevsky repeats an important thought for himself:
“I affirm that our people have been enlightened for a long time, having accepted Christ and His teachings into their essence. They will tell me: he does not know the teachings of Christ, and they do not preach to him, but this objection is empty: he knows everything, everything that needs to be known, although he will not pass the exam from the catechism.
The idealization of the people and Orthodoxy was the idea of the writer's fix. However, he has statements that evangelical Christians will willingly share with him. For example, Dostoevsky, through the mouth of the elder Zosima, says:
“On earth, we truly seem to be wandering, and if there were no precious image of Christ before us, then we would perish and get completely lost, like the human race before the flood.”
Isn't the writer right when he asserts that only the Lord restrains the multiplication of evil in the world, and only the image of Christ can lead humanity out of a state of spiritual impasse, similar to the state of people before Noah's flood?!
Nikolai Semenovich Leskov
Of the Russian writers, N.S. wrote most of all about Redstock and the results of his preaching. Leskov. However, as we have already seen, Leskov's attention to this topic arose not without the participation of Dostoevsky and the journal Grazhdanin edited by him.
Then, after Dostoevsky's departure from the post of editor in April 1874, this journal in 1875-1876 made Lord Redstock a constant target of its criticism. Scandalous publications belonged to the pen of Prince V.P. Meshchersky.
The apotheosis of absurdity, almost a libel, turned out to be his lengthy novel The Lord Apostle in the Petersburg High Society (Citizen, No. 17-29, 31-43, 1875), in which the Lord Apostle Hitchik (read: Redstock) appeared a swindler and lustful bon vivant, skillfully disguising himself under the guise of religiosity and virtue and preaching that “sinning is not at all as scary as it seems” (Ipatova, pp. 417-418).
The frank slander outraged even Dostoevsky: “Well, what Prince Meshchersky wrote in his Lord Apostle, it’s horror,” he wrote to his wife on June 15, 1875. Leskov spoke no less sharply about Meshchersky in a letter to I.S. Aksakov in March 1875: “He writes, writes, and vulgarizes everything he doesn’t undertake” (Unpublished Leskov, v. 2, p. 216).
In addition, Leskov wrote, for three winters the magazine Grazhdanin zealously tracked down where Redstock addressed, and everywhere sent him “sharp reproaches for seducing our high society people from Orthodoxy into their own special, Redstock schism or heresy; but about this heresy itself, about its essence and tasks, this observational publication did not reveal anything ”(Leskov N.S. Velikosvetsky schism, pp. 3-4). Thus, the caricature of Lord Redstock, deliberately distorted by Meshchersky, who was not at all a frivolous Don Juan, and at the same time the lack of objective information about the lord and the essence of his faith, forced Leskov to take up serious research Topics.
There was also a personal reason. By this time, the writer's disappointment in Orthodoxy was fully revealed, in which he was outraged by many things: stagnation, bureaucracy, hypocrisy, lack of teaching, "self-interest and stupidity" (Dunaev, pp. 424, 456). And he began to look for his own reading of the Gospel, which would satisfy him, and therefore carefully observed the life of the Old Believers and evangelical believers.
Redstock's personality interested him in particular. In June 1876, Leskov entered into correspondence with Zasetskaya, asking her to provide as much information as possible about the lord. She readily responds. This is facilitated by the fact that Leskov, together with his teenage son Andrei, is at that time in Pikruki (near Vyborg) at Zasetskaya’s dacha, who friendly invited and arranged the writer’s summer vacation (Leskov N.S. Collected Works. Vol. XI, M. , 1958, p. 815).
“Your telegram made me very happy, kind Nikolai Semenovich! I did not understand anything, except that you would not offer me anything but good. (...) Not only do I find it difficult to write in detail about all the views of R / edsto / ka, but I cannot fully understand for myself whether I have the right to do so, since much has been said to me, but not to the public. I spent my days in their family, including his recently deceased mother and his sister, I visited them as if I were at home, often touched on issues that he never talks about, and it happened that he would say to me: you understand, I’m telling you this , others may misinterpret my thoughts. - Judge for yourself. However, here's what I'll do. I will write you everything, like a letter, and what seems to me dangerous for him and indelicate on my part, I will mark with a cross ... "
However, in the midst of the work, the writer was no longer able to reckon with any restrictive conventions and “crosses” of Zasetskaya. In a creative hobby, a temperamental publicist thinks of one thing: to give brighter pictures, juicy dialogues, colorful images, even if a little caricatured, but well remembered and impressive ”(Leskov A., p. 339).
In September, the journal Pravoslavnoye Obozreniye began publishing Leskov's essay "The Great Schism: Lord Redstock and His Followers."
In this essay, the writer creates a visible picture of the evangelical movement, which has absorbed many representatives high society who longed for the true Christian life. Finding nothing in the soulless formalism and boredom of the state church, these God-seeking souls found themselves in the position of sheep without a shepherd. It turned out to be easier for them to turn to God through a teacher of faith from England than to satisfy their spiritual thirst in communion with Orthodox pastors. And here is the conclusion of the writer: disillusioned with their own clergy, faced only with hypocrisy, these kind and well-intentioned Russian people found in the Protestant parish life an example and guidance that they wanted to introduce into the Russian church (Leskov, Mirror of Life, pp. 113-115).
The ending of the essay is very important, where Leskov asks the question: is what has begun religious movement split? No, the writer is convinced. - So far, this is just a disagreement with the Orthodox Church. Nothing has been formed yet. Redstockists stand up for the renewal of the church, for true Orthodoxy.
But at the same time, the writer sees the danger that the Redstockists' need for "living teaching in churches and direct participation in church parish activities" may not come true, which will alienate them from the church. Leskov fears, and fears not in vain, that the imperviousness of the clergy to the spiritual awakening that the Redstockists wanted to bring into parish life will sooner or later lead to a schism. “Only it will not be Lord Redstock and his admirers who are to blame for this, but too long a delay in the fulfillment of these good and just desires,” the writer concludes (Ibid., pp. 119-121).
In other words, Leskov foresaw that the Orthodox Church might not be ready to take spiritual awakening under its wing and allow the laity to preach the Gospel, gospel readings from home, acts of mercy, and other forms of social service. In Lutheranism, a similar form of renewal of church life through the activity of the laity has been known since the 17th century and has received the name of pietism. Despite historical tensions and difficulties between pastors and flocks, pietism fit within the framework of Lutheranism and did not lead to painful schisms there.
So, we see that Leskov foresaw a danger to the church, and a careful reading of his book by the bishops could have saved the situation, but this did not happen. Church wineskins turned out to be shabby, and the new wine of spiritual awakening broke through them...
Two-thirds of the essay "The Great Schism" was devoted to Redstock's biography, his theological views, the manner of expounding the Scriptures, and the reasons for the success of his sermon in Russian society. The complex image of the English preacher turned out to be open not only to praise, but also to criticism. Moreover, in some places the writer ridiculed his hero.
Friends and sincere followers of Redstock were outraged. Zasetskaya is killed: she is guilty of reckless betrayal of the one whom she so honors and appreciates! She is comforted by the fact that she is nothing more than a victim of writer's treachery. It doesn't soften her remorse. Depressed, she writes:
"Nikolai Semenovich!
The gospel teaches us to repay good for evil and to forgive offenses. I won't blame you...
Our Teacher, the Son of God, called the world Satan and a lunatic - what should His followers expect? If someone does not know you, but judges both of you by your writings, it is enough to be convinced that: "you are from the world and speak the world's way, and the world listens to you." Is it any wonder that you ridicule those who are not at all of the world, and those that are still beyond your reach.
Leskov, justifying himself, refers to the wide approval of his "essay" by the press, for which he receives, as it were, a final absolution:
“Nikolai Semenovich, I received your postscript and a clipping from a magazine. But I can assure you that I do not recognize magazine opinions as authority and allow myself to have personal views. Totally agree that you could describe a thousand times worse than a man which I put in moral attitude above all the people I know. Didn't Meshchersky describe him as the last scoundrel? When the goal of a book is to amuse the public, and above all, to make the book a success at all costs, writers probably sacrifice everything without regret: the friendship, the opinion, and the trust of humble individuals like me. I am to blame for imagining that you have a certain feeling of friendship for me, which will not allow you to ridicule (and still choose me as an instrument for this) a person whom I have unlimited respect for. From an excess of imagination, but I am foolishly gullible.
You can be congratulated: your goal has been fully achieved. I am not at all angry with you, I was mistaken, and this consciousness destroys me for a while in my own eyes.
I will end again with the words that I once wrote to you: “You are from the world and speak worldly, and the world listens to you.”
God help you see in time…” (Leskov A., p.340-341).
True, not all Redstockists were outraged by Leskov's book. Bobrinsky, Turner, and even Redstock himself took it favorably (Leskov N.S. Sobr. soch., v. 10, 1958, p. 457). There is evidence that Redstock not only was not offended, but even extremely fond of this book (Shlyapkin I.A., p. 213).
Rapprochement of Leskov with Redstockists
Feeling guilty and cherishing his friendship with Zasetskaya, and also wanting to better understand Redstock and his followers, Leskov enters into closer relations with the Redstockists, visits their homes, listens to the sermons of Redstock and Pashkov. The writer's interest in the English preacher reaches its maximum, despite the fact that The Great Schism has already been published. In the winter of 1877-78, he, according to his own testimony, "listened to full course science of the lord ”(Leskov N.S. Miracles and signs / / TsOV, No. 28, p. 5).
By the spring of 1878, Leskov's views on Redstock were undergoing significant changes. He openly admits that his criticism of the English preacher was in the past hasty and in many ways wrong, and new literary portrait on the pages of the "Church and Public Bulletin" was issued by Leskov in a much more favorable light (Leskov N.S. Miracles and Signs / / TsOV, No. 40, 04/02/1878, p. 3-5).
In the winter of 1878-79, Leskov draws closer and becomes a regular visitor to the evenings of the Peiker family (Leskov A., p. 341). Mother Maria Grigorievna and daughter Alexandra Ivanovna published the journal "Russian Worker", which Leskov had previously, in 1876, subjected to serious criticism, partly fair (Leskov N.S. Sentimental piety). Now he becomes their consultant.
In 1879, Leskov's help was expressed in editing a number of issues of the Russian Worker, which included several of his articles. Later he published them separately under the title "Collection of paternal opinions on the importance Holy Scripture» (1881). Leskov's participation in the publication and his professional advice contributed to a noticeable increase in the popularity of the magazine, the monthly circulation of which reached 3,000 copies (Heyer, pp. 80-82).
Maria Grigoryevna soon, on February 27, 1881, passed away. Leskov sympathized with this, in his words, “very pleasant, subtle mind lady” (Leskov N.S. New Testament Jews, p. 84) “and, moreover, a strongly convinced Christian” (New time, March 1, 1881, No. 1798).
After all that has been said, it is not surprising that in the second half of the 1870s there was a peak of writers' interest in Redstock and his followers, which was reflected in the St. Petersburg periodicals. In the Novoye Vremya newspaper alone, Leskov published several dozen notes and articles about the Pashkovites (Mayorova O.E., pp. 161-185). For example, on April 9, 1880, this newspaper reported the termination of the preaching of "high society preachers" in several houses of St. Petersburg at the insistence of frightened householders, "who did not want to allow the continuation of large gatherings of children and adolescents." Here is an excerpt from this Lesk note:
“Good ladies endure this first “persecution for the faith” not only not without joy, but with delight. Whoever their Diocletian was, he could not think how much he added courage and energy to them. Knocked out of their domestic rut by the homeowners, they rushed to the outskirts of the capital, to Kolpino and other places where there are many working, artisan people. This, of course, is much more troublesome, but the seething energy that inspires the preachers overcomes everything. Every day at the station of the Nikolaev railway you can see several of these "black ladies" undertaking their saving "pilirinazh" (pelerinage (fr.) - pilgrimage, wandering), in order to convince the Russian workers of the truth treacherously hidden from them, that they are "saved ” and in order to assimilate this salvation, they need nothing more than “believing in it.” (...) In addition to the workers of Kolpino, they also rescue the workers of Kumberg and planned to rescue the dense artisan population of the Sestroretsk arms factory. (…)
All this is funny to some, not funny to some, but nevertheless worthy of attention and interesting. As a matter of fact, in our not only practical, but even greedy and greedy time, such a disinterested religious impulse arises and, moreover, the impulse is steadfast and does not cool in the least. The preachers from the orphanages will survive - they penetrate the factories and workshops, they will force them out of there - they appear in baths and prisons; there they will be escorted out, they open their apartments for each of them. In this, they are finally constrained, they rushed out of town like spring swallows, through villages and suburbs ... (...) Even keeping up with them, apparently, is not easy, they flutter so quickly here and there, and everyone everywhere sings their poems, and " proclaim salvation ”... In this way, they will disturb all the Russian clergy to such an extent that they will actually decide to establish in all the churches not only one divine service, but also a school, which has long been so in vain (outdated - in vain) the people thirst, running away to all sorts of "educational" sects, where there is "intellectual understanding". No matter how these religious swallows really brought with them at least some semblance of spring. And then it will probably have to be said about them that they didn’t do anything ... (...) ”(New time, No. 1478, 04/09/1880, p. 2-3).
The writer writes about the evangelizing ladies, these "spring swallows", with obvious sympathy, although not without irony. Lesk's lines recreate living picture past, visibly transporting us to the 19th century.
And thanks to his publications, the "blank spots" of our history are gradually being erased. So, in the book of the Orthodox author Terletsky "The Sect of Pashkovites" (1891), one can read that since 1880 Pashkov did not live so freely in St. supervision. Terletsky does not indicate the names of the suburbs, and from Leskov's note we learn that the gospel was then begun in Kolpino and Sestroretsk. By the way, the famous Leskovsky "Lefty" (1881) was written under the impression of visiting the Sestroretsk arms factory, and the writer received the impetus for that trip through his interest in the activities of the Pashkovites.
Collision between Leskov and Pashkov
In the 1880s, Leskov gradually moved away from the Pashkovites. He never accepted the biblical doctrine of the atonement for sin by the blood of Jesus Christ. He did not agree that nothing else is needed for salvation, but to accept this gift by faith and out of love for Christ to please Him, doing His will and doing good deeds (Faresov, Mental Breaks, p. 794). However, a long association with the Redstockists had an effect on him. In his literary works, critics began to detect "the influence of the Protestant spirit" (Ibid., p. 800).
In 1884, Leskov collided with Pashkov under the following circumstances. In the journal Grazhdanin, Prince Meshchersky accused the Pashkovites of spreading Stundism and leading the peasants away from the Orthodox Church (Grazhdanin, No. 36, 2.09.1884, p. 23).
Having entered into a controversy with Meshchersky, Leskov wrote an article "Princely slander". However, what he conceived as a defense of the Pashkovites, in fact, turned into their criticism. Leskov called them a "nebulous mystical society" that is supported by Pashkov himself and his money, and that their doctrine of justification by faith would not bring positive results in Russia.
Leskov's ambiguity caused a controversial reaction. Most of the newspapers took his reply to Meshchersky as a passionate defense of the Pashkovites. However, Pashkov himself was outraged by many of Leskov’s statements, and from abroad, where he was in exile, he responded to the writer’s criticism with a well-reasoned letter, in which there were such words: “I am inexpressibly sorry that you, whose heart once responded to everything true and good, now you are mocking (...) what you taught, on behalf of Christ the Son of God, His apostles” (Faresov, Mental fractures, p. 795-796).
Surprised by this interpretation of his words, Leskov replied to Pashkov that his goal was to tell the truth, and not to offend. But the conciliatory words of the writer acquired an accusatory tone at the end of the letter. He warned against any group of people claiming to have found the only Right way to salvation (Heyer, 83-84).
After 1884, Leskov ceased to conduct an active dialogue with the Pashkovites, his publications about them in the press became episodic. There are several reasons: the Redstockists closest to him (Yu.D. Zasetskaya, M.G. Peiker) have passed away; after the expulsion of Pashkov and Korf, the activities of the Evangelical believers took on a conspiratorial non-public character; finally, the state increased spiritual censorship. It became difficult for the writer to write about the Pashkovites in the new conditions.
The last years of Leskov's life
However, reflections on the "Pashkov faith" do not leave him until the end of his life. IN notebook, begun in 1893, he writes: “Everything is good in the Pashkov faith, only for which goose fat is put into lamps” (Unpublished Leskov, v. 2, p. 589). A year later, again in the notebook, similar words: “In Pashkovsky’s agreement, goose fat is put into lamps” (ibid., p. 590). What obsessive thought did not let the writer go? Literary scholars have left these statements without comment, but we must try to understand them.
It is known that in the last years of his life Leskov sharply criticized Orthodoxy. In a letter to A.S. Suvorin on March 9, 1888, defending the persecuted Stundists, he wrote, becoming in clear opposition to the views of Dostoevsky:
“The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to believe in the Orthodox way if the person is not a fool; but according to the Stundists, i.e., according to the gospel, you can believe. (...) Worst of all is the trick that invented that "the Russian nation is bound by Orthodoxy", and that "non-Orthodox cannot be Russian." From here, it seems to me, there is irritation against good, sincere Russian people who are not able to distort the faith ... (...) Do not attack the Stunda: this is the work of God and the Holy Spirit is with them - “do not quench the spirit” (...) (63 letters from N.S. Leskov, p.454).
Back in 1883, Leskov wrote that of the Redstockists, only Zasetskaya had the sincerity and courage to publicly admit that she did not like Orthodoxy, that she had left it and converted to Protestantism. For the same reason, she bequeathed not to transport her body to Russia, so that she would not be buried as Orthodox. The rest of the Redstockists are cunning, Leskov believed, participating in Orthodox confession and communion, although with their views on Orthodox sacraments, rites and the priesthood, one cannot come to the Orthodox chalice and say “I believe and confess” ... (Leskov N.S. Religious registry, with .2).
Obviously, until the end of his life, Leskov sympathized with both the capital's Pashkovites and the Stundists of Little Russia, placing their piety above the Orthodox. For him, the moral, practical side of faith was most important, and therefore he reproached the Pashkovites precisely for their incomplete break with Orthodoxy. The aforementioned lampada, lit in front of the icons, can speak in favor of such an explanation. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that the Pashkovites, as you know, did not keep icons and lamps in the house. Therefore, Leskov's words, if our assumption is correct, must be understood not literally, but figuratively.
According to the Orthodox author M.M. Dunaev, Leskov, although he did not join Redstock Protestantism, was close to it in spirit (Dunaev, pp. 425, 459). A similar thought was expressed by literary critic Faresov: Leskov “was strongly supported by many people against Redstock. (...) The more, however, Leskov fought with the Redstockists (...), the clearer his enemies became to him, and much in them ceased to repel him ”(Faresov A. Mental fractures, p. 799).
So, the internal forces of attraction and repulsion experienced by the writer in relation to the Pashkovites explain the bifurcation and inconsistency of Leskov's judgments about their faith throughout his life. What, nevertheless, repelled the writer from the evangelical believers, with whom he sympathized in many ways?
In the second half of the 1880s, Leskov became close to Leo Tolstoy. Two years before his death (January 4, 1893), being seriously ill, he wrote a letter of confession to Tolstoy, in which his former relations with the Redstockists are also mentioned:
“Dear Lev Nikolaevich! (...) You know what good you did me: from an early age of my life I had an attraction to questions of faith, and I began to write about religious people when it was considered obscene and impossible ("Soboryane", "The Sealed Angel", " Odnodum" and "Trifles of Bishop's Life", etc.), but I kept getting confused and contented myself with "cleaning up the rubbish at the sanctuary", but I did not know what to go to the sanctuary with. I was pressured by churchmen and Redstock (Zasetskaya, Pashkov and Al. P. Bobrinsky), but this only made me feel worse: I myself approached what I saw from you, but with myself I was still afraid that this was a mistake, because although the same thing shone in my mind that I learned from you, everything was in chaos with me - vague and unclear, and I did not rely on myself; and when I heard your explanations, logical and strong, I understood everything, as if “remembering”, and I no longer needed my own, but I began to live in the light that I saw from you and which was more pleasant to me, because it is incomparably stronger and brighter than the one in which I delved with my own strength. From now on, you have a meaning for me that cannot pass, because with it I hope to pass into another existence, and therefore there is no one else, except for you, who would be dear and memorable to me, like you. I think that you feel that I am telling the truth ”(Leskov N.S. Sobr. soch, vol. 3, 1993, p. 371).
So, Leskov ends his life as a follower of Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoyanism as ethical doctrine was a prisoner of the philosophy of rationalism that prevailed in the 19th century. Tolstoy raised the human mind above Scripture, redrawn the Gospel in his own way, which led to his denial of the divine nature of Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world. Between Tolstoyism, which retained only the moral teaching of Christ, and the true Gospel of grace, an unbridgeable abyss lay, which did not allow either Tolstoy or Leskov to join the evangelical believers, despite mutual human sympathies and many years of communication between both writers with them.
conclusions
1) Despite the prevailing spirit of criticism, numerous writers and journalists with their publications aroused interest in the figure of Redstock, making him known in wide Petersburg circles. According to Leskov, the magazine "Grazhdanin" "dedicated so much attention to Redstock that the importance of this person immediately rose" (Leskov N.S. Velikosvetsky split, St. Petersburg, 1877, p.3). As a result, new authors were added to the coverage of the topic, the range of newspapers and magazines expanded, which contributed to the fame of the English preacher and the growth of revival.
2) In our opinion, God used the talents of Dostoevsky and Leskov, making them a kind of "Nestor-chroniclers" of the St. Petersburg awakening. Today, the articles written by them (especially numerous by Leskov), along with archival documents, serve as a rich storehouse of primary material. The study of this heritage will help in restoring a more complete and detailed historical picture of the revival.
From the results already obtained, I would like to emphasize that Dostoevsky's publications as editor-publisher of the magazine "Grazhdanin" helped to clarify the time of the beginning of the awakening. It can be considered established that Redstock arrived in St. Petersburg no later than the first week of Great Lent (February 10-17, 1874) (Grazhdanin, No. 8, 25.02.1874, p. 218).
3) At present, the works of literary scholars who are engaged in a comprehensive study of the life and work of classical writers, including their attitude to the evangelical awakening and to its individual representatives (Redstock, Pashkov, Zasetskaya, Peiker, etc.) ). In this regard, the studies of Faresov, Dunaev, Mayorova, Ipatova, Ilyinskaya and others are very useful.
As an example, we can mention the informative article by O.E. Maiorova "Leskov in the Suvorin "New Time" (1876-1880)", which is a valuable contribution to the historiography of the awakening and contains numerous references to little-known primary sources (Unpublished Leskov, v. 2, p. 161-185). This article helped to establish that the persecution of the Pashkovites in the capital in 1880 contributed to the beginning of the gospel in Kolpino and Sestroretsk, which is a valuable historical fact for the modern evangelical churches of these satellite cities of St. Petersburg.
4) The personal relations of Leskov and Dostoevsky with the Pashkovites, the mutual influence of their worldviews and talents, are of independent interest and require separate study. As has been shown, Leskov's work cannot be properly understood without taking into account his long-term relationship with the Pashkovites.
5) The dialogue that the participants of the St. Petersburg awakening (Redstock, Zasetskaya, Pashkov, Peiker) had with our classics (Leskov, Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy) demonstrates the deep rootedness of evangelical Christians (Pashkovites) in Russian history and culture. Knowing the interest in Russian society to the topic of the life and work of our literary geniuses, further study and popularization of the proposed topic may be of wide public interest, far beyond the scope of purely confessional history.
References
Citizen, No. 8, 02/25/1874; No. 9, 03/04/1874.
Citizen, Nos. 17-29, 31-43, 1875.
Citizen, No. 36, 2.09.1884.
Dostoevskaya, A. G. Memoirs, 1987.
Dostoevsky, F.M. Writer's diary, St. Petersburg, 1999.
Dostoevsky, F.M. PSS in 30 volumes, L., 1990.
Dunaev, M.M. Orthodoxy and Russian literature. Part IV. M., 1998.
Ilinskaya, T.B. Russian diversity in the work of N.S. Leskov, St. Petersburg, Publishing House of the Nevsky Institute of Language and Culture, 2010.
Ipatova, S.A. Dostoevsky, Leskov and Y.D. Zasetskaya: a dispute about redstockism: (Letters of Y.D. Zasetskaya to Dostoevsky) // Dostoevsky: Materials and Research, St. Petersburg, 2001. - T. 16. - P. 409-436.
Kolesova, O.S. Sow reasonable, kind, eternal, St. Petersburg, 2003.
Leskov, A. Life of Nikolai Leskov, M., 1954.
Leskov, N.S. Velikosvetsky schism, St. Petersburg, 1877.
Leskov, N.S. Religious registration//News and exchange newspaper, 1st ed., 1883, No. 65, June 7.
Leskov, N.S. Mirror of Life (incl. Great Society Schism), St. Petersburg, 1999.
Leskov N.S. Collection of paternal opinions on the importance of Holy Scripture, St. Petersburg, 1881.
Leskov N.S. New Testament Jews//Nov, No. 1, 11/1/1884.
Leskov N.S. Sentimental piety//Orthodox Review, March 1876, pp.526-551.
Leskov, N.S. Collected works in 11 volumes, M., 1956-1958.
Leskov, N.S. Collected works in 6 volumes, M., 1993.
Leskov N.S. Miracles and signs//Church-public bulletin, No. 28, 03/05/1878, p.3-6.
Leskov N.S. Miracles and signs//Church-public bulletin, No. 40, 04/02/1878, p.3-5.
Chronicle of the life and work of F. M. Dostoevsky, v. 2, St. Petersburg, 1999.
Mayorova O.E. Leskov in the Suvorin "New Time" (1876-1880) // Unpublished Leskov, M., 2000, pp. 161-185. - (Literary heritage, vol. 101, book 2).
New time, No. 1478, 04/09/1880; No. 1510, 05/13/1880.
New time, No. 1798, 03/01/1881.
Russian World, No. 70, 03/14/1874.
Terletsky G. Sect of the Pashkovites, St. Petersburg, 1891.
Tikhomirov, B. N. With Dostoevsky along Nevsky Prospekt, St. Petersburg, 2012.
Faresov, A. Materials for the characterization of N.S. Leskov // Picturesque Review, April 1900, Volume II, pp. 30-58.
Faresov, A. Mental fractures in the activities of N.S. Leskov // Historical Bulletin, 1916, March, pp. 786-819.
Heyer, Edmund. Religious split among Russian aristocrats in 1860-1900, M., 2002.
Shlyapkin I.A. To the biography of N.S. Leskov // Russian antiquity, 1895, No. 12, pp. 205-215.
From the collection: Materials of scientific and historical conferences "The Phenomer of Russian Protestantism" (St. Petersburg: Gamma, 2016)
Maya Kucherskaya is a writer, literary critic and literary critic, literary columnist for the Vedomosti newspaper. Candidate of Philological Sciences (Moscow State University, 1997), Ph.D. (UCLA, 1999). Associate Professor, Deputy Head of the Department of Literature, State University Higher School of Economics. Laureate Bunin Prize(2006), Student Booker (2007).
Thank you for coming on this rainy evening to think about Leskov together. The fact is that I have been studying Leskov for many years, but I have never considered him specifically from this position. Today's lecture I would rather call "Leskov and Christianity" than "Christianity in Leskov's work." Probably, the corrected name should sound like this - "Leskov and Christianity."
Since I am a philologist (besides everything else that I do in life), the most interesting thing about Leskov for me is his texts, and only secondarily his views. This, of course, is connected one with the other, but I analyze the texts more, I look at what happens in them, I just don’t know how to do anything else. We were taught this at the Faculty of Philology, and this is what I do.
For me, this topic is a challenge, a shake-up. A very useful shake-up, because the results that I came to after my superficial reflections on Leskov and Christianity are very similar to what I came to when analyzing his texts in terms of their structure, images, language, and other things.
What I would like to dedicate our meeting today is the question of what is the essence of Leskov's sermon. Today we will not talk about what is not in this sermon, although I know that there is always a considerable number of interested readers who are interested in looking at the writer from a Christian point of view, from an Orthodox point of view.
For those who care about this aspect in Leskov, I refer them to Mikhail Dunaev's wonderful study "Orthodoxy and Literature", there is a large chapter devoted to Leskov. This chapter is a critique of Leskov's worldview and Leskov's prose from the point of view of orthodox Orthodox Christianity. It's a pretty convincing critique, but it's a job I just can't do because I have a different toolkit.
It has always been important for me what they want to say to me, I want to hear what the writer wants to tell me. There will be no criticism of Leskov from the standpoint of correct Orthodox Christianity today. In addition, this is also due to the fact that I am by no means a religious scholar, not a theologian, I do not know what the correct Orthodox Christianity is, and I do not dare to set foot there.
In general, Leskov was not very lucky. At first he was a marginal, he became one already during his lifetime, and they looked at him with a squint and talked about him through his teeth, starting in the early 1860s, almost immediately after he entered the literary field, because he unsuccessfully acted with two articles about fires and he was accused of political denunciation. It was not a denunciation, it was such an innocence of a beginner, he did not know how to write in newspapers.
He, an aspiring writer, came from Kiev, and when a series of fires broke out in St. Petersburg in the summer of 1862, he wrote several articles in the Northern Bee, the essence of which was that he urged the police to find out who set these arson, who is to blame for this, are the students really to blame for this, as rumors say about it. In this way, he legalized the rumors, named the possible perpetrators, and called on the police to investigate. All radical youth and writers turned away from him, because he was not his own.
He was offended, went to Paris, wrote the anti-nihilistic novel "Nowhere" - and off we go. He forever remained a marginal in the literary environment, he forever became not his own for those who were then trendsetters. From this there was a rather unfortunate consequence, that in Soviet time they also didn’t pay much attention to him, because he was “not his own” to those who, for Soviet power became her own, whom she considered a radical. He criticized Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, and this could not please the Soviet publishers.
His religious views were not studied at all, it was a completely taboo topic. The only thing you could look at in Leskov was the language, the style, the tale. There was a good justification for this position: from this position one could see in him a people's writer, and if he is a people's writer, then you can talk about him and discuss him. In the field of Leskov and Christianity (in our today's topic), there is almost complete emptiness.
In this void there is one book, one tree grows - this is a wonderful study (it was published quite recently) by Tatyana Ilyinskaya, it is called "Russian Diversity in the Works of Leskov." The book was published in St. Petersburg in 2010, there is a squeeze from it on the Internet. Those who are interested in our today's topic from a research point of view, I refer there, to this book. It says a lot of new things, considering that almost nothing is said about it at all.
I consider our today's meeting as a reading by Nikolai Semenovich, I will read out some important fragments and comment on them a little. That's how we'll spend it, I hope it's a nice time.
Here is the first fragment, this is from Leskov himself, from his autobiographical essay, where he describes a lot of things, talks about his life, in particular about his relationship with religion:
“Religiosity has been in me since childhood, and, moreover, quite happy, that is, such that early on I began to reconcile faith with reason in me. I think I owe a lot to my father here too. Mother was also religious, but in a purely ecclesiastical way - she read akathists at home and served prayer services every first day and observed what consequences this had in the circumstances of life.
I think that here you hear the irony of Leskov, but then it will disappear:
“Father did not prevent her from believing as she wanted, but he himself rarely went to church and did not perform any rituals, except for confession and Holy Communion, which, however, I knew what he thought. It seems that he "did this in his (Christ's) remembrance." He was impatient with all other rites and, dying, bequeathed "not to serve memorial services for him." In general, he did not believe in the advocacy of either the living or the dead, and, if his mother wanted to go to worship miraculous icons and relics, he treated all this with disdain. He did not like miracles and considered talking about them empty and harmful, but for a long time he prayed at night in front of the Greek letter with the icon of the Savior Not Made by Hands and, walking, he loved to sing: “Help and patron” and “Wave of the sea”. He was undoubtedly a believer and a Christian, but if he were taken to be examined according to the catechism of Filaret, then it would hardly be possible to recognize him as Orthodox, and I think he would not be afraid of this and would not dispute it.
How much the father had a huge influence on Leskov's views, we will be able to see today as we talk, because this, also not the most quoted fragment, reveals quite a lot in Leskov, and not only in his father. This is the first fragment, we will return to the father and this topic, and here is the second fragment.
Leskov is already an adult, he is already remembered as a famous writer. These are the memoirs of the writer Pilsky, who later emigrated, to whom another writer and critic Izmailov wrote, who wrote about Leskov, who wrote a long book, but did not finish it.
“Izmailov visited the already very elderly Leskov and told the following. On the table he had a beautiful cross on ivory, of wonderful work, taken from Jerusalem, which caused an involuntary sigh of admiration. Once, in a moment of frankness, Leskov, jokingly, drew Izmailov's attention to the round glass made in the cross, and bringing the cross closer to his poorly sighted eyes, Izmailov was dumbfounded - there, behind the glass, a completely indecent picture was inserted.
The memoirist continues and tells another story from the words of Izmailov:
“Once, going to Leskov by chance, Izmailov quietly crossed the threshold of the office and saw the owner in an unexpected position - Leskov was on his knees and bowed. Izmailov coughed cautiously. Leskov glanced around quickly, fidgeted about the carpet, and began talking quickly in confusion, as if justifying himself: “A button came off, you know, I’m looking for it, I’m looking for it, and I can’t find it in any way,” and for the sake of appearance, he began to rummage around the carpet with his hand, as if there really was something that's what I was looking for."
This scene is described by various memoirists who recall Leskov, this is already the 80-90s, he is already an elderly man. In my opinion, these two fragments perfectly and accurately indicate the two poles. On the one hand, religiosity and an easy reconciliation of faith and reason, a father who, perhaps, is not very churchly, but sings “Help and Patron” and takes communion. On the other hand, a very strange cross, skepticism and denial, but still a prayer on one's knees in front of the icons. We will designate these two poles and we will move between them. Now let's turn to the figure of the father again.
The Leskov family experienced a terrible drama. As you know, Leskov's grandfather was a priest, his name was Father Dmitry, he served in the village of Leski, this is the Bryansk district. The village was rather poor, father Dmitry had three children, one of them was Leskov's father, another son and another daughter. As expected, the boys went to the seminary, they successfully graduated from it ... One graduated, and the other did not. One brother was killed in a brawl, because morals in the seminary were tough, there was the right of the kulak - whoever is the strongest is the most successful.
When Semyon Dmitrievich, already the only son of Father Dmitry, returned home from the seminary, the first thing he told his father was that he would not become a priest. According to Leskov: "Father refused to go to the priests because of the inevitable aversion to dirt." What terrible words! Where did he manage to grow this disgust in himself? One can imagine that when your brother is killed, perhaps in front of your eyes, it is not very pleasant, but that is not the point. In general, everything that we read about the seminary of those years ... This is the beginning of the 19th century, the 1810s, there are many memoirs of seminarians left (not only “Essays on the Bursa” by Pomyalovsky, but also others).
It is impossible to read these memoirs without horror and tears, because everyone describes - guess what? What is everyone describing? How they were beaten, of course. The main event of the seminarian is the rod. They beat them all the time, they always beat them, for faults and not for faults, especially sophisticated teachers demanded that the elders beat the younger ones, and so on. They studied in this nightmare, morals were cruel. Judging by the intonation of these memories, it was impossible to get used to it.
This nightmare continued even into adulthood, through high school, until it finally ended. What kind of Christian love can be discussed here, what kind of Christianity in practice? About none. However, in fairness, I know one exception. I read a lot of these memoirs, I was wondering who the classmates of Father Leskov Semyon Dmitrievich were, and I found one famous one. This is his namesake Semyon Raich, he changed his surname and became Amfiteatrov, and his brother Filaret was Amfiteatrov (Leskov's hero, by the way, is a goodie).
Semyon Raich was a poet at heart, and he warmly recalled the same Sevsk Seminary where Semyon also studied. Warmly, he recalled, first of all, the lessons of the Latin language, there were good teachers. And we also know about Semyon Dmitrievich that he loved Latin all his life, he translated Horace into Russian, this served as a consolation for him in hard days. There were good teachers in the seminaries, but the general atmosphere was not for tender souls.
In a word, Semyon Dmitrievich refused to go to the priesthood. Why was it a disaster and not the death of a brother? Because the parish was passed down from generation to generation, because it was extremely difficult to leave the priesthood, it required justifications, it was a complicated procedure. Needed where was born. It was not customary to go out.
This happened from time to time. The same Raich did not become a priest, but for other reasons: he loved literature too much, he loved poetry too much, he wanted to do it. It was extremely difficult for him to leave the estate, we know how many procedures he went through, including he had to resort to deceit and say that he was sick, otherwise they would not have let him go. In a word, the parish is left without an heir, the father is left without a son-priest.
Father Dmitry was a hot man. According to the memoirs, he immediately kicked out his son. He did not even have time to spend the night, exhale after the seminary grubs. According to family tradition, he left with forty kopecks of copper, which his mother managed to slip to him at the gate. He did not disappear, because the sciences were driven hard into seminarians. He had a fairly wide knowledge in various fields. Of course, he knew ancient languages, of course, he knew history, a bit of literature. And, of course, he could become who? A teacher, a tutor, which he became. Then he became an official and so on. This seminary teaching, apparently, has never been forgotten.
This dislike for priests, about which Leskov writes, apparently also remained with him forever. At the same time, this was a dislike for priests in the plural. Among Semyon Dmitrievich's friends was Evfimy Ostromyslensky. This is the priest who taught the Law of God to Leskov himself. They were friends. That is, when it comes to specific people, then love could appear and return. Such was the father.
Let us now turn to Leskov's childhood, to his youth, and to the topic of disbelief. From the very beginning, Nikolai Semenovich was surrounded by various versions of Christianity, primarily the Old Believers. There were a lot of Old Believers and schismatics around, he himself wrote that “Gostomel farms, where I was born and raised, are surrounded on all sides by large schismatic villages.” And then he recalls how he secretly ran to their secret services, they let him in, but, of course, he hid it from his parents, because it was a terrible secret.
Dissenters are an important part of the life of the entire 19th century, namely in the 1860s, when Leskov took shape as a writer, this topic became one of the most discussed in journalism and journalism. Why? Because the 60s of the 19th century was a time of liberalization, a time of liberation in all areas. In particular, they started talking about the liberation of women, freed the peasants and began to actively discuss the civil rights of the Old Believers, because they were amazed in these rights. In a word, interest in schismatics and Old Believers began very early and accompanied Leskov all his life.
Leskov was interested not only (right away, looking ahead, I will say) to the Old Believers, but also to the most different types offshoots of Christianity. It seems that he was always walking around with a metal detector and looking for a treasure: where is the truth, where is the gold, where is it? He brings the metal detector to the Old Believers: is there one here? There are, of course. Those works that he wrote about the Old Believers betray his great sympathy for the schismatics. Why? This does not mean that he was blind and did not see their limitations, dogmatism, often cruelty towards others (cruel fasts, corporal punishment). All this is described in the Pechersk Antiques, in particular, and not only. I don't even mention the "sealed angel" because it's a well-known classic Leskov about the life of the Old Believer community.
He saw everything, but he also saw in them their incredible sincerity, their uncompromisingness, their desire to live according to the word of God, their zeal, he could not help but appreciate it. In 1863, on behalf of the Minister of Public Education Golovnin, he went to Pskov and Riga, where he studied Old Believer schools. He had to write a note for the ministry about schismatics, about schismatic schools, but in the end...
He compiled notes on the schismatics, they were written, but in the end they turned out to be works much broader than what was required of him. Their essence, if reduced to some concentrate, is that Leskov protests in every possible way against the restriction of the civil rights of schismatics, emphasizes that these are by no means sectarians, but part of our common Christian Russian world, and says that joining Orthodoxy, schismatics must voluntarily, there is no need to force them.
This is what he always insisted on from an early age: no violence in faith, this free choice everyone. In this sense, he also preached an extremely unfashionable position in relation not only to the official Church, which is understandable, but also to radical circles, too, because they preferred to see the opposition of the authorities in the Old Believers, it was pleasant for them in them. Leskov stressed in every possible way that they were loyal to the authorities, and even more so, they should be treated mercifully.
If this is a delusion, then they must be given the opportunity to live and experience it on their own. In my opinion, the scene in Pechersk Antiques very expressively illustrates Leskov's attitude to the Old Believers. There is an episode of the arrival of the sovereign in Kyiv. Kyiv was also a very diverse and diverse city, including the Old Believers.
This is how Leskov describes the elder Malachi, who was waiting for the sovereign to climb the newly built bridge (he came for this bridge in many ways, it was huge and an important event in the life of the city), then he will turn to the river, show two fingers and say that this is what true confession should be. At the same time, Elder Malachi was sure that this was not a fantasy, but the truth. Here's what happened out of it all. First, Leskov describes how he was dressed:
“He was dressed in a pious ancestral custom, in a blue wide cloth chuyka, sewn just like an old robe and trimmed along the sleeves, along the collar and along the right field with some kind of crappy crawly fur. Shoes also answered the clothes: on the feet of the old man were red boots with a soft goat's boot, and in his hands a long painted crutch; but what was planted on his head, you really can’t even describe it. It was a hat, but who made it and where it could have been obtained in our century, no experienced person could determine. The historical completeness of the information requires, however, to say that this thing was obtained by the admirers of the elder Malachi in Kiev, and before that it was kept in the caches of Kozlovsky's store, where it was accidentally found by his clerk.
Skripchenko when transporting fashion rarities from Pechersk to Khreshchatyk. The hat was a tall plush top hat, with the boldest interception in the middle and with wide, completely even brim, without the slightest bend either on the sides, or behind, or in front. She sat on her head like a rampage, as if she didn't want to have anything to do with anything.
When the sovereign appears on the bridge and suddenly stops in the middle, the elder falls into a frenzy, falls to his knees.
“He was literally beside himself: “the fire burned in his eyes, and the hair on him was seen as bristles.” His right hand, with a tightly clenched two-fingered cross, was directly raised above his head, and he shouted (yes, he did not speak, but with all his might, shouted loudly):
- Yes, father, yes! Here it is, dear, do it! Fold, as it should, two fingers! Give the whole earth one heavenly confession.
And at that time, as he shouted, hot tears poured in abundant streams down his cheeks covered with gray moss and hid in his beard ... The old man’s excitement was so strong that he could not stand on his feet, his voice broke off, he staggered and collapsed on his face and froze ... One might think that he even died, but his right hand prevented it, which he nevertheless straightened, raised up and waved it to the sovereign with a two-fingered addition ... The poor man, obviously, was afraid that the sovereign would not make a mistake, as it should be shown " heavenly confession.
I can't express how touching it was! In all my life after that, I have not seen a serious and strong-willed person in a situation more tragic, enthusiastic and at the same time pathetic.
This picture perfectly illustrates Leskov's attitude to the Old Believers. A serious, strong-willed person, but tragic and pitiful. Leskov was occupied not only by the Old Believers, he was also interested in eunuchs and Molokans, but he had a special sympathy for the Stundists (this is such a Protestant branch that arose in the south of Russia, mainly in Little Russia). Its origin is not entirely clear.
The name "stundism" is associated with the German root "stunde", which means not just "hour", but also "hour of prayer". The Stundists were Protestants, they did not recognize the priesthood, they did not recognize the sacraments in our understanding, but they had two important values.
First - the Bible, they read it constantly, studied it, regardless of class. Secondly, they preached practical Christianity. They believed that the main thing was to live the gospel and do Christian deeds. Both were very close to Leskov. Both he considered worthy of emulation. Both of them were very much lacking in Orthodoxy. He dedicated many of his journalistic works to the Stundists, where he also expressed all respect for them without any fear.
Stundism is a theme that appears in a wide variety of his stories. Here is "The Unbaptized Pop", also a very revealing story for Leskov. It turns out that it is not at all necessary to be baptized in order to become a priest, this is not the main thing. True, then his hero was nevertheless recognized as baptized, if you remember from the plot. Leskov does not insist that this sacrament happened, it did not interfere with anything, his hero became one of the best and most beloved shepherds of his flock.
Completing this circle of walking along different faiths together with Leskov, we will also touch on Tolstoyism. Tolstoy Leskov was fascinated beyond measure. It was already in later years. After Leskov read the key works of the late Tolstoy, where he tells what his faith is, Leskov seems to have simply fallen in love with Tolstoy. Everything that Tolstoy said was close to him. He insisted on a meeting, they met, and it was a pretty successful meeting, apparently. Why? Because Tolstoy later wrote about him that he was very clever man. Leskov could not stop in this love of his, he showered Tolstoy with letters of infinite length.
Leskov wrote dozens of letters to Tolstoy, and Tolstoy wrote him six. Some of them are very short. In a word, it was not that there was no reciprocity, but, of course, Nikolai Semenovich looked up at Lev Nikolaevich, although, loving him, sharing his views on the Church in many respects, he did not like the Tolstoyans. The further, the more. At the very end of his life he said: “I love Leo Tolstoy, but there are no Tolstoyans”.
One can imagine how he was annoyed by the treatment, important for the Tolstoyans and for their life practices, when they went and did carpentry, trying to get closer to the people. Leskov perceived this as a masquerade, called them mummers. He knew the people too much from the inside, unlike even Lev Nikolayevich. Leskov belonged to completely different circles, and he saw falsehood in this. He did not like Tolstovtsev, but nevertheless he maintained the most respectful relations with Tolstoy until the end of his life.
With this, we conclude this part, from which we can conclude that Leskov was looking for the truth everywhere. I searched in different directions, and yet the most persistent and longest of all in Orthodoxy. That's what we'll talk about. Of course, today I will not have time and will not be able to tell about all his stories and novels, where this topic is present in one way or another. I will focus on the most important ones.
Here we cannot ignore the novel "Cathedrals" - the only novel in Russian literature, where the main characters are priests, we do not know other such novels, only Nikolai Semenovich gave us this. There is, of course, The Brothers Karamazov, where the elder Zosima appears.
There is "The Story of Father Alexei" by Turgenev. But the novel, in the center of which is Archpriest Savely Tuberozov, the quiet, meek priest Zakharia Benefaktov, and the deacon Achilla Desnitsyn, is one such novel. He is unique. Leskov endlessly rewrote it. Many drafts have survived. The first edition of the novel was called "The Chasing Movements of the Water".
The publication was suspended by Leskov - he could not endure the cuts that Kraevsky made in the novel in " Domestic notes", cut off the post. Soon it was resumed in another magazine - "Literary Library", already under the name "Soboryane", and again broke off, the magazine was closed. Finally, the novel was finished and released. It is very difficult to read.
I know that he has a certain circle of admirers, but no one can not admit to himself that this is a difficult read. There's no storyline, no such bright and interesting adventures to follow that would keep our attention. This is a novel to which Leskov gave the subtitle "Romanic Chronicle". Here, therefore, as if there are no pronounced plots, climaxes and denouements, that is, they are all the same, but they must be felt and you see them not from the first reading.
This novel is Leskov's gift to us. First, the clergy are brought out here. Secondly, Leskov did not just describe two priests and one deacon: he was able to catch the types. This is an incredibly difficult thing. I am often asked at various reader meetings: “Who is the hero of our time now? Is there a hero of our time? Good question.
I come up with different answers, I came up with one just yesterday. We do not have Lermontov to see the hero of our time. To see the hero of our time, you need to have a very high degree of vigilance and sensitivity to history, to the present day, to trends. It was possessed not only by Lermontov, it was possessed, for example, by Turgenev. Then it is possible - in this crowd of contemporaries to see someone who can become a representative of the time, and see him as a representative of a whole generation and thus immediately describe the type.
Leskov also did the impossible: he described several types of priests. His Savely Tuberozov is the type of ardent priest who burns. His closest relative in literature is Archpriest Avvakum, speaking of the Old Believers. Much has been written wonderful work(in particular, Olga Mayorova), which show that Leskov used the life of Archpriest Avvakum when he composed this novel, that is, he sculpted his character in many respects from Avvakum. This time.
Two - the bogatyr deacon Achilles, he is a little bit not an intellectual, frankly speaking, not too much, maybe well-read and smart, but he has a very kind heart, he is sure that many problems can be solved with the help of simple physical forces. His life is disappointing. The third is Zakharia Benefaktov, a meek and quiet priest who accepts Savely's last confession.
Each of them is a type. The fact that Leskov was able to describe them speaks of his writing depth and maturity. What is the Cathedral about? Of course, I will not retell the (however, missing) plot of this book. The critic Volynsky wrote wonderfully about Soboryan. So wonderful that I'll read his opinion on it.
“Leskov mysteriously diverts the attention of readers from the details to something lofty and important. Not for a moment do we cease to follow the development of one great, supersensible truth, which somehow invisibly approaches us and inaudibly takes possession of the soul.
You know, you can't say better about this novel, because the invisible and inaudible truth of this work is the main thing in it. Savely Tuberozov is looking for where this truth is hidden. Leskov very tenderly described Mother Tuberozov, this is such an ideal patriarchal couple, they have no children, and this is the subject of his grief and sorrow.
But the main thing for him is not this, but the stagnation that surrounds him: everything has become dead. Nobody likes the movement of water, that's the point. In the end, having gone a very long way, Savely Tuberozov delivers a sermon, which becomes the beginning of his end. He delivers a sermon in the church, which even Leskov does not give us the opportunity to hear, we only read the summary of this sermon.
How Savely pronounced it - we do not know. What is this sermon about? Its fragments are scattered throughout Saveliy's various diary entries, and therefore I will not quote only the sermon, I will quote some of it. diary entries. Here is one part of which has become very famous and is quoted all the time. He writes in his diary:
“He founded his house and was engaged in reading the fathers of the church and historians. I drew two conclusions, and I want to recognize both as erroneous. The first of them is that Christianity has not yet been preached in Rus'; and second, that events repeat themselves and can be predicted. I once spoke about the first conclusion with my rather intelligent colleague, Father Nikolai, and was surprised how he heeded this and agreed. “Yes,” he said, “it is certain that we are baptized into Christ, but we are not yet clothed in Christ.” So, I’m not the only one who sees this, and others see it, but why is it funny to all of them, and my womb is indignant at this to the blood.
This is his main pain, and the sermon with which he goes out to his flock is about this, about the fact that everyone has become deaf, blind and does not want to put on Christ, but only formally baptized. Another aspect of this sermon is this. Savely Tuberozov falls into a thunderstorm - this is one of the most striking scenes of the novel. The storm threatens him with death, he survives when the storm ends, but he sees that the tree that stood next to him is cut down, as if on the vine, and it crushed the raven. The raven wanted to hide in the branches of the tree, but died. Savely Tuberozov writes:
“How instructive this raven is to me. Is there salvation where we drink it, is there salvation where we fear it?
This is where his mind is heading. Are we looking in the right direction? In the sermon, speaking of this, he also says the following:
“Following His divine example, I rebuke and condemn this trade in conscience that I see before me in the Temple. The Church is opposed to this mercenary prayer.”
Thus, what is Savely protesting with his author? Against the humiliation of the clergy, against the indifference and ignorance of the flock, against the weakening of the connection between the pastor and the flock, against church lies. All this is the invention of Nikolai Semenovich. All this was actively discussed then, in the 1860s, in church journalism. The researchers even looked at the manuscripts and saw that some newspaper clippings were glued to Leskov's manuscripts, this is what fed him and why he was so sick. Savely's last words:
"... they are here ... God's living cause is ruining ...".
He dies for absolutely nothing, only at the last second forgiveness is brought to him and he can be buried in vestments, because for his bold sermon he was banned from ministry and died soon after. Here we already see Leskov's gradual departure from the Church, but it will not take place immediately and not soon. In my opinion, the key story for our topic is the story “At the End of the World”.
To be honest, this is one of my favorite lyrics. Let me recap the plot in a nutshell. This story will be at the center of today's conversation, because everything came together in it and in it we hear Leskov's long-suffering position in relation to Christianity, the Gospel, and so on. This is a story about how an Orthodox bishop went as a missionary to the Russian north and wanted to convert as many savages as possible to Orthodoxy. It all ended with one of these savages teaching him such a lesson, from which he concluded that, it turns out, the light of Christ shines not only in Christians and it is not necessarily hidden in baptism, but in this simple savage who saved his life, he is also present.
Leskov proves this idea very beautifully. Actually, the story begins with the conversation of the bishop, who is listened to by several people, they talk about different images of Christ, and this story ends with the following words, this is the very end:
“Evaluate, gentlemen, at least the holy modesty of Orthodoxy and understand that it truly contains the spirit of Christ, if it endures everything that God pleases to endure. Indeed, his humility alone is worthy of praise; and one must marvel at its vitality and glorify God for it.
We all answered without persuasion:
- Amen.
Here, it seems to me, the most important word is “Amen”. Everything that the bishop told about his terrible adventures, in which he almost died, was perceived by the listener as a sermon. Leskov, of course, presents this as a sermon. This, of course, is not only the sermon of the hero of the story, but this is the sermon of Leskov himself.
What does Nikolai Semenovich want to tell us here? The first thing that catches your eye in this story is the huge number of sources to which he refers. I will simply list what he quotes here: the Book of Genesis, the book of Exodus, the books of the Old Testament prophets, the Gospel, the Revelation of John the Theologian, the Acts of the Apostles. Everything is clear here, everything is canon.
Then he turns to the fathers of the Church, to preachers and uses not only the prayer of Cyril of Turov, for example, or the teaching of Cyril of Jerusalem, or Isaac the Syrian, but also refers to Tertullian, a heretic, and to German philosopher and the mysticism of Karl Eckartshausen, and ancient and Buddhist mythology, and folklore. The amount of what he quotes is endless. Behind this, of course, is the ideological picture of the world of Leskov: the last truth, maybe not, everyone can sing it only in chorus.
The most unexpected in this list of sources is the reference to Virgil. It sounds in one of the climactic places of the story. The bishop has already been saved; his savage, with whom they fell into a terrible storm and nearly died, has already brought him food. He looks around and this is what he sees:
“And in this reflection, I did not notice how the sky suddenly flared up, caught fire and doused us with magical light: everything again took on huge, fantastic dimensions, and my sleeping deliverer seemed to me enchanted by a mighty fairy-tale hero. Forgive me, blessed Augustine, but even then I disagreed with you and now I do not agree with you that “the very virtues of the pagans are only hidden vices". No; this one who saved my life did it out of nothing else but virtue, self-sacrificing compassion and nobility; he, not knowing the apostolic covenant of Peter, “could take courage for me (his enemy) and betrayed his soul for doing good.” Abba, father, communicate yourself to the one who loves you, and not to the one who tests you, and be blessed forever, such as you, by your goodness, allowed me, and him, and everyone to comprehend your will in their own way. There is no more confusion in my heart: I believe that you have revealed yourself to him, as much as he needs, and he knows you, like everyone else knows you:
Largior hic campos aether et lumine vestit
Purpureo, solemque suum, sua sidera norunt! -
(The ether here dresses the spaces more magnificently in the decoration of purple light, and the people here will know their sun and their stars! (lat.))
old Virgil prompted my memory - and I bowed at the head of my savage face down, and, kneeling down, blessed him, and, covering his frozen head with my coat, slept next to him as if I were sleeping, embracing with a desert angel ".
There are a lot of interesting things here. Here, it seems, the bishop and Leskov refer to the words of the Apostle Paul from the Acts of the Apostles about the altar. From Virgil he quotes openly. Why is Virgil here? You can understand and imagine this for yourself. Because Virgil has a special place in Christian culture. We know that he wrote the fourth eclogue, which was interpreted by Christian commentators as a prediction of the birth of Christ. This is an eclogue, included in Virgil's large book Bucoliki, which describes the arrival of a divine baby who will bring prosperity to the world.
More skeptical researchers say that this eclogue is dedicated to the birth of an heir in the imperial house and it is impossible to see here the prediction of the coming of Christ. It is interesting that this eclogue was written at the very dawn of a new era.
I won't go into it now, talk about what Virgil really meant, because what matters is his reputation in the culture. It is such that Virgil is a pagan poet who managed to see something that a pagan poet cannot see. Therefore, Dante took him as his guide, and it was Virgil who led Dante through the circles of hell. There was no other companion for the Christian poet Dante.
Just as Virgil came closer to understanding that there is Christ, so the pagan, in Leskov's understanding, can come closer to the knowledge of God. Perhaps this parallel is not accidental. The desert angel shows up here, right? Here, too, this is not some kind of reservation, but a clear projection on the image of John the Baptist, on which John the Baptist is depicted in the form of an angel in animal skins. Again the most unexpected projection, because John the Baptist is projected onto a savage who needs to be baptized.
How is this even possible? This is possible because it happens in Leskov's story. It turns out that in some sense it is the savage who baptizes the bishop, and not vice versa. Probably, I will not dive into other nuances of this wonderful story and will only add one detail. A little earlier, before the scene that I read, there is another one that explains a lot about Leskov's attitude to Christianity and missionary work. This is how the bishop sees his savior. He was already waiting and had already said goodbye to life, and he had already appeared on the horizon:
“I will describe it to you as best I can: a winged giant figure, which was all dressed from head to toe in a chiton of silver brocade and sparkled all over; on his head was a huge, it seemed, almost a fathom height, a headdress that burned, as if it was completely strewn with diamonds, or as if it were a solid diamond miter ... with his fantastic appearance, sparks of silvery dust splash from under the feet of my wondrous guest, over which he seems to be rushing on a light cloud, at least like a fabulous Hermes.
You see everyone is here, right? Both the pagan god Hermes and the Indian idol have gathered here, here the savage looks like a metropolitan in a diamond miter - this is all the meaning of the sermon that Vladyka delivers to his listeners, and Leskov is in front of us. The harmonic world for Leskov of that time, Leskov of the 1870s, is a world containing different cultures, different languages and views. The higher principle that can unite and reconcile all this, regardless of what religion a person professes at the moment and what language he speaks.
Referring to the plot in which different languages and cultures collide, Leskov declares the existence of timeless universal truths, the expression of which requires more means than one language and one culture can provide. It is clear that the story of these truths must inevitably include borrowings from different languages and different cultures. In fact, this story is also about missionary work. Leskov thus also speaks of multilingualism, that the apostle must speak in all languages, depending on who he is now speaking with.
I would like to dwell on this, but I can’t, because then the relationship between Leskov and the Church and Orthodoxy changed ... Still, the story “At the End of the World” clearly does not contradict Orthodoxy, it’s not for nothing that it is sold in church shops, although if you read it carefully ... Then Leskov left farther and farther from the Church, in 1875, two years after the story, he remarkably wrote to his acquaintance in a letter:
“On the other hand, it twitches me now to write a Russian heretic - an intelligent, well-read and free-thinking spiritual Christian who went through all the hesitation in order to seek the truth of Christ and found it only in his soul alone.”
This desire to write a novel about a heretic never came true, but the search for Leskov continued and still continued outside the Church. Where did he go next to seek the truth? He started looking for the person.
The last story today is a story related to the search for the righteous. Of course, he had been looking for them much earlier. The same Savely Tuberozov, all the main characters of "Soboryan" and the heroes of "At the End of the World" are already quite righteous, but somewhere in the 1880s, Leskov realized this as a task - to look for these people and describe them. He himself spoke very funny and very caustically about the circumstances of how this idea came to his mind, in the preface to the collection, which was called “The Three Righteous Ones”, which was published in 1886. He writes in the preface:
“With me, for the forty-eighth time, a great Russian writer died. He still lives as he lived after forty-seven of his previous deaths, observed by other people and in a different environment.
Then he tells about the conversation that took place between him and this writer ( we are talking about Pisemsky, he does not name him). They are talking about the following. The writer says that his play is forbidden, and Leskov explains to him that everyone understands that he here laughed at everyone, ridiculed everyone, what does he want now?
“- Because you, knowing our theatrical practices, described in your play all the titled persons and all of them presented one another worse and vulgar.
- Yes; so that's your consolation. In your opinion, I suppose everyone should write good ones, but I, brother, write what I see, but I see only nasty things.
- You have an eye disease.
“Perhaps,” answered the dying man, completely angry, “but what am I to do when I see nothing but abomination in my soul or in your soul, and for that, the Lord God will help me now from himself turn away to the wall and fall asleep with a clear conscience, and leave tomorrow, despising all my homeland and your consolations.
And the sufferer's prayer was heard: he had a good night's sleep, and the next day I accompanied him to the station; but on the other hand, I myself was seized by a fierce anxiety at his words.
“How,” I thought, “can it really be that neither in my, nor in his, nor in anyone else’s Russian soul can you see anything but rubbish? Is it possible that everything good and good that the artistic eye of other writers has ever noticed is one fiction and nonsense? It's not only sad, it's scary. If, according to popular belief, not a single city stands without three righteous ones, then how can the whole earth stand with one rubbish that lives in my soul and yours, my reader?
It was both terrible and unbearable for me, and I went to look for the righteous, I went with a vow not to rest until I found at least that small number of three righteous, without whom “there is no hail of standing”, but wherever I turned, whoever I asked - that’s it. they answered me in the way that they did not see righteous people, because all people are sinners, and so, both of them knew some good people. I started writing it down. Whether they are righteous, I think to myself, or unrighteous - all this must be collected and then sorted out: what here rises above the line of simple morality and therefore "holy to the Lord."
And here is some of my notes.
Further, the reader experiences some shock, because in this collection of the righteous, Leskov included not only stories that do not raise questions about who the righteous is (for example, “Unmercenary Engineers” is a story about beautiful people, or stories about teachers, teachers, or "Cadet Monastery"), but also "The Enchanted Wanderer" and "Lefty".
If you remember the content of The Enchanted Wanderer, which killed three people, among other things, then the question arises: what kind of righteous man is he? In "Lefty" it is also not clear who is righteous: a left-hander? He's an alcoholic, or at least a drunkard. In general, Leskov's righteous people, as always with Leskov, are very ambiguous.
I have already uttered the word "ambiguity" - this is what Leskov always insists on, including when talking about Christianity, about the righteous, about faith. It is impossible to evaluate phenomena, events, people. It is impossible to evaluate them from one point of view, they must be evaluated from many points of view. His righteous, indeed, - strange people, not necessarily pretty.
As a rule, Leskov again turns out to be very deep in their description. I refer you, for example, to the story "Odnodum", which describes a person who is impeccable, quarterly, he honestly performs his service, he reads the Bible, he knows it by heart. When the governor arrives and it seems to him that the governor has not reverently entered the temple, he bows this governor and urges him to be more humble. The governor later summoned him, talked to him and realized that he was a special person.
However, one of the critics wrote about this hero: "It blows cold from him" - there is truth in this too. This absolutely correct person, of course, does not think too much about those around him, and serves the truth so earnestly that, as a result, again Leskov does not put any accents here. As a result, his mother dies through his fault, because he is a righteous man, because they tell him: “Your mother should not stand in the market and sell pies” - this was her meaning of life, she baked pies and sold them.
At first it was just a way to eat, and then the meaning of life. “Your mother shouldn’t be standing in the bazaar,” we don’t know how it was argued, but he removed her from the bazaar, and she soon died – the meaning of life disappeared. So, the Leskovsky righteous people are also very ambiguous, like everything else with him.
Summing up, I will say one more thing. Being a preacher of love, effective goodness, practical service to people and believing that a true writer was born in order to hasten the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth, Leskov, of course, in many ways followed the path of Gogol, Gogol also always wanted to do so.
For Leskov, in addition to Tolstoy, in later years the experience of Gogol and his "Correspondence with Friends", which Gogol wrote to enlighten Russia, was always important. Leskov had some like-minded people, but his search was still unique. We will not find in anyone else such a zealous desire to portray good man, kind and bright. Prince Myshkin in Dostoevsky, Alyosha Karamazov in Dostoevsky, Platon Karataev in Tolstoy, yes, but this is not recognized as the main task.
Leskov saw this as his goal. He could never Christian theme move away, he never left her. At the end of his life, he continued to write about it. All his stories that he arranged are all about the same thing: it is not necessary to be baptized, it is not necessary to be orthodox, the truth of Christ can shine in any heart and at any moment.
Thus, we have before us a very, I would say, a modern writer-thinker, because he preaches things that sound normal and familiar to our ears today, but then it was not so. Faith in tolerance, in infinite freedom, in the right of everyone to believe as he sees fit. Intolerance to form, the priority of the spirit over the letter and ambiguity.
The meaning of his preaching is that we should doubt all the time, that we should think, believe in Christ and not always believe people, believe the Gospel, and not its interpretations, and ask ourselves the same question as Savely Tuberozov: is there salvation, where is its tea?
Audience questions
– It seems to me that one of your main themes is a protest against formalism in the understanding of faith, against formalism in the Church. I wanted to ask you, do you know modern literature better: is there any contemporary literature someone who also develops this topic, who can also be read?
– I think and I can’t think of anything, because we have very few people who write on the Orthodox topic. Few writers are deeply interested in this. I will not say that we have few believing writers, but writers for whom, as for Leskov, Christianity is air ...
He can be condemned, here Mikhail Dunaev wrote an exposé
wow article. Well, maybe Leskov was wrong about something before Orthodox Christianity but he was so ardently interested in it! Today there are simply no such people, I boldly say: there are none.
We have authors who write on Orthodox topics, but their books are still very cautious, as a rule. Leskov walked fearlessly through the windbreaks, never looking back at anything. Today I do not find anyone who would think freely like this, including about this - about formalism in the Church.
There is a wonderful novel by Evgeny Vodolazkin “Laurus”, this is a story about a saint, published last year, I highly recommend it to everyone. This book is unique. This is a biography of a medieval saint, written in modern language, written completely fearlessly, because plastic bottles from the 21st century sometimes begin to creak under the feet of this saint, but this is not perceived as some kind of dissonance, but is perceived as the fact that there is no time and no will. I would not say that there is a question about form and freedom, it's just the aroma of freedom and that's it. This is a creative illustration of such freedom and a free attitude towards Christianity. This is how I will answer.
– Remember, Leskov has short story"Chertogon"? I didn’t understand: is this a banter or is it a sincere admiration for strong repentance? What is this?
Thank you for reminding me about this story, it's a wonderful story. In my opinion, this is also such (I will take the liberty to say this) self-portrait of Nikolai Semenovich. Now let me remind you of his story. This is a story about how one very wealthy merchant first walks all night in full, and then goes and repents in front of the icon, repents as passionately as he walked.
The narrator is at a loss - both. This is Leskov, he himself was bifurcated all the time. I think what I read at the beginning illustrates this very well. He passionately believed, and lived, and prayed.
I would not say that this is satire, this is a story about a Russian person. What is faith in a Russian person? This is immensity! Broad Russian people. Probably, if in the first place I have the story "At the End of the World", then in the second place I have the story "Chertogon". I love him. It is absolutely ambiguous, again nothing is clear. Is it bad that he walked all night? It's not bad, it's just the way it is!
- Tell us about Leskov's attitude towards John of Kronstadt.
He irritated him, that's all! Not even John of Kronstadt himself, but the atmosphere. Leskov, following his father, treated miracles with great skepticism. It's not that he didn't believe in them at all, but he believed that there were far fewer of them than people would like. The fact that John of Kronstadt should appear and perform a miracle made him angry.
Yes, we meet here interesting case: the non-meeting of two contemporaries - John of Kronstadt and Leskov - and such a deep misunderstanding. Still, it seems that although I avoid saying that Leskov did not understand something there, I have to admit here that he could not see the saint in John of Kronstadt as in a priest.
Dmitry Bryanchaninov is good until he becomes a monk; when he became Ignatius - everything, for Leskov he no longer exists. In "Midnighters" speech goes already about John of Kronstadt, yes, he is there. Not only does the caricature appear in Night Owls, but there is also recognition of some of its merits, but clearly Leskov did not see much in John of Kronstadt.
Thanks a lot! I hope that we did not spend this time together in vain. I wish everyone to read Leskov, all the best!
Maya Kucherskaya. Educational portal "Orthodoxy and the World"
Performed by Evgeny Trubnikov,
student 9 "A" class
Lyceum №369
Scientific director
Epishova Svetlana Fedorovna,
teacher of Russian language and literature
Saint Petersburg 2011
Introduction
1. Russian national character
2. Description of Lefty
3. Russian national character of Lefty, the hero of the tale by N.S. Leskov
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
Mysterious Russian soul... She, the subject of admiration and curses, Sometimes squeezes a man's fist, Crushing concrete obstacles. And then it suddenly becomes thinner than a petal, More transparent than an autumn cobweb. And then it flies, like on the first day of Putin's Desperate mountain river.(E. Dolmatovsky)
There is such a thing as the Russian national character. Times are changing, tsars, leaders, presidents are changing, our country itself is changing, but the features of the Russian national character remain unchanged. Both foreign and Russian thinkers constantly turned to the mystery of the “mysterious Russian soul”, because this topic has always remained and will remain relevant and interesting.
To reveal this topic in my work, I chose the work of N.S. Leskov “Lefty”, because he, using the form of a tale, tells us the story of a man who personifies all Russian people. " Where "left-handed" stands, it is necessary to read "Russian people" - Leskov himself said.
“Skaz is a type of literary and artistic narrative constructed as a story of a person whose position and speech manner are different from the point of view and style of the author himself. The clash and interaction of these semantic and speech positions underlies the artistic effect of a tale”*. The tale implies a narration in the first person, and the narrator's speech must be measured, melodious, sustained in a characteristic this person manner. There is no narrator as such “Lefty”, but for the rest of the points the work can be called a tale. The “reprimand” of the author creates the impression that the story is being told by some kind of village dweller, simple, but at the same time (judging by the reasoning) educated and wise. With fairy tales, “Lefty” has a subtext in common, because often they contain an unobtrusive, often good-natured and condescending mockery of “those in power”.
1. Russian national character
Among all the features inherent in the Russian national character, there are some that, in my opinion, are the main ones: hard work and talent, willpower and kindness, patience and fortitude, courage and courage, love of freedom and patriotism, religiosity. I considered it necessary to quote the statements of some foreigners who touched on the topics of the Russian national character, because they see us from the outside and evaluate us without prejudice.
· Hard work, talent.
“Russian people have many talents and abilities in almost all areas of public life. He is characterized by observation, theoretical and practical mind, natural ingenuity, ingenuity, creativity. The Russian people are a great worker, builder and creator.” The quick-witted practical mind of a Russian person is a source of diverse experience and various abilities. Hence - the rich development of the spirit and the abundance of talents. The giftedness of a Russian person manifested itself in the very successful development of science and technical inventions, and the love of beauty and gift creative imagination contribute to the high development of Russian art.
· love of freedom
“For the Russian people, freedom is above all.
The word “will”, understood as independence, is closer to the Russian heart,
freedom in the manifestation of feelings and in the performance of actions, and not freedom as a conscious necessity, that is, as a possibility for a person to manifest his will on the basis of awareness of the law”*.
According to the philosopher N.O. Lossky among the primary properties of the Russian people, along with religiosity, the search for absolute goodness and willpower, include love for freedom and its highest expression - freedom of the spirit. He who has the freedom of the spirit is inclined to put every value to the test, not only by thought, but even by experience. This property is associated with the search for absolute goodness. In the real world, it does not exist, therefore, each person makes for himself an independent choice of the best way of action, his own path.
Freedom of spirit, breadth of nature, the search for the perfect good, and the associated testing of values by thought and experience has led the Russian people to develop the most diverse, and sometimes even opposite, forms and methods. The search for absolute goodness has developed among the Russian people a recognition of the high value of each individual.
· Willpower, courage and courage
The Russian people had to endure many trials in their difficult history, and in each of them they showed courage and courage. Among the primary basic properties of the Russian people is a mighty willpower. The higher the value, the stronger feelings and energetic activity it causes in people with a strong will. From this one can understand the passion of the Russian people, manifested in political life, and even greater passion in religious life. The willpower of the Russian people, as N.O. Lossky, is also revealed in the fact that a Russian person, having noticed any of his shortcomings and morally condemning him, obeying a sense of duty, overcomes him and develops a quality that is completely opposite to him.
· Kindness
Often Russian people help those whom they should have hated with all their hearts, with whom they, in theory, cannot develop respectable relations. For example, the Austrian German Otto Berger, who was a prisoner in Russia in 1944-1949, wrote in his book that while living in Russia, the prisoners understood “What a special Russian people. All workers, and especially women, treated us as unfortunate people in need of help and protection. Sometimes women took away our clothes, our underwear and returned it all ironed, washed, mended. The most surprising thing was that the Russians themselves lived in monstrous poverty, which should have killed in them the desire to help us, their yesterday's enemies.. Our Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky agrees with the opinion of a foreigner: “Russian people do not know how to hate for a long time and seriously,” he wrote about Russian kindness.
The kindness of the Russian people in all its layers is expressed in the absence of vindictiveness. “Often a Russian person, being passionate and prone to maximalism, experiences a strong feeling of repulsion from another person, however, when meeting with him, if specific communication is necessary, his heart softens and he somehow involuntarily begins to show his spiritual softness towards him, even sometimes condemning himself for it, if he believes that this person does not deserve to be treated kindly.”*
· Patriotism
The Russian people have always been distinguished by their patriotism. Russian people could remain dissatisfied with Russia among themselves, but as soon as it was necessary to defend it, protect the honor of the Motherland, they united and together repulsed the enemy or simply did not allow ridicule over it.
· Patience and perseverance
“Russians have boundless patience, an amazing ability to endure hardships, hardships and suffering. In Russian culture, patience and the ability to endure suffering is the ability to exist, the ability to respond to external circumstances, this is the basis of personality ”*
· Religiosity
Religiosity is that feature of the Russian national character, which practically determined the entire Russian mentality. In my opinion, if the Russian people were not so religious, then, most likely, their history would have turned out differently. After all, many of the defining features of the Russian national character have developed precisely thanks to her. In his book The Character of the Russian People, the Russian philosopher N.O. Lossky considers his religiosity and the search for absolute truth associated with it to be the main and most profound feature of the Russian people. “Russians can talk about religion for six hours straight. The Russian idea is a Christian idea; in the foreground in it is love for the suffering, pity, attention to the individual personality ... ”- writes N.O. Lossky in his book.
2. Description of Lefty
Distinctive properties of N.S. Leskova - fabulous motifs, the interweaving of the comic and the tragic, the ambiguity of the author's assessments of the characters - were fully manifested in one of the most famous works of the writer "Lefty".
Introducing us to the main character, the author does not demonstrate his attractiveness, just a few details: “ oblique left-handed, a birthmark on the cheek, and the hairs on the temples were torn out during the exercise. However, Lefty is a skilled Tula artisan, one of those Tula gunsmiths who managed to shoe the English “nymphosoria” and, thereby, surpass the English masters.
When meeting with the king himself, Lefty is not afraid, but “ he walks in what he was: in shawls, one leg is in a boot, the other is dangling, and the ozyamchik is old, the hooks do not fasten, they are lost, and the collar is torn; but nothing, do not be embarrassed". The left-hander, an unsightly little man, is not afraid to go to the sovereign, as he is confident in his rightness, in the quality of his work. Indeed, there is something to marvel at here - the craftsmen not only did not spoil the curiosity, but also bypassed the British in terms of skill: they shod a steel flea and wrote their names on the horseshoes. This is such a miniature work that you can see the result in a “melkoskop”, which magnifies several hundred times, and the craftsmen, due to poverty, did all the delicate work without a “milkoscope”, because they “have shot their eyes like that”. However, Lefty's name was not on the horseshoes, as he considered himself unworthy of it. In his opinion, he did nothing special, because he worked with parts less than horseshoes: he forged carnations to nail them.
