Moral public issues with which the Russian. Cherished words of D.S.

471 Such statements put Ostrovsky in close proximity to Belinsky. However, doubts are still possible here. The certain legitimacy and naturalness of the accusatory trend in Russian literature was also recognized by the Slavophiles in their own way. The enormous importance of Gogol for the entire literary movement of the 1940s was also, in a certain sense, not denied by the Slavophils either. What is important is the content of the principles that served to substantiate these confessions. The comparison of the ideas of Belinsky and Ostrovsky must be continued.

In particular, Ostrovsky singled out the moral sphere as the closest and most important area of ​​creative artistic reproduction. Where did he get this emphatic and persistent raising of literary problems to questions of morality?

It is impossible not to notice that Ostrovsky, speaking of the social function of literature, especially often and persistently uses the term "moral". The connection of art with social life, according to his views, is carried out in the fact that "the moral life of society, passing through various forms, gives art certain types, certain tasks." Russian literature, according to him, is distinguished from all others by its "moral, accusatory character." Further, speaking of the fact that a truthful artistic image helps to overcome the former, imperfect forms of life and forces one to look for better ones, Ostrovsky adds: "... in a word, it makes one be more moral." And then he ends the entire development of thoughts on the importance of accusatory content in literature with the remark: “This accusatory trend in our literature can be called a moral-social trend”443*. In a well-known letter dated April 26, 1850 to V.I. Nazimov about the comedy “Our people - let's get along” Ostrovsky writes: “According to my concepts of grace, considering comedy the best form for achieving moral goals and recognizing in myself the ability to reproduce life mainly in this form, I had to write a comedy or write nothing. In an article about A. Zhemchuzhnikov's comedy "Strange Night", speaking about the social role of comedy, Ostrovsky calls the whole modern trend in literature "moral-accusatory"445*. (Italics mine. - A.S.).

One might think that such persistent use of words and a reminder of the moral functions and tasks of art was inspired by the specifics of the Moskvityanin magazine with the well-known addictions of this circle to questions of moral perfection. However, this is not at all the case. The whole system of Ostrovsky's thoughts suggests that in this case, too, he followed Belinsky.

Questions of public morality in the advanced thought of the 1940s had a great practical meaning. Instead of romantic or Slavophilic constructions of abstract ethical "ideals", Belinsky and Herzen directed their interest to what exists in the moral sphere as a force acting in everyday life, in genuine practical relations between people. The evil of feudal reality was revealed not only in the forms of state and social relations, but also in the everyday habitual interests of people, in their concepts of what was due, in their ideas of their own dignity, in the features of everyday communication and in those moral and everyday "rules" that practically, in the course of life itself, are worked out and implemented en masse, having an effect in the constant “everyday relations” (Belinsky’s expression).

Belinsky's calls for the study and depiction of "ordinary" were in many ways calls for a revision of serf traditions in the field of everyday practical morality. Starting to consider the novel “Eugene Onegin”, Belinsky wrote: “In order to correctly depict any society, one must first comprehend its essence, its peculiarity; and this cannot be done otherwise than by actually knowing and appreciating philosophically the sum of the rules by which society is held. Every nation has two philosophies: one is scholarly, bookish, solemn and festive; the other is daily, domestic, everyday. Often these two philosophies are more or less in close relation to each other; and whoever wants to represent society needs to get to know both, but the latter is especially necessary to study. So, for sure, whoever wants to know some people, he must first of all study it - in its family, domestic life.

From the abstract moral point of view, Belinsky decisively transferred the assessment of the significance of vice to the social plane. The moral outlook or the habitual code of “rules” was considered by Belinsky not in a closed way, not in an individual moral characterization, not in an abstract theoretical relationship with an arbitrarily understood “ideal”, but in its practical consequences, manifested in living, everyday relations between people. “Since the sphere of morality,” he wrote, “is primarily a practical sphere, and the practical sphere is formed mainly from the mutual relations of people to each other, then here, in these relations, nowhere else, one must look for signs of moral or immoral of a person, and not in how a person argues about morality, or what system, what doctrine and what category of morality he holds” (VII, 392).

Belinsky, on various occasions, dwelled on clarifying the practical and vital role of moral concepts, on their dependence on the conditions of the social environment and on the general state of culture. The progressive growth of the moral public outlook was seen as a guarantee of a better future. “Evil hides not in man, but in society; since societies, taken in the sense of a form of human development, are still far from reaching their ideal, it is not surprising that in them alone one sees many crimes. This also explains why what was considered criminal in the ancient world is considered legal in the new, and vice versa: why every people and every age has its own concepts of morality, legal and criminal” (VII, 466).

In the tasks that were set for literature, Belinsky singled out social and educational goals.

474 In defining the positive role of literature in the life of society, he pointed to its morally uplifting significance. “Literature,” wrote Belinsky, “was for our society a living source of even practical moral ideas” (IX, 434). Literature acts “not only on education, but also on the moral improvement of society ... All our moral interests, our entire spiritual life was concentrated ... exclusively in literature: it is a living source from which all human feelings and concepts seep into society” (IX, 435 - 436).

In interpreting social vices, Belinsky, first of all, considered it important to reveal their rootedness in moral "rules" that, according to the conditions of life, were developed and accepted in a given environment. He credited the artist with his ability to discover and point out vice where he does not notice himself.

Belinsky saw a positive feature of the satire of Kantemir and his successors in that it revealed the shortcomings of Russian life, “which she found in the old society not as vices, but as rules of life, as moral convictions” (IX, 434).

Speaking about Gogol, Belinsky singled out his merit in depicting vice not as a crime, but as a consequence of the general moral convictions and moods of the corresponding environment. The denunciation was thus directed at the general customary and current moral norms that were generated and inspired by all the everyday life of feudal reality. “But note that in him this is not debauchery,” he wrote about the mayor, “but his moral development, his highest concept of his objective duties: he is a husband, therefore, he is obliged to decently support his wife; he is the father, therefore, he must give a good dowry for his daughter, in order to provide her with a good batch and, thereby arranging her well-being, to fulfill the sacred duty of a father. He knows that his means to achieve this goal are sinful before God, but he knows this abstractly, with his head, and not with his heart, and he justifies himself by the simple rule of all vulgar people: "I'm not the first, I'm not the last, everyone does it." This practical rule of life is so deeply rooted in him that it has become a rule of morality” (III, 453).

Viciousness is defined by Belinsky not so much by the degree of bad moral disposition of its bearer, but rather by the degree of harm caused by a person's practical behavior, no matter what moral disposition this behavior is associated with. “Now we are convinced,” Belinsky writes, “that it is equally harmful to be hypocritical and unhypocritically to love a lie, that it is equally evil to deliberately oppose the truth and unintentionally pursue it. It is even difficult to decide why society loses more: from the malice of evil people or from indifference, stupidity, clumsiness, one-sidedness, crookedness of people who are by nature kind, who are neither fish nor fowl.

Elsewhere, regarding the novels of Walter Scott, Belinsky wrote: “In his novels you see villains, but you understand why they are villains, and sometimes you are interested in their fate. For the most part, in his novels, you meet petty rogues, from whom all the troubles in novels come, as it happens in life itself. Heroes of good and evil are very rare in life; the real masters in it are the people of the middle, neither this nor that” (VI, 35).

In a review of the novel "Who is to blame?" Belinsky emphasized that the faces drawn by the author “are not evil people, even mostly good ones, who torture and persecute themselves and others more often with good than with bad intentions, more out of ignorance than out of anger” (X, 325).

In the moral concepts themselves, for the majority of habitual and good-natured, formed in the conditions of a long tradition of serfdom, Belinsky and Herzen indicated the endless sources of crimes against the individual. The meaning of the novel "Who is to blame?" Belinsky defined it as “suffering, illness at the sight of unrecognized human dignity, insulted with intent, and even more without intent ...” (X, 323).

In the article “Caprices and Reflections”, sympathetically quoted by Belinsky, Herzen wrote: “The kindest person in the world, who does not find cruelty in his soul to kill a mosquito, with great pleasure will tear apart the good name of his neighbor on the basis of morality, according to which he himself does not act ... ”, “The tradesman in the nobility was very surprised to learn that he had been speaking prose for forty years - we laugh at him; and many forty years they did atrocities 476 and died eighty years without knowing it, because their atrocities did not fit under any paragraph of the code”448*.

Herzen invited us to introduce a microscope into the moral world, "to look thread by thread at the web of daily relationships", "to think about what<люди>do at home”, about “everyday relationships, about all the little things that include family secrets, economic affairs, relations with relatives, friends, relatives, servants”, look at the tears of wives and daughters who sacrifice themselves according to the accepted moral duty.

All this called for the study of everyday everyday morality, which fills and in its own way regulates the life of a huge mass of people; all this demanded from literature a living intervention in current moral ideas in order to serve to correct and elevate them, to shed light on feudal untruth with the demands of justice and reason.

In his literary-theoretical views and in his own artistic practice, Ostrovsky follows this call.

To justify the accusatory and socio-educational trend in literature, Ostrovsky dwells on the variability of moral ideals, while pointing out the consistent improvement of moral ideas depending on the general progress in the culture of mankind. Ostrovsky correlates ideas about greatness and heroism or about the meanness and weakness of a person with the moral concepts of a certain historical time. The evaluatively elevating or condemning light in which human qualities appear in various literary works, in Ostrovsky's understanding, is the result of the moral outlook and the moral level of the era and environment. His attention is drawn to such facts of literary history, where the changeability of moral and evaluative ideas comes out with the greatest clarity and where the insufficiency of moral concepts determined by time is compensated by their further historical growth and elevation.

477 Ostrovsky recalls that the heroes of Greek antiquity, Achilles and Odysseus, lose their halo in many respects for later times. On the other hand, the indisputable greatness of Socrates for modern times was not understood by his contemporaries and ridiculed by Aristophanes. The valor of a medieval knight, in terms of its moral level, turned out to be unacceptable for the subsequent time, and in its practical inapplicability, it became ridiculous and eventually evoked the comic image of Don Quixote.

“Antiquity,” writes Ostrovsky, “hoped to see a person in Achilles and Odysseus and was satisfied with these types, seeing in them a complete and elegant combination of those definitions that were then developed for a person and more than which the ancient world had not yet managed to notice anything in a person; on the other hand, the light and graceful Athenian life, estimating Socrates by its own arshin, found his face comical. The medieval hero was a knight, and the art of that time managed to elegantly combine Christian virtues with brutal bitterness against one's neighbor in the representation of man. The medieval hero goes with a sword in his hands to establish the meek gospel truths; for him, the celebration is not complete if, among the divine hymns, the cries of the innocent victims of fanaticism are not heard from the blazing fires. According to another view, the same hero fights with rams and mills.

The idea of ​​the historical relativity of moral concepts, the view of the literary type as a reflection of the ideological spirit of the era, the evaluation of various ethical ideals in the light of their historical belonging - all this echoes Belinsky. It is impossible not to notice that the examples that Ostrovsky draws from the literature of the past, Achilles and Odysseus, Socrates and Aristophanes, medieval chivalry and Don Quixote, were for Belinsky constant examples of the general idea of ​​changing moral ideals in the history of mankind.

For their time, Belinsky wrote, Achilles and Odysseus, along with other heroes of the Iliad and the Odyssey, were "complete representatives of the national spirit" of ancient Greece. Achilles is "a hero par excellence, 478 drenched from head to toe in an unbearable brilliance of glory, a complete representative of all sides of the spirit of Greece, a worthy son of the goddess" (V, 38). "Odysseus is a representative of wisdom in the sense of politics" (V, 38; cf. V, 325-326; VI, 20; VI, 589). With the views of the new time, the intrinsic value of their heroism has fallen. According to new concepts, the heroic merits of Achilles are already reduced by the fact that he accomplishes his exploits only thanks to the miraculous help of the goddess Athena, although, according to the concepts of his time, for Achilles there was nothing detracting from this (X, 388 - 389). The very content of the moral inspiration of Achilles in many respects would not seem lofty to modern man. “If,” Belinsky wrote, “in our time, some warrior began to avenge a friend or brother who fell in an honest battle, slaughtering captured enemies on his grave, this would be a disgusting, soul-stirring atrocity; and in Achilles, who touches the shadow of Patroclus by killing unarmed enemies, this revenge is valor, for it came out of the mores and religious concepts of the society of his time ”(VI, 589).

The same is true of Odysseus as a hero. “Odysseus is the apotheosis of human wisdom; but what is his wisdom? In cunning, often crude and flat, in what in our prosaic language is called "swindle". And meanwhile, in the eyes of the infantile people, this cunning could not help but seem the extreme degree of possible wisdom ”(V, 34).

Speaking of Socrates, Belinsky especially put forward the idea that his fate was so sad not because of the particularly bad qualities of his enemies, but because of those backward concepts that the wisdom of Socrates encountered and which were the common property of the time. “His executioners, the Athenians,” wrote Belinsky, “were not at all dishonorable or depraved, although they killed Socrates.” In particular, Aristophanes, who ridiculed Socrates in the comedy "Clouds", was not at all below the level of morality of his time. “Let us leave aside our good and innocent textbooks and say frankly that the concept of Aristophanes must be combined with the concept of the noblest and most moral person.” He was only to blame for the fact that he shared the general prejudices of his time and, seeing "the fall of the poetic beliefs of Homeric Hellas", "thought to help 479 grief, defending the old against the new, condemning the new in the name of the old and adopting a protective, oppositional position in relation to the moving action of Socrates” (XIII, 132). For Belinsky, backward and incorrect concepts hindering progress were more terrible than the evil will of individual people.

In the same correlative discrepancy between the old and the new, Belinsky also illuminated the image of Don Quixote. Don Quixote is "ridiculous precisely because he is an anachronism." The chivalry of the Middle Ages "with its enthusiastic notions of honor, the dignity of privileged blood, love, courage, generosity, with its fanatical and superstitious religiosity" turned out to be inapplicable to the conditions of the new time and provoked a reaction against itself in the person of Don Quixote (VI , 613). “What is Don Quixote? - A man, in general, smart, noble, with a lively and active nature, but who imagined that it would not cost anything in the 16th century to become a knight of the 12th century - you just have to want to ”(VII, 123; cf. VI, 33 - 34).

In the progressive development of moral concepts, the morally transformative significance of literature for both Belinsky and Ostrovsky was conceived in the fact that it helps to replace old decrepit ideas with new, broader and more worthy of man as a rational being. “The public expects from art,” wrote Ostrovsky, “clothing in a living, elegant form of its judgment on life, waiting for the combination in full images of the modern vices and shortcomings noticed in the century ... And art gives the public such images and thereby maintains in it an aversion to everything sharply defined, does not allow it to return to the old, already condemned forms, but forces ... to be more moral.

Appeal to the depiction of reality, recognition of the public accusatory and educational goals of art, the desire for everyday truth, the desire to understand and show a person in typical circumstances and conditions of his environment, attention to moral concepts that exist in practical everyday relations between people - all this is largely explains and characterizes the work of Ostrovsky in his ideological proximity to Belinsky. But all this still concerns only general premises and does not reveal the immediate problematic interest of the writer, that interest that sees the exciting contradictions of life, reveals the clash of opposing forces or aspirations, gives rise to anger, regret or joy, distributes evaluative light over all facts, and in the end determines the composition of the play in its conflict and movement.

This main, central, defining and guiding interest in Ostrovsky consisted in his constant attention to the human personality, constrained in satisfying his natural bright and best needs.

The revision of domestic relations from the point of view of the highest humanity to the greatest extent includes Ostrovsky in the ideological specificity of the 40s, linking him with the line of advanced thought that was created by Belinsky and Herzen.

In contrast to feudal enslavement, the personality of a person was proclaimed by Belinsky and Herzen as the main measure of all assessments. In the name of the individual in the field of philosophy, a protest was made against Hegelian fatalism, which subordinated the individual to an abstract universal "objective spirit". In the name of the individual, all moral norms were reassessed. In the name of the personality of the serf peasant, the manor landowner orders were subjected to trial. Revision of oppressive traditions in family mores and criticism of all forms of bureaucratic subordination were also carried out in the name of the individual.

Everywhere the question of oppression was raised. In the progressive ideological movement of these years, the tasks summarized by Belinsky in a letter to V. Botkin dated January 15, 1841 were revealed and developed: “In general, all the social foundations of our time require the strictest revision and radical restructuring, which will happen sooner or later. It is time to free the human personality, already unhappy, from the vile shackles of unreasonable reality” (XII, 13).

In fiction, criticism of reality 481 was directed in defense of the oppressed "little man." The evil of serf life was reproduced everywhere in the sad fate of the oppressed and suffering individual. This was the main ideological innovation of the advanced literature of the 1940s. In Pushkin's "The Stationmaster" and Gogol's "Overcoat" this was just the beginning. This theme could be widely developed only in the 40s as a result of the general anti-serfdom ideological movement, expressed in the defense of the rights of the oppressed individual.

In depicting the vicious aspects of Russian reality, the center of gravity was shifted from the internal anatomy of the vice itself to its effective results and consequences for others. In "The Village" and "Anton Goremyk", in Turgenev's stories and Nekrasov's poems, in the novel "Who is to blame?" and the novel “The Thieving Magpie” by Herzen, in “The Tangled Case” by Saltykov, not only emptiness, spiritual limitations, well-fed, bored lordliness are depicted, but also the fate of people who depend on and suffer from them. Manifestations of spiritual narrow-mindedness, vulgarity, moral stupidity and petty selfishness in any environment arouse interest in their effect on the life and human dignity of offended people. In this direction, the whole writer's outlook changed.

In connection with the development of the peasant liberation movement in the progressive thought of the 1940s, much in Russian reality, which existed before, becomes visible and noticeable for the first time.

A new principle of reality criticism is being established. The observation of life is regulated by a new emphasis of creative attention in accordance with a different general cognitive and practical task. Susceptibility develops to all forms of oppression of the individual, including those feudal moral ideas that contained the sources and justification of violence and neglect of a person.

In the above-mentioned article by Herzen "Caprices and Reflections" there is a sketch that perfectly shows the new initial principle in observations of life, when, in the very process of observation, the studying interest from the bearers of vice moves to their victims. Having spoken of the necessity and importance of studying "family relations", of the savagery and stupidity of domestic customs, 482 of the darkness and criminality of everyday moral concepts, Herzen concludes this as follows: "When I walk the streets, especially late at night, when everything is quiet, gloomy and only here and there a night light is lit, an extinguished lamp, a dying candle - horror comes over me: behind every wall I see drama, behind every wall I see hot tears - tears that no one knows about, tears of deceived hopes, - tears with which flow away not only youthful beliefs, but all human beliefs, and sometimes even life itself. There are, of course, houses in which they eat and drink prosperously all day long, grow fat and sleep soundly all night long, and even in such a house there will be at least some niece, oppressed, crushed, even a maid or a janitor, and certainly someone will feel salty. to live"451*.

What was said about the depravity of Russian life by Gogol did not lose its relevance in the least, but with new tasks it required replenishment.

Gogol was continued, developed, sharpened and clarified in what was unclear or unsaid in his humanistic conclusions.

Gogol's proof in this direction was begun by Belinsky. Belinsky was fully aware of the "reticence" of Gogol's satire and sometimes, as far as possible under the conditions of censorship, he slightly opened up that perspective plan in which not only the comic figures of vice, but also its tragic victims were to be conceived.

In a review of Sovremennik, Nos. 11 and 12 (1838), Belinsky, explaining the importance of vivid, artistically typical details, gives the following example. “Do you remember,” he asks the reader with a question, “how Major Kovalev rode in a cab on a newspaper expedition and, without ceasing to beat him with his fist in the back, said: “Hurry, scoundrel! Hurry, swindler!" And do you remember the short answer and the cabman's objection to these proddings: "Oh, sir!" - the words that he uttered, shaking his head and whipping his horse with the reins? .. With these proddings and these two words “Oh, master!” the attitude of the cabbies towards the majors Kovalev is quite pronounced” (III, 53).

483 In his article on Woe from Wit (1840), revealing the essence of the comic in The Inspector General, Belinsky did not forget to mention what tragic possibilities lie in the ridiculous passions of the characters in this play.

On the basis of Gogol's mayor's comic dreams about the generalship, Belinsky pointed out what consequences could arise from such bossy encroachments. “Comedy has its passions, the source of which is ridiculous, but the results can be terrible. According to the concept of our mayor, to be a general means to see humiliation and meanness from the lower ones in front of you, to persecute all non-generals with your swagger and arrogance: to take away horses from a person of an unofficial or lower rank, who, according to his road, has an equal right to them; say brother and you to the one who says to him your excellency and you, and so on. Become our governor a general - and when he lives in a district town, woe to the little man if, considering himself "not having the honor of being acquainted with the general," he does not bow to him or give up his seat at the ball, even if this little man I was preparing to be a great man!.. Then a tragedy for the Little Man could come out of the comedy” (III, 468).

Objecting to the idyllic interpretation of "Dead Souls" by the Slavophiles, Belinsky wrote: "Konstantin Aksakov is ready to find all the heroes depicted in it beautiful people ... This, in his opinion, means understanding Gogol's humor ... Whatever he says, but out of tone and out of everything in his pamphlet shows that he sees the Russian Iliad in Dead Souls44. This means understanding Gogol's poem completely upside down. All these Manilovs and others like them are funny only in a book, but in reality, God forbid, to meet with them - and you can’t not meet with them, because they are still quite enough in reality, therefore, they are representatives of some part of it. Further, Belinsky formulates the general meaning of "Dead Souls" in his own understanding: "... true criticism should reveal the pathos of the poem, which consists in the contradiction of the social forms of Russian life with its deep substantive beginning..." comic fact of the poem, brings to mind the tragic aspects of Russian life, which are suggested by this fact: “Why was the beautiful blonde scolded to tears, when she did not even understand why she was scolded” and so on. And then he finishes: “Many such questions can be raised. We know that most will consider them petty. That is why the creation of “Dead Souls” is great, that life is hidden and dissected in it to the smallest detail, and these trifles are given a general significance. Of course, some Ivan Antonovich, a pitcher snout, is very ridiculous in Gogol's book and a very small phenomenon in life; but if you have something to do with him, then you will lose the desire to laugh at him, and you won’t find him small ... Why can he seem so important to you in life - that’s the question! (VI, 430-431).

SPIRITUAL AND MORAL EDUCATION OF STUDENTS AT THE LESSONS OF LITERATURE THROUGH THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL VALUES AND TRADITIONS OF THE NATIVE LAND.
Ageeva O.A., teacher
OBOU SPO "KATK"
“Love for the native land, knowledge of its history is the basis on which the growth of the spiritual culture of the whole society can be carried out.”
(D.S. Likhachev, historian of Russian culture)
In our time, society is experiencing a state of deep spiritual crisis: the values ​​of the family and respect for the past of the native country have been largely lost. Only a society united by its traditions, spiritually strong and morally stable, is able to withstand any problems, solve specific problems and be viable. I would like to believe that the revival of the spiritual and cultural traditions of our people in all spheres of society is possible and feasible.
It is impossible to study the history of a country without knowing the history of its individual regions. Knowing his small homeland, a person is aware of belonging to the country, to its past, present and future.
Literature, as one of the leading humanitarian subjects in the Russian school, contributes to the formation of a diversified, harmonious personality, the upbringing of a citizen, a patriot. Familiarization with the humanistic values ​​of culture and the development of creative abilities is a necessary condition for the formation of a person who is emotionally rich and intellectually developed, capable of constructively and at the same time critically treating himself and the world around him.
By studying historical and cultural values ​​and traditions, we expand and enrich students' knowledge of their native places, arouse interest and love for their native land and its history, help to better feel and realize the connection between literature and life, activate and enrich the existing knowledge of Russian literature, take care of cultural monuments of the region.
Studying the literature of the Kursk region is extremely interesting and fruitful. Our land is rich in its literary traditions. The names A.A. are associated with it. Feta, K.D. Vorobiev, N.N. Aseeva, E.I. Nosov, V. Ovechkin and many others. We believe that acquaintance with the life and work of writers in the local history aspect will help students to feel the originality of Russian literature, better understand the artistic authenticity of works, the uniqueness of the writer's language and artistic images.
On November 6, 2009, the greatest event took place in our city - in the historical center of Kursk on Sadovaya Street, the Literary Museum was opened - a branch of the Kursk Regional Museum of Local Lore. From that day on, in the nightingale region of native Russia, its own literary memorial book of the Kuryans began to be written. The museum has become a boon and joy for everyone: it reveals to us something new, important in the fate of fellow countrymen who managed to leave their own mark on the earth, thanks not only to natural talent, but also to courage, perseverance, honesty, hard work, boundless love and loyalty to its edge.
We are frequent visitors to this museum, which exhibits about 120 names of Kuryan writers. The pages of their works allow us to hear their voices and forever make each of the authors, no matter how long ago he lived, our contemporary.
The life and work of many writers and poets in one way or another was connected with our region! In literature lessons, I always mention this fact. So, for example, studying the work of Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, I talk about the fact that he was a frequent guest of the Kursk region. The estate of his brother Nikolai was located in the village of Semenovka, Shchigrovsky district, and the writer liked to visit it in order to hunt game.
Kursk provided many character prototypes for the works of Leo Tolstoy. In chapter XV of the first volume of War and Peace, he introduces Maria Dmitrievna Akhrosimova into the novel, "a lady famous not for wealth, not for honors, but for her directness of mind and frank directness of address." Maria Dmitrievna was known by the royal family, all of Moscow and all of St. Petersburg knew, and both cities, surprised at her, secretly laughed at her rudeness, told jokes about her, nevertheless, without exception, everyone respected and feared her. The prototype of Akhrosimova was Natalya Dmitrievna Ofrosimova, whose estate was in the village of Shtevets, Shchigrovsky district, and with whom Lev Nikolayevich was personally acquainted.
In 2013, the guys and I decided to create a project dedicated to the little Kursk people who stood up to protect their small homeland. Materials for this project were collected from almost all parts of our region. We spent not a single hour in the Museum of Local Lore in the city of Kursk, in the Museum of Local Lore in the city of Lgov, in the Kursk Regional Library. N.N. Aseev (in the local history department), in the museum "Young Defenders of the Motherland", some guys brought memories of their grandparents. The result of our work is the handwritten book “Little Defenders of the Native Land”, which became the winner in the IX Regional Literary and Art Competition “Grenadiers, Forward!” in 2013.
In this book, we tried to show the fate of children, adolescents, for whom to escape and survive was already a feat, and they also fought, showing miracles of courage, stamina and heroism. 4.5 thousand Kursk teenagers did not return home from the front, their names are forever entered in the Books of Memory.
Every year, as part of the celebration of the Victory on the Kursk Bulge, the children and I visit the Museum of the Young Defenders of the Motherland, the expositions of which show the depth of the tragedy of the war through the fate of children and adolescents.
Boys and girls are looking at us from photographs that have turned yellow from time to time - in tunics and famously wrinkled caps. Others have awards on their chests - like adults who went through the inferno of World War II. Masha Borovichenko received the star of the Hero of the Soviet Union at the age of 17. The girl fought valiantly as part of the 13th Infantry Division and died on the Kursk Bulge. And the youngest participant in the Battle of Kursk, pilot Arkady Kamanin, was awarded three high awards during the war years. As a 15-year-old teenager, he was awarded two Orders of the Red Star and the Order of the Red Banner. The youngest warrior, Seryozha Aleshkov, was only 7 years old.
War is cruel in its essence, it spares no one. Kursk search engines, excavating at the battlefields, where soldiers have been lying unburied since ancient times, sometimes find remains that cannot be mistaken with the conclusion - this is a dead child. How could he be in a combat situation? Perhaps a village boy volunteered to be an escort of a military unit, or maybe this is the son of a regiment? Unfortunately, the veil of time concealed many secrets of the most bloody war in the world.
These children are young defenders of the Motherland, sons of regiments, partisans and participants in the Great Patriotic War. The only museum in Russia carefully preserves their photographs and their stories!!!
Every year, on May 9, on the day of the Great Victory, our college participates in the solemn wreath-laying ceremony at the Kursk Memorial to those who fell during the war. At the lessons of literature, summing up this event, I say that there is also the grave of 11-year-old Stas Merkulov. The boy defended Kursk with his father - brought shells, loaded machine-gun belts. When his father died, Stas took his place at the gun. But he was mortally wounded by an automatic burst - bullets hit him in the stomach. “Sometimes the Germans took pictures against the background of their victims (they say, that's what kind of heroes we are), but not in this case,” says Lyudmila Vasilievna. “As eyewitnesses of those events told, the Nazis, seeing the mutilated body of a child at a machine gun, took off their helmets as a sign of respect.”
Also, extracurricular, extracurricular activities with students are aimed at studying the historical and cultural values ​​and traditions of our region! Students must complete all the information found in the form of a project and be sure to protect it! I draw their attention to the fact that no one except you will be able to know the history of your family better, will not be able to tell more vividly about how your countrymen lived, what songs they sang, what crafts they did, what they thought about, dreamed about. No one but you will be able to tell about great-grandfather's medals, about how hard it was for great-grandmother during the war years, etc.
The education system today is one of the main social structures that forms and develops the value-normative basis of self-consciousness. A person brought up in the new Russian school must accept the fate of the Fatherland as his own, be aware of the responsibility for the present and future of his country, rooted in the spiritual and cultural traditions of the Russian people. We must design a model of a graduate enriched not only with scientific knowledge and ideas, but also with formed value ideals, guidelines, basic worldview concepts rooted in the cultural and historical past of their small homeland, their country.
And in conclusion, I would like to quote the words of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus'. These words have become the motto of our teachers: (I quote) “The time has come to unite the efforts of those who feel acute anxiety for the younger generation. If we do not immediately and jointly take up the painstaking work of mentors and teachers of youth, we will lose the country.” (end quote)
Let me wish you success in the difficult task of educating worthy citizens of our country!
Note:
Kursk region during the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union 1941-1945. (collection of documents and materials) Volume 1 - Kursk book publishing house, 1960
Museum "Young Defenders of the Motherland" (branch of the Kursk Region Regional Museum) // Museums of Russia. - M., 1993. - Part 3. - P. 165-166.
http://standard.edu.ru
http://region46.info Archival number No. 17 (418) dated 04/27/2010
onb.kursk.ru

Current page: 11 (total book has 29 pages) [accessible reading excerpt: 20 pages]

We see the same thing in the "Word": everything is described in motion, in action. As in the Iliad, the battle is compared to a thunderstorm, to a downpour. As comparisons, cosmic phenomena are given (princes are compared with the sun, failure is predicted by an eclipse). Comparisons with labor processes prevail: harvesting, sowing, forging - and with images of hunting and hunting animals (pardus, falcons). The world of gods enters the world of people - as in the Iliad. And at the same time, The Tale of Igor's Campaign is not the Iliad.

The world of the "Word" is a large world of easy, uncomplicated action, a world of rapidly occurring events unfolding in a vast space. The heroes of The Word move with fantastic speed and act almost effortlessly. The point of view from above dominates (cf. the “raised horizon” in ancient Russian miniatures and icons). The author sees the Russian land as if from a great height, covers vast spaces with his mind's eye, as if "flies with his mind under the clouds", "prowls through the fields to the mountains."

In this lightest of worlds, as soon as the horses begin to neigh behind Sula, the glory of victory is already ringing in Kyiv; the trumpets will only begin to sound in Novgorod-Seversky, as the banners are already in Putivl - the troops are ready to march. The girls sing on the Danube - their voices wind across the sea to Kyiv (the road from the Danube was sea). Heard in the distance and the ringing of bells. The author easily transfers the story from one area to another. He reaches Kyiv from Polotsk. And even the sound of a stirrup is heard in Chernigov from Tmutorokan. The speed with which the actors, animals and birds move is characteristic. They rush, jump, rush, fly over vast spaces. People move with extraordinary speed, they roam the fields like a wolf, they are transported, hanging on a cloud, they soar like eagles. As soon as you mount a horse, as you can already see the Don, there definitely does not exist a multi-day and laborious steppe transition through the waterless steppe. The prince can fly "from afar". He can soar high, spreading in the winds. His thunderstorms flow through the lands. Yaroslavna is compared with a bird and wants to fly over a bird. Warriors are light - like falcons and jackdaws. They are living shereshirs, arrows. Heroes not only move with ease, but effortlessly stab and cut enemies. They are strong as animals: tours, pardus, wolves. For Kuryans there is no difficulty and no effort. They gallop with strained bows (stretching a bow in a gallop is unusually difficult), their bodies are open and their sabers are sharp. They run through the field like gray wolves. They know the paths and the yarugas. Vsevolod's warriors can scatter the Volga with their oars and pour out the Don with their helmets.

People are not only strong, like animals, and light, like birds, - all actions are performed in the "Word" without much physical stress, without effort, as if by themselves. The winds easily carry arrows. As soon as fingers fall on the strings, they themselves rumble glory. In this atmosphere of ease of any action, the hyperbolic exploits of Vsevolod Bui Tur become possible.

The special dynamism of the Lay is also associated with this “light” space.

The author of The Lay prefers dynamic descriptions to static ones. It describes actions, not stationary states. Speaking of nature, he does not give landscapes, but describes the reaction of nature to events occurring in people. He describes the approaching thunderstorm, the help of nature in Igor's flight, the behavior of birds and animals, the sadness of nature or its joy. Nature in the Lay is not the background of events, not the scenery in which the action takes place - it is itself the character, something like an ancient choir. Nature reacts to events as a kind of "narrator", expresses the author's opinion and author's emotions.

The "lightness" of space and environment in the "Word" is not in everything similar to the "lightness" of a fairy tale. She is closer to the icon. The space in the "Word" is artistically reduced, "grouped" and symbolized. People react to events in masses, peoples act as a single whole: Germans, Venetians, Greeks and Moravians sing the glory of Svyatoslav and the cabins of Prince Igor. As a single whole, as “coups” of people on the icons, the Gothic red maidens, Polovtsy, and squad act in the “Word”. As on icons, the actions of the princes are symbolic and emblematic. Igor disembarked from the golden saddle and moved into the saddle of Kashchei: this symbolizes his new state of captivity. On the river on Kayala, darkness covers the light, and this symbolizes defeat. Abstract concepts - grief, resentment, glory - are personified and materialized, acquiring the ability to act like people or living and inanimate nature. Resentment rises and enters the land of Troyan as a virgin, splashes with swan wings, a lie awakens and is lulled to sleep, joy droops, the mind becomes tight, ascends the Russian land, strife is sown and grows, sadness flows, melancholy spills.

"Light" space corresponds to the humanity of the surrounding nature. Everything in space is interconnected not only physically, but also emotionally.

Nature sympathizes with the Russians. Animals, birds, plants, rivers, atmospheric phenomena (thunderstorms, winds, clouds) take part in the fate of Russian people. The sun shines for the prince, but the night groans for him, warning him of danger. Div shouts so that the Volga, Pomorye, Posulye, Surozh, Korsun and Tmutorokan can hear him. The grass droops, the tree bows to the ground with tightness. Even the walls of cities respond to events.

This method of characterizing events and expressing the author's attitude towards them is extremely characteristic of the Lay, giving it emotionality and, at the same time, a special persuasiveness of this emotionality. It is, as it were, an appeal to the environment: to people, nations, to nature itself. Emotionality, as it were, is not authorial, but objectively existing in the environment, “spilled” in space, flows in it.

Thus, emotionality does not come from the author, the “emotional perspective” is multifaceted, as in icons. Emotionality is, as it were, inherent in the events themselves and nature itself. It saturates the space. The author acts as a spokesman for the emotionality objectively existing outside of him.

All this is not in the fairy tale, but much is suggested here by the annals and other works of ancient Russian literature.

The only significant work of the XII century about the "offensive" campaign is "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", but we know that it was undertaken for defensive purposes "for the Russian land", and this is emphasized in every possible way in the "Lay".

But how many works appear on purely “defensive” topics, especially in connection with the Batu invasion, the invasions of the Swedes and the Livonian knights: “Tales of the Battle of Kalka”, “The Life of Alexander Nevsky”, “The Word of the Death of the Russian Land”, chronicle stories about the defense of Vladimir , Kiev, Kozelsk, the story of the death of Mikhail Chernigovsky, Vasilko Rostov (in the annals of Princess Maria), "The Tale of the Devastation of Ryazan", etc. The end of the XIV and XV centuries are again covered by a whole wreath of stories about the defense of cities: about the Battle of Kulikovo, Tamerlane, about Tokhtamysh, about Edigey, a number of stories about the defense against Lithuania. A new chain of stories about courageous defense, but not about courageous campaigns - in the 16th century. The main one is about the defense of Pskov from Stefan Batory.

It cannot be said that there is a lack of offensive themes for literature in historical reality. Only one Livonian war, waged with varying success, in which outstanding victories were won, would give many opportunities in this direction.

The only exception is the Kazan History, most of which is devoted to Russian campaigns against Kazan. The same continues in the 18th and 19th centuries. Not a single one of the great victories over the Turks in the 18th century produced a great work, nor campaigns in the Caucasus and Central Asia. But the "Caucasian theme", like "Kazan History", led to a kind of idealization of the Caucasian peoples - up to the Caucasian army itself, dressed by order of Yermolov in the clothes of the Caucasian highlanders.

Only the defensive war gave food to the creative imagination of great writers: the Patriotic War of 1812 and the defense of Sevastopol. It is remarkable that "War and Peace" does not refer to the foreign campaign of the Russian army. "War and Peace" ends at the borders of Russia. And this is very revealing.

I don't think this is a feature specific to Russian literature. Let us recall the "Song of Roland" and other works of the Middle Ages. Let's remember the works of the New Age.

The heroism of the defenders has always attracted the attention of writers more than the heroism of the attackers: even in Napoleonic history. The most profound works are devoted to the Battle of Waterloo, the Hundred Days of Napoleon, the campaign against Moscow - or rather, the retreat of Napoleon.

Immediately after World War II, in his lectures at the Sorbonne on the history of Russian literature, A. Mazon said: “Russians have always savored their defeats and portrayed them as victories”; he meant the Battle of Kulikovo, Borodino, Sevastopol. He was wrong in his emotional, hostile to all Russian assessment of defense topics. But he was right that the people are peace-loving and write more readily about defense than about offensive, and heroism, the victory of the spirit, sees in the heroic defense of their cities, country, and not in the capture of another country, the capture of foreign cities.

The psychology of defenders is deeper, deeper patriotism can be shown precisely on defense. The people and the culture of the people are essentially peaceful, and this can be seen with complete clarity in the wide scope of the topics of literature.

There can be no recurrence of a scientific dispute about the antiquity of the Lay, but there are enough dilettantes of various kinds, and you can never vouch for them ... The Lay, like any well-known glorified monuments, is a favorite object to "show oneself". Lovers are another matter. Those who love the "Word" can discover many new things, can enter into science. But amateurs and dilettantes are different categories of people.

Documents have always been part of the annals. Let us recall the treaties with the Greeks of 911 and 941, the texts of which are included in the Tale of Bygone Years. And in the future, along with literary materials (historical stories, military stories, lives of saints and sermons), written documents very often got into the annals, not to mention “oral” documents - speeches of princes at a veche, before a campaign or before a battle, on princely photographs: they were also transmitted, if possible, with documentary accuracy. However, only in the 16th century did the chronicle itself begin to be fully realized as a document - exposing or justifying, giving rights or taking them away. And this leaves an imprint on the style of the chronicle: responsibility makes the presentation of the chronicle more magnificent and sublime. Chronicle adjoins the style of the second monumentalism. And this pretentious style is a kind of fusion of oratory with state office work.

Both developed to a high degree in the 16th century and intertwined with each other at the peaks, that is, in literary works.

But the chronicle - is it the pinnacle of literary art? This is a very important phenomenon in Russian culture, but, from our point of view, it seems to be the least literary. However, raised on the columns of oratory monumentalism and documentary monumentalism, the chronicle ascended to the very heights of literary creativity. It has become the art of artificiality.

As instructions in relation to the rulers of states, not only the “Secret of the Secret”, “Stephanit and Ikhnilat”, “The Tale of Queen Dinara”, many works of Maxim the Greek, the messages of the elder Philotheus and “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” - the latter with a statement of theories ( not always similar) the rights of Russian sovereigns to the throne and their role in world history, but also chronographs and chronicles, annals and chroniclers. State power, interpreted in different ways, is nevertheless always placed high, the authority of the sovereign is affirmed everywhere, the responsibility of sovereigns to the country, subjects and world history, the right to interfere in the fate of the world is affirmed everywhere. On the one hand, this destroyed the old ideas about the Grand Duke as a simple owner of people and lands, but on the other hand, elevating the power of the sovereign to the sole representative and defender of Orthodoxy after the fall of the independence of all Orthodox states, created the prerequisites for the Moscow sovereigns to be confident in their complete infallibility and the right to interfere even in every little detail of private life.

Teachings, instructions, advice, concepts of the origin of the clan and power of the Moscow sovereigns not only put power under the control of the public, but at the same time inspired the Moscow sovereigns with the idea of ​​their complete lack of control, created the ideological prerequisites for the future despotism of Ivan the Terrible.

On the “softness of the voice” of ancient Russian literature. This is not at all a reproach to her. The volume sometimes gets in the way, annoying. She is obsessive, unceremonious. I have always preferred "quiet poetry". And about the beauty of the ancient Russian "quietness" I remember the following case. At one of the conferences of the sector of ancient Russian literature of the Pushkin House, where there were reports on ancient Russian music, Ivan Nikiforovich Zavoloko, now deceased, spoke. He was an Old Believer, graduated from Charles University in Prague, knew perfectly well languages ​​and classical European music, the manner of performing vocal works. But he also loved ancient Russian singing, he knew it, he sang it himself. And so he showed how to sing on the hooks. And it was necessary not to stand out in the choir, to sing in an undertone. And, standing on the pulpit, he sang several works of the XVI-XVII centuries. He sang alone, but as a member of the choir. Quiet, calm, secluded. It was a living contrast to the manner in which some of the choirs now perform ancient Russian works.

And in literature, the authors knew how to restrain themselves. It doesn't take long to see such beauty. Remember the story "The Tale of Bygone Years" about the death of Oleg, the story of the capture of Ryazan by Batu, "The Tale of Peter and Fevronia of Murom." And how many more of these modest, "quiet" stories that had such a strong effect on their readers!

As for Avvakum, it is on the verge of modern times.

Strikingly "empathy" Archpriest Avvakum. Regarding the loss of the son of the noblewoman Morozova, Avvakum writes to her: “It’s already uncomfortable for you to whip with a rosary and it’s not comfortable to look at how he rides horses and stroke his head - do you remember how it used to be?” The feeling of the absence of a son is clearly conveyed to physiology: there is no one to pat on the head! Here you can see Avvakum the artist.

The literature of modern times has adopted (partly imperceptibly to itself) many features and peculiarities of ancient literature. First of all, her consciousness of responsibility to the country, her teaching, moral and state character, her susceptibility to the literatures of other peoples, her respect and interest in the fate of other peoples who entered the orbit of the Russian state, her individual topics and moral approach to these topics.

“Russian classical literature” is not just “first-class literature” and is not, as it were, “exemplary” literature, which has become classically impeccable due to its high purely literary merits.

All these virtues, of course, are in Russian classical literature, but this is by no means all. This literature also has its own special “face”, “individuality”, and its characteristic features.

And I would first of all note that the creators of Russian classical literature were authors who had enormous “public responsibility”.

Russian classical literature is not entertaining, although fascination is highly characteristic of it. This is the fascination of a special nature: it is determined by the offer to the reader to solve complex moral and social problems - to solve together: both the author and the readers.

The best works of Russian classical literature never offer readers ready-made answers to the social and moral questions posed. The authors do not moralize, but seem to address the readers: “Think about it!”, “Decide for yourself!”, “Look what happens in life!”, “Do not hide from responsibility for everything and everyone!” Therefore, answers to questions are given by the author together with the readers.

Russian classical literature is a grandiose dialogue with the people, with their intelligentsia in the first place. This is an appeal to the conscience of readers.

The moral and social issues with which Russian classical literature addresses its readers are not temporary, not momentary, although they were of particular importance for their time. Due to their "eternity" these questions are of such great importance for us and will be so for all subsequent generations.

Russian classical literature is eternally alive, it does not become history, only “history of literature”. She talks to us, her conversation is captivating, elevates us both aesthetically and ethically, makes us wiser, increases our life experience, allows us to experience “ten lives” together with her heroes, experience the experience of many generations and apply it in our own lives. It gives us the opportunity to experience the happiness of living not only “for ourselves”, but also for many others - for the “humiliated and insulted”, for “little people”, for unknown heroes and for the moral triumph of the highest human qualities ...

The origins of this humanism in Russian literature lie in its centuries-old development, when literature sometimes became the only voice of conscience, the only force that determined the national self-consciousness of the Russian people - literature and folklore close to it. It was at the time of feudal fragmentation, at the time of the foreign yoke, when literature, the Russian language were the only forces binding the people.

Russian literature has always drawn its enormous strength from Russian reality, from the social experience of the people, but foreign literatures have also served as a help; first Byzantine, Bulgarian, Czech, Serbian, Polish, ancient literature, and from the Petrine era - all the literature of Western Europe.

The literature of our time has grown on the basis of Russian classical literature.

The assimilation of classical traditions is a characteristic and very important feature of modern literature. Without assimilation of the best traditions there can be no progress. It is only necessary that everything most valuable should not be missed, forgotten, simplified in these traditions.

We must not lose anything from our great heritage.

“Book reading” and “reverence for books” must preserve for us and for future generations their high purpose, their high place in our lives, in shaping our life positions, in choosing ethical and aesthetic values, in preventing our consciousness from being littered various kinds of "pulp" and meaningless, purely entertaining bad taste.

The essence of progress in literature lies in the expansion of the aesthetic and ideological "possibilities" of literature, which are created as a result of "aesthetic accumulation", the accumulation of all kinds of literary experience and the expansion of its "memory".

Works of great art always admit of several explanations, equally correct. This is surprising and not always even clear. I will give examples.

The features of style and worldview reflected in the works can be simultaneously and fully explained, interpreted from the point of view of the writer's biography, from the point of view of the movement of literature (its "internal laws"), from the point of view of the development of verse (if it concerns poetry) and , finally, from the point of view of historical reality - not only taken at once, but "deployed in action." And this applies not only to literature. I noticed similar phenomena in the development of architecture and painting. It is a pity that I am new to music and the history of philosophy.

More limitedly, mainly in the ideological aspect, a literary work is explained in terms of the history of social thought (there are fewer explanations of the style of works). It is not enough to say that every work of art must be explained in the "context of culture." This is possible, this is correct, but not everything boils down to this. The fact is that the work can equally be explained in the "context of itself." In other words (and I'm not afraid to say it) - immanently, to be explained as a closed system. The fact is that the “external” explanation of a work of art (historical setting, the influence of the aesthetic views of its time, the history of literature - its position at the time the work was written, etc.) - to a certain extent, “dismembers” the work; commenting and explaining the work to some extent splits the work, loses attention to the whole. Even if we talk about the style of a work and at the same time understand the style in a limited way - within the limits of the form - then the stylistic explanation, losing sight of the whole, cannot give a complete explanation of the work as an aesthetic phenomenon.

Therefore, there is always a need to consider any work of art as a kind of unity, a manifestation of aesthetic and ideological consciousness.

In literature, forward movement takes place, as it were, in large brackets, embracing a whole group of phenomena: ideas, stylistic features, themes, etc. The new enters along with new life facts, but as a definite totality. A new style, the style of an epoch, is often a new grouping of old elements that enter into new combinations with each other. At the same time, phenomena that previously held secondary positions begin to occupy a dominant position, and what was previously considered paramount recedes into the shadows.

When a great poet writes about something, it is important not only what he writes and how, but also what he writes. The text is not indifferent to who wrote it, in what era, in what country, and even to the one who pronounces it and in what country. That is why the American "critical school" in literary criticism is extremely limited in its conclusions.

In the testament of St. Remigius to Clovis: “Incende quod adorasti. Adora quod incendisti. "Burn what you worshipped, bow down to what you burned." Wed in the "Nest of Nobles" in the mouth of Mikhalevich:

And I burned everything I worshipped
He bowed to everything that he burned.

How did it get from Remigius to Turgenev? But without finding this out, you can’t even write about it in literary commentaries.

The topics of the books are: reality as potential literature and literature as potential reality (the latter topic requires scientific wit).

(I) Russian classical literature is not just “first-class literature” and not, as it were, “exemplary” literature, which has become classically impeccable due to its high purely literary merits. (2) All these virtues, of course, are in Russian classical literature, but this is far from all. (H) This literature has its own special face, individuality, characteristics characteristic of its day. (4) And I would first of all note that the creators of Russian classical literature were authors who had enormous social responsibility. (5) Russian classical literature is not entertaining, although it is highly addictive. (6) This fascination is of a special nature: it is determined by the offer to the reader to solve complex moral and social problems - to solve together, both for the author and readers. (7) The best works of Russian classical literature never offer readers ready-made answers to the social and moral questions posed. (8) The authors do not moralize, but, as it were, appeal to readers: “Think about it!”, “Decide for yourself!”, “Look what happens in life!”, “Do not hide from responsibility for everything and for everyone!”. (9) Therefore, answers to questions are given by the author together with readers. (10) Russian classical literature is a grandiose dialogue with the people, with their intelligentsia in the first place. (11) This is an appeal to the conscience of readers. . (12) The moral and social issues with which Russian classical literature addresses its readers are not temporary, not momentary, although they were of particular importance for their time. (IZ) Thanks to their eternity, these questions were of such great importance to us and will be so for all subsequent generations. (14) Russian classical literature is eternally alive, it does not become history, only the history of literature. (15) She talks with us, her conversation is fascinating, elevates us both aesthetically and ethically, makes us wiser, increases our life experience, allows us to live ten lives together with her heroes, experience the experience of many generations and apply it in our own own life. (16) It gives us the opportunity to experience the happiness of living not only “for ourselves”, but also for many others - for the “humiliated and insulted”, for “little people”, for unknown heroes and for the moral triumph of the highest human qualities ... ( 17) The origins of this humanism of Russian literature are in its centuries-old development, when literature sometimes became the only voice of conscience, the only force that determined the national self-consciousness of the Russian people - literature and folklore close to it. (18) It was at the time of feudal fragmentation, at the time of the foreign yoke, when literature, the Russian language were the only forces binding the people. (19) We must not lose anything from our great heritage. (20) Book reading and veneration of books should preserve for us and for future generations its high purpose, its high place in our lives, in shaping our life positions, in choosing ethical and aesthetic values, in not allowing to litter our consciousness of various kinds of "pulp" and meaningless, purely entertaining bad taste. (21) The essence of progress in literature is the expansion of the aesthetic and ideological possibilities of literature, which are created as a result of aesthetic accumulation, the accumulation of all kinds of literature experience and the expansion of its “memory”. (D. Likhachev)
1. Which statement contradicts the author's point of view? 1) Russian classical literature has become a fact of history. 2) Fascination is characteristic of Russian literature. 3) The moral and social questions of Russian literature are timeless. 4) In certain historical periods, Russian literature was the only force that determined the national identity of the Russian people. 2. Define the style and type of text. 1) artistic style; reasoning 2) scientific style; description 3) journalistic style with elements of popular science; reasoning 4) popular science style; reasoning 3. Which word contains a disparaging assessment of the phenomenon it expresses? 1) litter 2) reading 3) moralize 4) bad taste 4. How is the word formed? impeccable in sentence 1? 5. What part of speech is the word thanks to(proposition 13)? 6. From sentences 14 - 16 write out the phrase (s) with attributive relations, the dependent word of which (s) is connected with the main one by the type of adjunction. 7. Determine which part of the sentence is the infinitive been through(proposition 15). 1) predicate 2) addition 3) definition 4) circumstance 8. Among sentences 17-21, find a sentence with a separate definition that has homogeneous members. Write the number of this offer. 9. Among sentences 1 - 15, find complex sentences with a concessive clause. Write the numbers of these proposals. AT 7. Among sentences 1 - 10, find a sentence that is connected with the previous one with the help of lexical repetition, pronouns and an introductory word. Write the number of this offer. (l) What a mirror of life is our language! (2) No, he is truly ugly

General remarks on ethical articles published in the past year. - An article by Mr. Zavitnevich on the highest principle of public morality. - An attempt by Mr. Shchukin to agree with the fashionable theory of aestheticism. - About so-called. "ascetic ailments" in connection with Mr. Skabichevsky's article.

When reviewing articles of ethical content published in Russian journals over the past year, two observations come to mind. Firstly, one cannot fail to note the modernity of issues and topics that are somehow touched upon by both the secular and spiritual press: most of the articles have a direct or indirect relation to subjects of topical interest, so to speak: capitalism and the labor question in the West (article Zavitnevich "On the Highest Principle of Public Morality", Wanderer, August - September), modern social trends in the Russian intelligentsia (Russian Thought, October - November, article by Skabichevsky "Ascetic ailments in our modern advanced intelligentsia"), and socialism (arch. Plato in the 11th book of the Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy) the question of the war (Faith and the Church, April, St. Priest Galakhov "Christianity and War") about patriotism (Christian Reading, May, article by Prof. Bronzov, "Is patriotism reprehensible “), modern pessimism (Faith and Church, article by Priest Arseniev “The Main Cause of Modern Pessimism”), an attempt to reconcile Christianity and aestheticism (Faith and Church, 8–10, V. Schukin “Fundamentals of Christian Aesthetic Life”), essays on moral views only that the dead Russian thinkers - Vl. S. Solovyov and N. Ya. Grot (in Christian Reading, November, article by Prof. Bronzov "In memory of V. S. Solovyov. - A few words about his ethical views"; in Questions of Philosophy and Psychology, January - February, article Eikhenwald "Essay on the ethical views of N. Ya. Grot"), a polemic with anti-church morality c. L. Tolstoy (in the Wanderer, for October and November, Borisovsky's article "The Dogmatic Foundations of Christian Love") and Nietzsche's anti-Christian morality (ibid., for October, Nikolin's article, "On Humility" and in Christian Reading, for February - March, article Prof. Bronzov on the same subject) - these are the topics that most of the articles are devoted to. Relatively few remain who have no special relation to contemporary phenomena and interests; such are the articles: Archimandrite Sergius “On Morality in General” (Christian Reading, December), Mirtov “The Moral Ideal According to Idea” (ibid., April) prof. Bronzov "Some data for the characterization of the moral worldview of St. Macarius of Egypt" (ibid., October), Voliva "Critical analysis of the ethical views of Spencer" (Faith and Reason, nos. 14 and 15), Lavrov "On the free will of man from a moral point of view" (ibid., nos. 12–13) Theological “Teaching about Conscience” – History and Literature of the Question (Orthodox Interlocutor, September), Egorov “Christian moral teaching according to Martensen compared with Christian moral teaching according to Bishop Feofan” (ibid., February), prof. . Chelpanov. "The moral system of utilitarianism exposition and criticism" (World of God, October - November) and several articles that stand in the middle between scientific-ethical and edifying literature. - Another fact that is striking in the list we have already made is that in the development of ethical issues, spiritual journalism decisively belongs to the palm in comparison with secular journalism: meanwhile: in all secular journals over the past year we will find only 2-3 articles on moral issues, almost every book in a theological journal contains one or even several articles that have, if not direct, then indirect, relation to ethics. Of course, not all of them testify to the brilliant state of scientific research in this area, but the fact in itself testifies to the important place ethical interests occupy in the minds of the environment whose organs are spiritual journals. If we are not mistaken in this, then we think that the readers of The Theological Bulletin will not be without interest to dwell with us on some of the issues discussed in the periodical press.

1) V. Zavitnevich on the highest principle of public morality. (Wanderer, book 8-9) The main task of the hostel, according to Mr. Zavitnevich, is the reconciliation of personal freedom and social unification of many individuals in a common life: a person is by nature freedom-loving and selfish, society, by the very conditions of its existence, requires the restriction of individual aspirations. The history of society is the history of experiments - one way or another to reconcile these two, apparently, fundamentally hostile principles. Eastern despotism solves the problem in a crudely simplified way, sacrificing personal freedom to the representative of social unity. Rome wants to achieve the required reconciliation through legal definitions that establish precise boundaries for personal freedom, leaving it inviolable within these boundaries. But this solution of the issue turned out to be illusory: “forced at every step of his life to cope with the form of the law, the Roman ceased to cope with the voice of his conscience”, as a result of which “internal freedom was replaced by external”. In order for a person, limited in his actions, to feel free, it is necessary that he himself sets boundaries for himself in the name of higher moral motives resting on an absolute basis, and not be limited only by externally laid down legal prescriptions. It is precisely this condition that is satisfied by the solution of the question that offers. Christianity places the principle of love at the basis of social relations, which equally satisfies both personal and social requirements. The charm of true love lies in the fact that, while demanding certain sacrifices from a person, it immediately rewards them with inner satisfaction. This eudemonistic element, “softening the severity of moral achievement,” makes it possible to reconcile egoism and altruism, the individual and the social principle in one and the same act. However, the two beginnings tried in this way are not made equal, and one of them is given preference over the other; it is not difficult to understand why this happens: altruism is the principle that unites and creates, by which the life of the whole is determined; egoism, on the other hand, is the principle that divides and conditions the life of the parts that make up the whole. “In the life of a social organism, as well as in the life of a physical organism, the triumph of the egoistic principle, the principle of individualism, would entail the destruction of the whole, which is noticed every time this principle triumphs.”

This is the highest principle of social life. Turning to modern Western society, which gave rise to the above reasoning of the author, Mr. Zavitnevich states that it is not at all inclined to be guided in its life by Christian principles. Christian principles remain almost completely alien to the entire social development of Europe. The history of social life here begins with the boundless arbitrariness of the individual in the form of "fist law"; the latter is replaced, in the form of reaction, by monarchist absolutism, which in turn gives way to revolution in the ecclesiastical and political spheres; the democratic principles thus triumphant liberate the individual, but this freedom soon disappears under the pressure of capitalism and turns into the gravest slavery. The incredible economic progress of the last period, on the one hand, gave birth to a class of the rich, on the other hand, it bred poverty and hunger, lowering wages and depriving the mass of the working people of earnings; the boundless power of some, the pitiful stagnation and mass extinction of others - a situation that is far from consistent with the requirements of the well-being of society; the unscrupulousness of the first to preach the cynical morality of oppressing the weak under the banner of Darwin's scientific principles, the understandable irritation of the latter, aggravate relations, increase the criticality of the situation, and Europe is again ready to become the arena of a terrible struggle for the personal freedom of the majority oppressed by a more powerful minority. The horror of the situation is increased, and partly created by the fact that Europe is as far as possible from what lies the only way out of the difficulty - from the Christian principles of social life. Why does it depend?

Two historical facts lead the author to the answer he is looking for. In the era of troubled times, the Russian people, in order to restore state unity, turn to the Christian principles of unity, love and self-denial on a church-religious basis, as evidenced by the content of historical monuments. Germany experienced a similar situation in the era of the great interregnum (1254-1273), when the principles of legality seemed to have completely disappeared under the onslaught of the predatory instincts of violent knights; however, the means of combating evil here turned out to be completely different; it was the "Holy Theme", for which the dagger and the rope served as symbols, and of which the folk tradition has preserved the most terrible memory; the restored imperial power uses the same means. The difference is not accidental; it is rooted in the very nature of peoples. The main character of the two peoples was reflected even earlier in their adoption of Christianity in their people's epos. The ideal of the Germans was expressed in their doctrine of Valhalla - the halls of Odin, where the souls of heroes flock to after death. Here “every morning they go out, accompanied by Odin, to fight, divide into parties and cut each other down as much as they can; by evening, the severed limbs grow together, the wounds heal, so that the next day you can do the same exercise again. Thus, the ecstasy of battle, bloodshed - these are the national ideals of Germany. Meanwhile, the most ancient historical traditions and epic tales testify to a completely opposite direction of the Slavic-Russian ideals. So the father of Ilya Muromets, letting his son go on a journey, gives him such instructions:

I will give you a blessing for good deeds,

And there is no blessing for bad deeds.

You will go the way and the way

Do not think evil of the Tatar,

Do not kill a Christian in an open field.

The Russian man is peaceful by his very nature, while the German, on the contrary, is "by nature a robber." This is the source of the struggle and violence that characterizes the history of the ecclesiastical, political, material and cultural life of the West. “Now it is easy to understand, the author concludes, why the law of Christian love could not become the guiding principle of the life of European society: this could not happen because the law of love turned out to be in direct conflict with the vital principle of the German-national element, characterized by an exorbitant riot of a person who does not know how to believe limits to the arbitrariness of their egoism.

Mr. Zavitnevich's article reveals undoubted signs of scientific and literary talent. But the favorable impression of it is largely weakened by the author's historical exaggerations. The reader, already from the above presentation, could not but notice that they are mainly determined by Slavophile tendencies. Only a one-sided enthusiasm can excuse the strange misunderstanding into which Mr. Zavitnevich falls when he asserts that the Germans (Western Europeans) are cutthroats and robbers by their very nature, and that Western Europe has remained almost uninvolved in the Christian element in its social culture. Let us take into account that this is said about a society that for more than 1000 years has confessed not only with its lips, but also with its heart, about a society that raised Sts. Francis and Vincent, Howard, Pestaloczi, Victor Hugo with his "Unhappy", Dunant, Jeanne Jugan, Father Damien, Gladstone, whole ranks of disinterested fighters for lofty Christian ideals, about a society whose entire historical development has so far tended to to come to the aid of the disenfranchised, the helpless and the weak, in which a grandiose network of charitable institutions has long been formed and in our time sometimes the private charity of one city has the budget of a whole small state - about a society where almost every literary work speaks of Christian influence, where even opponents Christians can rarely free themselves from the power of Christian ideas and feelings. Of course, with all this, there remains the possibility of regretting that Western society is still very far from being completely Christian, that it has not realized Christian ideals even approximately - one can regret this, but do not look for reasons for our national self-exaltation here - and this is not even out of Christian humility, but simply because we do not have factual data, we do not have the right. According to Mr. Zavitnevich, we, by our very national nature, are destined for a better assimilation of Christian principles in comparison with the West. If this is true, then so much the worse for us that we are still burying our talents in the ground and have not yet done anything to carry out such a lofty mission: is it really possible to give at least one serious proof that our social life far ahead of the West in the implementation of Christian ideals?! And is the very idea of ​​our special vocation, supposedly inherent in the very nature of the people, so firmly substantiated? If the position that the German is by nature a “robber” and “thug” does not even need to be refuted, then on the other hand, some special peacefulness of the Slavs needs, in any case, solid evidence, although, perhaps, one should not deny that that the Slav in general, and the Russian in particular, is somewhat more peaceful than the German. Let us recall the Baltic Slavs, who terrified the neighboring Germans with their ferocity and bloodthirstiness, who panicked the raids of the Slavs on Byzantium), let us recall the Novgorod freedom fighters, who considered robbery a noble occupation, Novgorod massacres, hitherto flourishing in many corners of our God-saved fatherland, fisticuffs with human victims - these are a lovely heritage of pre-Petrine Russia so beloved by the Slavophils, let us further recall that the dawn of history finds our Russia in the form of numerous clans and tribes constantly at war with each other, that with the establishment of a political system, this tribal and tribal enmity is replaced by endless and bloody strife ... In total this, it seems, is quite enough to cast doubt on the absolute opposition of the German and Slavic-Russian national types. In view of this, it is not at all surprising if the ancient Western chroniclers characterize the Slavs with approximately the same features that some Russian historians attribute to the ancient Germans. So Helmold (XII century), who has a reputation as an observant and conscientious chronicler), writes: “The Slavs are innate insatiable, indomitable ferocity, which caused death to the surrounding peoples on land and at sea.” n. Zavitnevich is touched by the fact that in a troubled era the Russian people united in defense against the enemy, and he contrasts this with a similar fact from the history of the West. But there is nothing too touching in the fact that only the consciousness of a common danger united Rus'. If, however, we delve deeper into the matter, we will see that between the two facts there is no longer such a striking contrast as Mr. Zavitnevich finds. Undoubtedly, in Germany, in the era of the interregnum, the consciousness of internal danger also united the friends of order and peace. The author laments that they fought against the enemies of the world by means of the gallows and the dagger. But did the Russian people, united by the consciousness of danger, go to their enemy with open arms, and not with a spear and a sword?! The methods of struggle, therefore, were the same, only some fought with external enemies, while others fought with internal ones, which, as Mr. Zavitnevich is well aware, were not at all better than external ones. But the restored imperial power treated the rebels very cool? As if the Russian authorities, in the course of our entire history, did nothing but gently stroke their opponents on the head! Should we reproach the West in this case, when we have in our history Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich of blessed memory, who left far behind him all the sovereigns of Western Europe in the eradication of "sedition" - not real, but only imaginary? ! Despite all this, as we said above, perhaps one should not dispute the idea of ​​the relative peacefulness of the Russian people. But after all, the conditions for the assimilation and implementation of the Christian ideals of social life are not contained in peacefulness alone; probably, other, more active qualities are also needed for this, and only when they prove to us that in these qualities, Rus' is superior to Western Europe, we, perhaps, will believe in our historical destiny, about which Mr. Zavitnevich speaks.

We have seen how the author's Slavophile inclinations prevent him from impartially evaluating historical facts. This, however, does not prevent us from treating with sincere sympathy such views of Mr. Zavitnevich, which remain correct regardless of this or that attitude to historical facts. For example, I will dwell on the following judgments of the author about the relationship between Christian and state-legal principles. “In contrast to the state, which is based on a formal legal basis, there is an institution that is predominantly moral. A person who sincerely enters the Church renounces his egoism in advance and expresses his readiness to voluntarily submit to the guidance of the Spirit of God, who lives in the unity of human convictions, in the unity of consciences. The Church does not rule out the possibility of disagreement; but she does not allow enmity because of this disagreement .... There is and cannot be a place for violence in the Church, for the simple reason that violent measures with their effect cannot penetrate into the area that the Church owns. In the area of ​​the inner life of the spirit, hypocrisy, lies, deceit can be created by violence; but you cannot create an honest, sincere conviction. That is why the use of violent measures in the religious sphere is an undoubted sign that the purity of the Christian consciousness began to be clouded, and the church principle began to give way to the state principle. The goal of the highest ideal aspirations of the Church in relation to the state is to assimilate it according to its own laws, to saturate it with its own spirit, that is, to replace the formal legal relations of its members with moral ones. Until the Church has achieved this, she, as far as possible, should keep aloof from the state, strictly observing the purity of her moral foundations. The penetration of the Church by the state principle is death for the Church” (Strannik, August, pp. 533–534). It would do no harm to remember this for those of our theologians who strive to turn theology itself into ancilla civitatis. State-legal orders are basically the result of the fact that society has not yet been sufficiently imbued with Christian principles; they are the result of the limitation of Christian ideals by the insurmountable demands and conditions of historical life; therefore, whoever defends them in the name of Christian ideals does a very bad service to Christianity, because this cannot be achieved otherwise than through the systematic degradation of the high ideal of Christianity. A well-deserved punishment for this kind of morality of adaptation is the curious position in which it puts itself, linking its fate with the fleeting fate of certain state-legal concepts and legalizations. So, for example, prof. Olesnitsky, in his system of Christian moral teaching, says that women can be allowed to hold positions - a folk teacher, a teacher of some subjects in the lower grades of women's gymnasiums, a children's and women's doctor, a telegraph operator and a factory worker). But let us imagine that in three years women will be allowed to teach not only in the lower, but also in the upper classes of women's gymnasiums, and not only some, but all subjects, and Mr. Olesnitsky's moral "world outlook" will already be outdated. Certainly few theologians have extended so far the adaptation of Christian morality to existing orders. However, many are at risk of being in a similar situation ...

2) V. V. Schukin. Fundamentals of Christian aesthetic life. (Faith and Church, book 8-10). Shchukin's article can be considered a sign of the times in that the author to a certain extent adheres to the fashionable point of view of contemporary aestheticism. It is known that representatives of this trend, having thrown overboard the morality of serving others, which is unbearable for worn-out natures, are looking for the highest meaning of life in aesthetics, in enjoying the beautiful, in elegant taste, and in the center of attention, instead of neighbors, as the old social morality requires, it turns out to be one's own. I" - with its aesthetic sensations, delights and raptures. Thus, aestheticism naturally merges with individualism, which seeks to replace altruistic ethics. Of course, Mr. Shchukin is far from propagandizing aestheticism and individualism in the way that modern decadents and Nietzschians preach them, but in his article it is impossible not to recognize attempts to adapt fashionable points of view to Christianity. - The basis of human life and activity, Mr. Shchukin argues, is the desire for happiness. The problem of happiness is the main issue of religion, philosophy, science, aesthetics. It is clear that there is first of all the solution of the question of happiness. Assuming the highest happiness of man in union with God, which will come only in the future life, Christianity does not exclude the possibility of approaching future happiness already here on earth, but it does not indicate a definite path for this, giving only general principles, with the help of which the Christian must "himself find and determine the true meaning of earthly happy life. This task is assumed by Mr. Shchukin. There are allegedly two directions in solving this issue - idealistic and materialistic; the first recommends exclusively mental pleasures to a person, the second - exclusively sensual, physiological (the most typical representative of it is the author Nietzsche! In general, Mr. Shchukin's historical classification is absolutely fantastic). But since none of these directions, due to its one-sidedness, is capable of satisfying a person, both extremes lead him to pessimism, to disappointment in happiness. But "if two extreme paths - the path of increased tension of intellectual forces and one-sided satisfaction of the elemental needs of the body - lead a person to internal decomposition", then "there remains a third, not negative, but a positive way of reconciling them by combining intellectual and physical needs in a harmonious set of their . ... The area in which the intellectual and elemental, or physical, sides of a human being must naturally balance and reconcile, is the area of ​​\u200b\u200baesthetic.” Seeing, thus, in aesthetics the “only suitable” means for achieving positive happiness, the author analyzes aesthetic contemplation and aesthetic creativity, discovering elements of higher spiritual satisfaction and bliss in them. It is this aesthetic bliss that the author wants to make the focal point of a Christian's life, placing art and aesthetics in connection with the religious Christian life and showing that the highest and fullest aesthetic pleasure is possible only on the basis of a Christian mood. Aesthetic contemplation and aesthetic creativity require a person to renounce egoism and worldly fuss, they require spiritual purification and self-deepening - all this is exactly what Christianity requires. With the assistance of the latter, the author wants to make a person's whole life an uninterrupted aesthetic pleasure. But in order to become the highest principle of life, aesthetics must have its basis in religious Christian metaphysics. Therefore, the author tries to establish a parallel between the aesthetic life of man and the life of the Divine Himself. According to Mr. Shchukin, contemplation and creativity serve equally as signs of both the aesthetic life of a person and the absolute divine life (in support of the latter, biblical sayings are cited: “God create heaven and earth”, “and God saw everything, create a Christmas tree: and behold goodness is great"), and its basis, both in the Divine and in man, is love for oneself, "expressed in self-pleasure with one's own perfection." The conclusion from this is very clear: only in the aesthetic life does man live the life of the Divine Himself.

The psychological analysis of Mr. Shchukin in places can be called rather subtle and successful, and his private thoughts, especially where he speaks of the significance of the Christian mood for aesthetic life, deserve full attention. But the sad impression is made by the fact that the author's article, as already mentioned, is to a large extent a reflection of a corrupting, anti-social decadent craze. To place aesthetic self-gratification in the center of attention, in any refined form, means to sin against the vital socio-practical ideals of genuine Christianity, instead of healthy and normal activity, to preach an allegedly Christian sugary and unhealthy opinion. The inclination in the fashionable trends of our time to put feeling in the place of activity is the result of spiritual overwork or degeneration, worn out nerves, and in general practical unsuitability, and it is sad to see how this sick atmosphere begins to penetrate even into the theological press. No one, of course, will deny the importance of art in a person’s life, but trying to fill it all life without a trace is like if we thought of making a dinner out of cakes alone; this would be a perversion of the normal meaning and purpose of aesthetics. Aesthetic delight is a great thing, because it refreshes spiritual forces, raises energy, inspires to high deeds; this meaning is fully consistent with the transience of aesthetic impressions, which Mr. Shchukin so saddens, and which he wants to reduce to the abnormality and depravity of human nature, while the real abnormality lies not at all in this transience of aesthetic delight, but in the desire to artificially stretch it over the whole a life that can give birth to nothing but a painful anguish. It must be remembered that feeling, whatever it may be, is only a companion of activity and must never leave this role; therefore, as soon as they begin to assign an independent place to it, so, as a result of a perversion of the normal relationship of the elements of life, the latter inevitably takes an ugly direction.

3) A. M. Skabichevsky, Ascetic ailments in our modern advanced intelligentsia (Russian Thought, book X-XI). Mr. Skabichevsky’s article was written about three novels that were previously published in Russian magazines (Letkova’s “Dead Swell” - in Rus. Thoughts for 1897; Eltsova’s “In a Foreign Nest” - in Novaya Slovo for 1897 and Barvenkova"Expansion" - in Russian Wealth for 1900); but in its content and character it does not at all belong to the number of bibliographic reviews, and is of a wider and more general interest than a casual literary-critical review. The author devotes half of the article to the disclosure and substantiation of his views on asceticism, which he then tries to confirm by analyzing these novels. Even without sharing the views of the author, one cannot but recognize them as interesting and deserving full attention from people interested in ethical issues. Moreover, despite their one-sidedness, they do not at all represent a continuous delusion, but are only the fruit of an incorrect generalization that extends the signs of one part of a certain kind of phenomena to their entire field.

According to modern word usage, shared by the majority, the words asceticism and ascetic indicate a monk who indulges in religious ecstasies and exploits of self-exhaustion. This kind of understanding of asceticism, according to Mr. Skabichevsky, is very narrow and accepted only by tradition without an independent analysis of the phenomena of life. A deeper look at the matter leads to the conviction that asceticism does not constitute an exclusive and inalienable belonging to any religion, philosophical school, or a certain degree of spiritual development; it is no more no less than a special kind of mental illness inherent in people of the most diverse degrees of development, the most diverse views, beliefs and convictions. In its intermittent character, it resembles intermittent fever, or better yet, drunkenness. It is very possible that hard drinking is precisely the lowest degree of asceticism. Healthy people always treat wine the same way, they always like it or dislike it the same way: on the contrary, in drunkards, an irresistible desire for wine is replaced by an irresistible aversion to it. “We also notice the same change of two periods in people subject to asceticism: spiritual ecstasies are correctly replaced by sensual ones, and in both cases we are not dealing with normal moods, which healthy and balanced people experience, but with ecstasies that sometimes reach complete insanity." Approaching binge drinking in terms of its symptoms, asceticism also has causes common with binge drinking: “most ascetic diseases are rooted on the basis of dissatisfaction with life, oppression of any kind ... if at the same time all hopes and bright illusions are lost ahead and is the consciousness of the hopelessness of the situation. In a word, these are the same reasons that, with less culture, give rise to a tendency to binge. This also shows that every asceticism is invariably associated with pessimism. Ascetic diseases arising from a pessimistic attitude are not limited to sporadic cases, but very often take on an epidemic character, covering entire countries and nations; it depends on the general conditions of life, conducive to a gloomy pessimistic mood. Rus' was in such conditions from the very beginning of its existence. The whole nature of our country in general - harsh, dull and meager, disposed to a gloomy outlook on life; and besides, Byzantium turned out to be our enlightener, “with its complete decomposition of the entire social system, the predominance of monasticism and gloomy ascetic ideals. It is not surprising, therefore, that Rus' became a "nursery of every kind of asceticism," which preached renunciation of all fleeting joys of life and sinful temptations. The extreme estrangement from Europe further confirmed the ascetic ideals in the minds of the Russian people, finally bringing them to a panic fear of the slightest manifestation of fun, joy, enjoyment of the gifts of life. So, for example, the decrees of 1648 forbade, under the threat of exile to distant cities, the singing of songs, not only in the streets and in the fields, but also at home; it was forbidden to laugh, joke and idle talk; come together for some kind of spectacle, games and dances, play cards and chess, etc. This ascetic trend dominated in Rus' until the Petrine reforms, when a reaction against the extremes of asceticism sets in. That is why the Petrine era is characterized by an explosion of cheerfulness and revelry of the flesh that has never been seen before. The government no longer forbids amusements; it even prescribes them under the threat of fines, disgrace and shameful ridicule: feasts and assemblies with continuous dances and all kinds of madness, masquerades, public revels with music, carousels, fireworks, noisy street processions of a satirical-comic or Bacchic character, “the most joking and most drunken cathedral ' led by Peter himself - all this was an inevitable reaction against ascetic fanaticism, suspecting "evil and death in every innocent smile of a young life." But caused by social illness, this outburst of merriment was not in itself a healthy phenomenon; it was a febrile attack, which was again to be replaced by a depression; the ascetic trend was too deeply ingrained in Russian national life, entered the flesh and blood of the Russian people, and therefore could not be eradicated immediately. The further history of the Russian people gives the best confirmation of this, representing a constant change of two moods: ascetic-pessimistic and cheerful, falling on the reactionary and progressive eras. A new and mighty stream of fun, breaking through in the reign of Catherine, is replaced by a gloomy reaction of Paul's reign. The era of Alexander I sharply splits into two periods: the bright and cheerful period of Speransky and the gloomy ascetic period of Arakcheev. During the reign of the imp. Nicholas I, asceticism and mysticism finally take over the public mood. The end of the 1950s and 1960s are again characterized by a rise in public self-awareness, expressed in general rejoicing and merriment. But in the 70s and 80s this mood was again replaced by ascetic despondency, repentant motives, enslavement of the flesh to the spirit; the penitent nobles, frail, dull, nervously unwound, who thought a lot about themselves, but in reality turned out to be incapable of anything, imposed unbearable epithems on themselves for the sins of their fathers and the payment of a debt to the people. ... Young men appeared who left universities together with hateful science and, like the missionaries of the first centuries of Christianity, went to preach advanced European ideas among the dark and illiterate working masses. A different kind of young men and even elders appeared, who put on peasant clothes, studied agricultural work, and, denying urban culture, science and art, decided to devote their whole lives to agriculture, and for this purpose they were hired as laborers to wealthy peasants. In the 1990s, the opposite trend began again: our intelligentsia got tired of caring about lower brothers, about paying an unpayable debt, sacrificing themselves for unrealizable ideas, dressing in sermyag and bast shoes and depriving themselves of all the joys of life. An irresistible, purely spontaneous desire arose to take a break from the painful tension of the nerves, and so the young intelligentsia embarked on careerism, sportsmanship, selfless burning of life; young people, by their very age prone to love and self-sacrifice, are carried away by the same callous as well as the controversial doctrine of Marxism, the children of people-lovers begin to worship the inhuman aristocratic ideas of Nietzsche.

G. Skabichevsky understands asceticism so broadly that the reader may be perplexed whether the author fundamentally denies any self-denial, whether he declares any deeds of love to be a painful phenomenon, putting in their place the cult of personal pleasure and fun. The author himself, however, foresaw this bewilderment and tries to warn him; according to his statement, he is far from calling any altruism and disinterested passion for the idea as asceticism. It is impossible to call an enthusiast an ascetic who, giving himself up to certain disinterested inclinations, does not at all believe that the whole goal, the whole content of life lies in such hobbies, and does not consider all other needs of human nature, “like love for wife and children, enjoyment of music, theatrical spectacles , conversations with friends over a bottle of wine, etc., for something so reprehensible, criminal, which a person who does not want to destroy his soul should refuse once and for all. So the author rises up in defense of the trampled rights of pleasure, joy and happiness, and specifically of personal egoistic happiness, sensual pleasures. The author, with amusing indignation, mentions that Konstantin Aksakov died a virgin, with a despondent look speaks of the small number of cafes-chantants and hurdy-gurdies in modern Petersburg, and with sincere enthusiasm describes the beer hall of the 60s “with vast halls that could accommodate thousands of crowds, with billiards, skittles, roulette, bingo, dominoes" and the then Petersburg streets, on which "hurdy-gurdies howled everywhere, sometimes with drums, monkeys, bagpipes creaked, harmonicas groaned, wandering orchestras rattled through the yards, rachniks showed the city of Paris, Petrushka the devil from behind striped screens he carried children and adults to hell to the delight, and acrobats in shiny tights showed their somersaults on carpets spread over the pavement. All these pictures, with a little too much tavern fun, captivate Mr. Skabichevsky immeasurably more than that holy inspiration, that noble, and of course by no means always painful, enthusiasm with which, until recently, masses of young people went to the service of the lesser brethren. But here we must remind Mr. Skabichevsky that he is carried away to the detriment of his own theory: after all, those outbursts of merriment that he likes so much, according to his own theory, are only a painful reaction, this is one of the alternating paroxysms; why such injustice - such condescension to one paroxysm and severe condemnation of another? G. Skabichevsky demands equality of physical and spiritual pleasures, egoism and altruism, although it is not entirely clear where exactly his ideal is - in the vulgar petty-bourgeois happiness that awaited Freda and Pierre (in Barvenkova's novel "Expanse"), which he speaks of in such a sympathetic tone , whether in pathetic mediocrity, which knows how to be balanced, or in those historical personalities who “equally colossally” manifest themselves, “both in great feats of an altruistic nature, and in the satisfaction of egoistic passions” (Book. X, p. 32). If the former, then it is too insulting for humanity; if the latter, then why is it healthier and better than the intermittent ascetic paroxysms so condemned by Mr. Skabichevsky? But no matter how one understands this equality of sensuality and spirit, no noble moral worldview will ever reconcile with it: personal and, in particular, even sensual joys can be of great importance if they support the energy and vigor of spiritual forces, but give them an independent place in life. means endangering that in which the best part of humanity has always seen the only task truly and completely worthy of a person - his spiritual aspirations and ideals. It goes without saying that among these worldviews it occupies the first place; therefore, it is extremely strange to see Mr. Skabichevsky's confidence that Christ preached precisely his ideals. In the opinion of Mr. Skabichevsky, the relation of the teaching of Christ to the joys and pleasures of life is excellently portrayed by the words of Arsenoi in Merezhkovsky's novel The Outcast: “Those who torment their flesh and soul in the desert, she says, are far from the meek son of Mary. He loved children and freedom, and the joy of feasts, and lush white lilies. It is quite true that Christ was not a persecutor of joy and beauty, but if Mr. Skabichevsky, who apparently sympathizes with the teachings of Christ, wants to impose on Him his idea of ​​the equality of sensuality and spirit, egoism and altruism, then this only shows that the teachings of Christ are for him terra incognita; Mr. Skabichevsky either does not know or forgets that the teaching of Christ, with all his cheerfulness, is the preaching of the cross-bearing and self-denial, and not egoistic and sensual pleasures, that the same Christ, who loved lilies and feasts, called, however, to “destroy one’s soul” for the sake of higher spiritual goals. G. Skabichevsky contrasts asceticism with the Christian teaching of love, peace, meekness, humility, gentleness, etc. (Book X, p. 22). But was everything that Mr. Skabichevsky mercilessly condemns under the name of asceticism alien to this spirit of love, peace, gentleness, etc.? Was not, for example, Saint Sergius more than anyone filled with the humility of love and gentleness? Was it not love that animated the majority of the Narodniks in their service to the lesser brethren? Is it not love that prompts Maria Pavlovna into the novel by Count. Tolstoy's "Resurrection" to go entirely into charity, forgetting about personal happiness? It goes without saying that all this does not in the least interfere with cheerfulness: true satisfaction is achieved by a person not by the pursuit of pleasures and pleasures, and least of all by physical pleasures, but by selfless love. Therefore, self-denial, if it is not an attack of diseased nerves (that this actually happens, is beyond doubt), is a sign not of a decline in the spirit, but of its strength, the richness of the inner content, which is cramped in the narrow framework of egoism, and which therefore strives to pour out through towards known objective goals. But according to Mr. Skabichevsky, the satisfaction that arises on this basis is suspicious, dangerous, because it always threatens to turn into a paroxysm of unbridled sensuality. This, of course, should be the case according to Mr. Skabichevsky's theory, but does it always happen in reality? In order to answer this, let us turn to the facts with the help of which Mr. Skabichevsky wants to prove his theory.

According to Mr. Skabichevsky, the characteristic symptom of asceticism is the correct alternation of spiritual and sensual ecstasies. His reference to the history of Russian social life to a certain extent, apparently, can serve as a confirmation of such a view. But firstly, we will find fluctuations in public moods everywhere and always; therefore it is quite risky to see such fluctuations as a sign of an intermittent disease. Moreover, social psychopathology is too little developed to make such decisive and bold diagnoses in this area as Mr. Skabichevsky makes. Therefore, to test his views, it is best to turn to the individual facts that he cites. In this case, the only example that unconditionally confirms his theory will be Ivan the Terrible, who periodically passed “from unbridled orgies of drunkenness and debauchery to tearful repentance, when, together with his entourage, he locked himself in some monastery and there, dressed in monastic robes, laid earthly obeisances ... and indulged in all kinds of tortures of the flesh. There is no doubt that Ivan the Terrible was a typical representative of that same painful asceticism that Mr. Skabichevsky speaks of; but on the basis that this, without a doubt, morally disturbed person, was a sick ascetic, to suspect illness in any renunciation of joy and happiness in the name of higher ideals, is the same as recognizing all religiosity as a sign of mental illness only because some epileptics subject to bouts of morbid religiosity. G. Skabichevsky is also right in that the striving for ascetic deprivations for their own sake, without any higher practical goals, if not always, then very often characterizes a certain nervous defect, which then threatens to manifest itself in an unexpected reaction, but he looks in vain everywhere for this it is a pathological phenomenon, when the case is explained, apart from it, from motives that do not contain anything morbid. Of course, there is something abnormal in the fact that Zina Chernova (in Eltsova's novel "In a Strange Nest"), for no reason and in the name of what, exhausts her flesh, in order to then throw herself into the arms of the first rogue; but if it weren’t for this aimless exhaustion of the flesh, if it weren’t for the painful exaltation peeping through it, then we wouldn’t have the right to see an “ascetic illness” either in the fact that she is carried away by dreams of self-sacrifice, or even in the fact that she gives herself vulgar heartthrob; the latter, of course, is sad, but in itself still does not belong to the field of pathology. We think, finally, that even for Zina Chernova, with all the exaltation of her nature, this life lesson will not be in vain, so that her moral revival, about which Ms. Yeltsova speaks, does not at all threaten a new “ascetic illness”. But if Zina Chernova to some extent speaks in favor of Mr. Skabichevsky, then Letkova's novel The Dead Swell is no longer suitable for him. The representative of the "ascetic ailment" here is Lyolya - the main character of the novel, on whose behalf, in the form of her diary, the whole story is being told. Brought up by a populist mother in the ascetic ideals of self-sacrifice and service to the people, Lyolya falls in love with a handsome, somewhat limited, but kind officer - Vladimir Barmin, who does not know any lofty questions, and marries him, despite the protests of her mother; soon, however, Lyolya begins to get bored with her husband, who does not satisfy her spiritual needs; here the well-worn esthete Lvov turns up with his beautiful and supposedly original phrases, with the cult of beauty and higher individuality, I Lyolya, carried away by him, leaves her husband; but soon, however, this new happiness with a loved one, who, moreover, revealed himself from the most repulsive sides, begins to burden the heroine, and she, having comprehended the emptiness and unsatisfactoriness of a purely personal, egoistic existence, returns to the ideals of her mother. True, this short retelling may give the impression that Lyolya, in the best possible way, confirms Mr. Skabichevsky's theory, but a closer look at the case turns out that it has nothing in common with this theory. Brought up in the ideals of self-sacrifice and herself taking some part in “serving the people”, Lyolya falls in love with a handsome officer - this is the first manifestation of an ascetic illness. But in order for a fact to be able to confirm the views of Mr. Skabichevsky, it would be necessary to show that we are dealing with two alternating ecstasies, yet we do not find this main symptom here. Quite the opposite: Lyolya never completely, wholeheartedly gave herself up to the “paroxysm” of self-sacrifice; serving the people and the cause of her mother in general did not satisfy her from the very beginning, and she always felt in herself a thirst for personal happiness, which, at the first opportunity, was reflected in the fact that Lyolya fell in love with a handsome and healthy officer without high spiritual aspirations. All this is so common, simple and normal that excursions into the field of psychopathology would, apparently, be completely inappropriate here. But let's go further. A few years later, Lelya gets bored with her husband, who is completely incapable of understanding her, and she leaves with the decadent Lvov; It turns out that here, too, there is again an “ascetic ailment”: in this case, however strange such terminology may be, we can rightfully blame any betrayal of a wife on her husband and vice versa on an ascetic ailment. The husband does not satisfy the wife's spiritual needs, and she leaves with another who captivates her with the cult of beauty, elegant phrases, refined taste - this is an "ascetic ailment". If it had happened the other way around, that is, if refinement of taste had been on the husband’s side, and Lvov’s side had the advantages of healthy physical beauty, then Lelya’s betrayal could again be interpreted as a manifestation of an ascetic illness. Since, further, all betrayals in marriage already in themselves testify to the lack of complete satisfaction of one of the spouses with the other, we get a mathematically accurate conclusion - that all betrayals come from an “ascetic illness”. How little this fact from Lelya's biography fits the views of Mr. Skabichevsky is easy to understand, of course, from the fact that there is no change in physical and spiritual paroxysms, but only one physical attraction is replaced by another, also physical: Lvov only managed to touch Lelya's sensuality from a new side. , and they themselves eventually come to the realization that their attraction was based on physiology. But maybe, finally, the ascetic illness affected, at least, in the fact that Lyolya returns to the ideals of her mother, forgotten for some time? From what we have seen above, it is already possible to understand how correct it is to apply the data of psychiatry to the case here. We know that two opposite tendencies have always lived in Lela: the desire for self-sacrifice and the thirst for personal happiness; according to her own explanation, she inherited the former from her mother, the latter from her father. This means that she did not suffer from intermittent painful paroxysms, and the only thing is that her life turned out in such a way that she could not reconcile these two needs at once, and one can hope that, having finally tasted all the bitterness of the so-called. personal happiness, she will no longer renounce altruistic ideals, but will be able to merge them into one whole with a purely personal life. Are there many such people who immediately find their true path in life, who do not suffer from a split, from the struggle of opposing impulses? To look everywhere for traces of pathology means to recognize as normal only the balance of a well-organized machine and to find in it the highest ideal of man. - So, “Lyolya turned out to be completely unsuitable for the theory of Mr. Skabichevsky; this however is only half of the failure. In the same novel, he has to reckon with a direct refutation of his theory, which he quite prudently ignores. In fact, it seems rather strange that Mr. Skabichevsky stops his attention on the heroine, which in essence has nothing in common with his views, and completely forgets about the typical ascetic from his point of view, which is the mother of Lelya, who has completely gone into the service of the people and has forgotten about personal happiness. It would seem that, if where, then here we should look for intermittent paroxysms; some purely feminine narrowness inherent in Nastasya Petrovna, which manifests itself in excessive pedantry, strictness and sometimes even a little comical reasoning, it would seem from the point of view of Mr. Skabichevsky, should have sharpened the transitions to rampant sensual passions. However, do we see anything similar? We see only the following: Lyolya's mother lived all her life for others, according to the testimony of the heroine of the novel: first for her husband, then for her daughter, finally, she completely went into the service of her neighbors; we see that the holy inspiration does not leave Nastasya Petrovna for a minute, and she, even in spite of her daughter’s murderous and distressing behavior, in spite of complete bodily exhaustion, remains cheerful and full of spiritual strength, which Lyolya herself repeatedly speaks with surprise. Thus, we see how difficult it is to prove that asceticism, in the terminology of Mr. Skabichevsky, i.e., complete renunciation of personal happiness and personal joys, is a painful phenomenon.

Apart from the extremes just indicated, we do not deny the truth in what Mr. Skabichevsky says. He is right in that one-sided asceticism often degenerates into painful and ugly forms, that ascetic tendencies often grow not on the basis of healthy aspirations of the spirit, but on the basis of nervous dislocation and morbidity, which makes itself felt in subsequent reactions; he is right in that asceticism for the sake of asceticism, without any further fruitful purpose, looking at the joys of life as something sinful in itself - all these phenomena are abnormal and undesirable. But for the sake of this, to see an ascetic illness in every selfless self-denial that forgets about itself and its joys, in every renunciation of happiness for the sake of higher goals, in every opposition to sensuality that threatens to engulf the spiritual personality, means to draw the same ugly conclusion as if someone Somehow, just on the basis that many of the Spanish kings who call themselves turned out to be simply crazy, I would argue that all real Spanish kings are nothing more than crazy. The torn or painful asceticism that Mr. Skabichevsky speaks of can often be the result of poorly calculated personal forces. Therefore, in self-denial, and especially in the suppression of sensuality, a certain kind of caution is needed. But there are people with such a happy nature that for them self-denial and self-restraint are not in the least associated with dangers and only increase their spiritual strength. It is precisely here that Mr. Skabichevsky senses the "stench of degeneration." Meanwhile, it would do no harm for him to recall, if we are not mistaken, the image of Christ highly revered by him, who, with all his “joyfulness”, perfectly dominated sensuality and had “no place to lay his head”.