Who wrote the letter to Gogol. Tom Stoppard Shore of Utopia dramatic trilogy
Period feudal fragmentation and enemy invasions lasted until the 14th century. At the end of the 14th century, a powerful single state with its center in Moscow was formed from many lands and principalities.
The main factors for the unification of Russian lands were: economic development, revitalization of cities, strengthening economic ties between individual regions, the boyars were interested in strong centralized power, which would help them cope with the peasantry, and the peasantry itself needed strong power to protect itself from the feudal lords, the princes sought to strengthen their power, the Orthodox Church sought centralized power in order to strengthen itself.
It is necessary to clearly imagine the stages of the formation of a unified Russian state. The founder of the dynasty of Moscow princes was younger son Alexander Nevsky Daniil Alexandrovich (1276–1294) Under Ivan Kalita (1328–1340), the Moscow principality expanded, Moscow became not only the political center of the Russian lands, but also a religious one, the metropolitan head of the Russian church moved here. It must be recalled that the Russian Church became independent from Constantinople already during the time of Yaroslav the Wise (1019–1054).
Moscow will finally be transformed into The largest city Rus' under the Moscow prince Dmitry Donskoy (1362–1389).
Ivan III Vasilyevich (1462–1505) played an important role in the process of creating a unified Russian state. During his unification policy, the territory of the state grew 5–6 times. Under him, the Golden Horde yoke finally fell (1480). It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the fall of the Horde yoke was prepared a long process strengthening the Moscow Principality and weakening the Horde. From that time on, Ivan III began to call himself “Sovereign of All Rus'.”
The second wife of Ivan III in 1472 was the Byzantine princess Zoya (Sophia) Paleologus. This marriage contributed to increasing the international prestige of the Grand Duke of Moscow and his descendants.
By this time (1453), Byzantium as a center of Orthodoxy had ceased to exist. Moscow State was the only one among the Orthodox who was independent. Ivan III, occasionally calling himself Tsar, showed that the rights of the fallen Byzantine house were transferred to Moscow as to the new Constantinople. Initially, Byzantine rulers styled themselves with this title - king. Ivan III did not accept the royal title, because after 1480 he considered himself no weaker than any European ruler. A royal title would place him below the emperor and the pope. The title of Tsar was officially legitimized in 1547 by Ivan the Terrible, and it was with him that the dynasty of Moscow Tsars began. Since the institution of abdication was not formed in Russia, the Russian tsars occupied the throne until the end of their lives.
From the end of the 15th century on the Moscow grand-ducal seals, along with the horseman slaying the serpent, the Byzantine double headed eagle- coat of arms of the Byzantine rulers. The symbols of the highest royal power were the Monomakh cap, barmas, orb, and scepter. According to legend, Monomakh's hat and barmas were allegedly received by Vladimir Monomakh as a gift from the Byzantine ruler Constantine Monomakh. All the great Moscow princes were crowned with the Monomakh cap. For the first time, Ivan the Terrible was crowned on the royal throne with the Monomakh cap. This tradition continued until 1721, when the importance of the coronation crown passed to the imperial crown.
Since 1492 in the Moscow state New Year began to be calculated from September 1, as in Byzantium; before that, the new year began on March 1.
The customs of the Moscow court have changed. Under the influence of Zoya Paleolog, a complex court ceremony was formed, emphasizing the high status of the Grand Duke, compared to the boyars.
At the beginning of the 16th century. a political theory about “Moscow – the third Rome” arises. This theory justified historical meaning the capital of the Russian state of Moscow as a political and church center. By this time, Russia was the only independent Orthodox state, and the Russian Church was the largest and most influential among the Orthodox churches.
The process of uniting Russian lands into a single state was similar to the same process in Europe. But unlike Europe, where feudal relations were gradually being eliminated, in Russia they became increasingly cruel. The nature of power gradually changed. It became unlimited, i.e. autocratic, despotic. The lecture will examine this issue in detail and show the trends that gave rise to this process.
The Mongol conquest turned out to be a great shock. One of the consequences was the enormous concentration of power in the hands of the head of state. If in Kievan Rus princes, even the most powerful, were very dependent on the squad, then already in the 14th century the position of the Moscow sovereigns was completely special. The power of the ruler becomes unquestionable, and, starting from the reign of Ivan III, a terrible process of cultivating not just anyone, but the ruling class itself, including the highest aristocracy, has been going on.
The ruling class is completely deprived of political rights (under Ivan IV).
The term “state” itself was first used in the Moscow Chronicle in the late 90s of the 15th century. A state is a territory and a political body subordinate to the sovereign. In Rus' at that time, the concept of “sovereign” had two meanings. It denoted the owner of slaves (i.e. people who are legally completely powerless) and the head of state. In the future, this political body, headed by the sovereign, will become a community of completely powerless individuals, “the sovereign’s servants.”
A new system of public administration has been formed. The head of the Russian state was the Grand Duke, later the Tsar. The power of the Rurikovichs was inherited in two ways: horizontally - to the eldest in the family, and vertically - from father to son. In the 15th century, the second method of inheritance was finally established. Below were the appanage princes-brothers and nephews of the Grand Duke. Below the appanage princes were the service princes - formerly independent sovereigns who transferred to the service of the Moscow Grand Duke. Later, the service princes became ordinary patrimonial owners with princely titles. Throughout the 15th century. many princes entered the Boyar Duma - an advisory body under the prince and tsar. In a narrow sense, the word “boyar” means a member of the Boyar Duma and their at the end of the 15th century. there were just over ten. IN in a broad sense The term “boyars” means a set of ancient Moscow service families that did not have princely titles. This issue will be discussed in detail during the seminar.
In the system of general government until the middle of the 16th century. included, in addition to the Boyar Duma, the Sovereign Palace and the Sovereign Treasury. In the middle of the 16th century. Orders appear. In 1497, the first set of laws appeared single state"Code of Law".
The basis of local government was the feeding system. The country was divided into counties and volosts. The district was ruled by a governor, the volost - by the volost. They did not receive a salary for their managerial and judicial activities, which was only an addition to the main thing - the right to receive food, i.e. collect part of taxes and court fees for your benefit. Feeding was given as a reward for previous service. Initially, the feeding system contributed to the unification of the Russian state. Service people were interested in expanding the possessions of Moscow, since this increased the number of feedings. But this system had flaws and was later replaced.
In the 15th century, the country's population was 3 million people, estates were formed - groups of the population that had certain rights and responsibilities, which were enshrined in laws (the estate system in Russia remained until 1917). In the 16th century, the nobility - a privileged, influential class - became the support of the Moscow ruler. Ivan III was the first creator of the Russian nobility; he relied on the Moscow cavalry army - landowners who received lands seized from former appanage princes. The large, overwhelming part of the “state-owned” agricultural land was divided up and distributed for exploitation to “the servants of the Grand Duke of Moscow.” The lecture will describe in detail the stages of formation of this population group.
In the 14th century the term “peasants” appeared. This term was applied to farmers and apparently to all “common people”, urban and rural. And only in the 17th century did peasants begin to be called peasants? modern sense this word. In the 15th century, some peasants began to be called “old residents.” These peasants cultivated the same plot for many years and were tied to the established strong economy and could not leave this economy. For the feudal lord, this group of peasants was the most economically important. Farmers who lived in private feudal estates were exempted from part of state duties; as they said then, they were “whitewashed.”
Some peasants lived on state lands and were called “black”, later “chernososhny”.
From the end of the 15th century. The Russian state began to be called Russia.
In conclusion, attention should be paid to the fact that the process of unification of Russian lands was complex; favorable conditions for the socio-economic development of the country, but it is also necessary to highlight the negative aspects of this process, which later led to the strengthening of despotism. This will be discussed in detail in the lecture.
The rise of the Russian autocracy
With the formation of a centralized state, a system of supreme power takes shape (practically and ideologically) - autocracy. Autocracy is a monarchical form of government in Russia, when the bearer of supreme power - the tsar, the emperor - had the supreme right in legislation (approval of bills), in administration (appointment and dismissal of senior officials), supreme leadership of central and local institutions and governing bodies, high command army and navy, financial management, etc., in the highest court (confirmation of sentences, pardon). In the history of autocracy, two stages can be traced: in the 16th–17th centuries. the monarch exercised his rights together with the Boyar Duma and the boyar aristocracy; in the XVIII – early XX centuries. absolute monarchy was established. The Manifesto of October 17, 1905 limited the tsarist power and introduced the State Duma. In this form, the autocracy lasted until March 2, 1917, until the abdication of the last Emperor Nicholas II.
For a century and a half, representatives of educated Russian society, participating either in the liberal or in the communist movement, studying with interest the well-known controversy between V. G. Belinsky and N. V. Gogol, gave preference to the arguments of the first.
Literary criticism
After 1917, the dispute between these great people was included in the general education course. However, the textbooks presented only the point of view that V. G. Belinsky adhered to. The letter to Gogol reflected his attitude to reality and showed the solidarity of his thoughts with liberal democratic ideas. Nikolai Vasilyevich was a conservative. IN revolutionary Russia Gogol the thinker was not only unnecessary, but even harmful. All judgments that came from him were allowed, in best case scenario, interpret, while changing them beyond recognition. For many decades, official literary criticism characterized Gogol only from one side. He acted as a critic of "the society in which he lived." He was shown as a writer whose work sought only to illustrate the negative sides of the existing bourgeois landowner's world, the anti-people essence of autocracy. The spiritual side of Nikolai Vasilyevich remained in the shadows.
Reason for the dispute
On December 31, 1846, it was published. It was called “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends.” An angry Belinsky almost immediately writes a letter to Gogol. In it, he calls the book “vile” and accuses its author of ignorance of reality. The work was eventually withdrawn from circulation for a long time and placed in closed storage. Russians were allowed to read "The Inspector General", " Dead Souls", "Viya", "Nevsky Prospekt" and other fiction. However, the author himself called "Selected Places..." his only practical book. Currently, it has been returned to readers.
Public opinion
The book of 1846 caused a wave of indignation in advanced Russian society. During these years, many authors put forward a variety of reasons that prompted Gogol to write it. Some said that this was a serious and bitter delusion of the author, who had lost the correct understanding of the reality that surrounded him. Others believed that the book reflected his weakness not only as a thinker, but also as a person in general. Still others said that Gogol was frightened by the conclusions that followed from his other works of art. Still others believed that the book showed the ideological vacillations of the author, who himself found himself in the trap of religious prejudices and reactionary utopias.
Belinsky's letter to Gogol: summary
It is believed that it brought an end to the critic’s literary activity, since it was written shortly before his death. Lenin believed that Belinsky's letter to Gogol was one of outstanding works democratic uncensored press. Its significance remained for a long time. At first, the book “Selected Places...” was raised like a banner, meeting with a positive reaction from part of society. However, Belinsky’s letter to Gogol gave her a decisive rebuff. What was the critic talking about? In his lines, he gave a merciless characterization of the writer. The critic called him “a preacher of the whip, an apostle of ignorance, a champion of obscurantism and obscurantism, a panegyrist of Tatar morals.” Belinsky's letter to Gogol, summary which was retold by the Petrashevites and all progressive circles of society, expressed the interests and thoughts of the serf people against the autocracy. The critic said that earlier the writer denounced tsarism, ridiculed the landowners, and fought against serfdom. The revolutionary circle accepted Gogol. He made the whole country laugh at the Plyushkins, Sobakeviches, and Khlestakovs, which undoubtedly made the fight against them much easier. In an objective sense, he denounced serfdom. Belinsky's letter to Gogol reminds Nikolai Vasilyevich of former times. The critic speaks of his respect and love for him, as a person who is closely connected with his country, who acted as one of the leaders on the path of progress. After the publication of the book “Selected Places...” Belinsky gave extremely negative feedback in Sovremennik. At that time, his appeal to Nikolai Vasilyevich could not be published, but nevertheless became widespread. The advanced part of society without any difficulty understood the essence of Belinsky’s letter to Gogol. The critic rebelled against the preaching of “immorality and lies under the auspices of religion and the whip.” Belinsky pointed out in his letter the atheistic nature of Russian people. At the same time, he recognized the historicity of Christ and his teachings about freedom, fraternity and equality. Belinsky’s letter to Gogol, in short, became a manifesto of a thinking and progressive Russia. “The name of the critic was known to every representative of progressive youth,” said Aksakov.
Belinsky's letter to Gogol: analysis
Lenin gave an extremely high rating to the critic’s words. At that time, the government persecuted those who kept and read it. According to the reviews of the agent of the third department and the Petrashevites, the critic’s words created general delight. Belinsky's letter appears the most important monument social thought. The critic now spoke of Nikolai Vasilyevich not as a progressive artist, but as a reactionary publicist. His book defended the Nicholas autocracy, supported serfdom. N.V. Gogol exalted the landowner, proclaimed him “the father of the peasants,” and pointed out the need to obey him. He called the serf himself “unwashed snout.” Gogol taught the landowner to make more money from the peasant’s labor, called for obedience to the tsar and his officials, and to follow the traditions of antiquity. All this caused sharp criticism. Belinsky stated that the salvation of Russia does not lie in asceticism, mysticism and pietism, but in the success of humanity, enlightenment and civilization. He categorically opposed preaching, calling for the awakening of the people's sense of self-worth, which for centuries had been trampled into rubbish and dirt.
In his letter to Gogol, Belinsky pointed out the writer’s misconceptions about reality. The critic said that the public would not be able to forgive such a disregard for freedoms as was expressed in the book. Speaking against serfdom, Belinsky clearly illuminated all its humiliation. After reading “Selected Places...”, the critic was struck by the change that occurred in the author’s thoughts. More recently, “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls” came out from his pen, denouncing the landowner system and ridiculing it. It must be said that at the time of writing his book, Gogol was abroad. This became another argument for criticism. Belinsky said that it is impossible to understand the situation while being away from the country. Meanwhile, the critic, hoping that all these thoughts of the writer were the result of his delusions, recommends that he create a counterbalance work that would neutralize the effect of his book.
Important points of the message
Belinsky was struck by Gogol’s words about the uselessness and even harmfulness of literacy for common people. Nikolai Vasilyevich’s words that perhaps his book is a delusion are categorically rejected. Belinsky says that this line of thought has been known in Russia for a long time. Moreover, the critic points out the absence of any intelligence and talent in the work. He says that this in no way fits with the creations that he created earlier. Belinsky resolutely rejects the conclusion that the book was the fruit of Gogol’s mental disorder. He explains this by saying that it was written not in one or two days, but perhaps over years.
Nikolai Vasilievich's answer
As mentioned above, the critic published an article about the new book “Selected Places...” in Sovremennik. Offended by her, Gogol wrote a letter to Belinsky. In it, he says that criticism of his book is most likely due to personal attitudes. Meanwhile, Belinsky fell seriously ill. While in Russia, he could not answer Nikolai Vasilyevich, since censorship was strict at that time. But illness forced him to go abroad. From there he sent an angry response.
N. Gogol's letter to Belinsky was sent on August 10. In it, the writer is deeply shocked by the public's reaction to his book. He says he received about 50 reviews, and they were all different. Nikolai Vasilyevich admits that he really did not understand the current situation well. However, Gogol’s letter to Belinsky cannot be called repentance for “Selected Places...”. Moreover, we can say that he did not admit the fallacy of his opinions, conclusions, words and ideas. He only says that you should come to Russia, see and again learn everything that is in it. Last letter Gogol to Belinsky testifies to the author’s reluctance to create something new before he has visited the country. The author believes that even those people who are in Russia cannot fully understand the whole situation. Addressing Vissarion Grigorievich, he points out that he, for his part, also cannot know many things that are known to him. Accordingly, there cannot be a complete understanding of the reasons that prompted the creation of “Selected Places...”. Gogol’s letter to Belinsky does not promote anything, does not call for anything. Nikolai Vasilyevich is trying to justify himself in some way, to explain the superficial state of affairs. At the same time, he understands that, most likely, his words will not find a response from the critic.
Gogol's letter to Belinsky reflects the author's state. He was depressed and practically destroyed by criticism. Progressive circles greeted his work with indignation, but they enthusiastically discussed Vissarion Grigorievich’s response to it. Despite the support given to his book by the government, Gogol did not experience the satisfaction he expected. He does not indicate criticism in his answer true reasons who inspired me to write the book. Gogol's letter to Belinsky seems unclear and blurry in comparison with the critic's message. However, he admits to focusing too much on himself. At the same time, he points out to Belinsky that he was too “scattered.” He says that the critic neglects the need to know everything that he himself knows in order to understand his motives and thoughts. Gogol's letter to Belinsky in 1847 ends with a wish for health. Nikolai Vasilyevich reminds Vissarion Grigorievich that only in the absence of illness can one do reasonable things in any field.
conclusions
Belinsky pointed out to Gogol that the situation seemed quite prosperous at a distance from Russia. However, up close it won't be as beautiful. Gogol admits this. However, at the same time, it also suggests that the critic himself cannot know many things. But, unlike Belinsky, Gogol indicates that he is ready to admit his mistakes and work on them. At the same time, the critic does not see the same desire, which, of course, greatly disappoints him. He says that Russia is on the threshold of great events that require people to consider life from all sides, without rushing headlong into revolution. Perhaps Gogol really was influenced by religious teachings. The perception he had directed his thoughts towards autocracy. He spoke about the spiritual connection between the people and the king, and the need to preserve it further. This was in sharp contrast to the ideas he had previously followed. However, from his answer to Belinsky it follows that he does not intend to abandon his thoughts at all. He is only ready to re-study Russia and the state of affairs in it. But he most likely needed this to further strengthen his ideas.
Communication of figures
Belinsky and Gogol at one time were good friends and supporters of the same ideas. The first, as a critic, put forward decisive social and political demands to the government, insisting on meeting the pressing needs of the peasant masses who were under the yoke of serfdom. To the very topical issues He attributed modernity to the abolition of punishments and the introduction of strict enforcement of all existing laws. The key demand was the overthrow of serfdom. Gogol, in turn, as a writer, was an exposer of landowners, officials, and autocracy. This is precisely where the views of these people converged. Belinsky, highlighting the humiliating situation of the peasants, wrote that Russia is becoming a terrible country in which human trafficking occurs. In the state there were not only no guarantees for property, honor, personality, but also police order. Belinsky considered the destruction of serfdom to be his primary task. Literary activity, in his opinion, was a guide for the people. He saw writers as leaders of a new system. Among them, Gogol enjoyed special respect and love from Belinsky himself and other representatives of progressive society. But, having gone abroad, he publishes a book that turns all ideas about him upside down.
Conclusion
Responding to criticism, Gogol does not provide any arguments in his favor. He only states the existing facts. There is no desire in his letter to correct himself, to “come to his senses,” or, ultimately, to apologize to the public. His book was not recognized by the advanced strata of society at that time. This was mainly due to the fact that the desire for a new, free life, which the autocracy was unable to provide.
Sasha, dear, hello!
I read N.V. Gogol’s answers to V.G. Belinsky and decided to send them to you so that you could read them carefully.
I really appreciate these letters from Gogol; here is his whole nature, as a Russian person in general and as a writer who is aware of his responsibility before God and people.
1 letter
Date of creation: around June 20, 1847, publ.: 1855. Source: Gogol N.V. Complete collection works in 14 volumes. - M.-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952. - T. 13. Letters, 1846-1847. - pp. 326-328
“I read with regret your article about me in the second issue of Sovremennik. Not because I was saddened by the humiliation into which you wanted to put me in the minds of everyone, but because in it you can hear the voice of a person who was angry with me. But I would not want to anger even a person who did not love me, especially you, whom I always thought of as a person who loved me. I did not at all mean to upset you in any place in my book. How did it happen that on I was angry, every single one in Russia, I still can’t understand this myself. Eastern, Western and neutral - everyone was upset. It’s true, I meant a small click to each of them, considering it necessary, having experienced the need for it on their own skin (we all need more humility), but I didn’t think that my click would come out so grossly awkward and so insulting. I thought that I would be generously forgiven and that in my book the germ of universal reconciliation, and not discord. You looked at my book with your eyes an angry person and therefore almost everything was accepted in a different form. Leave all those places that are still a mystery to many, if not all, and pay attention to those places that are accessible to every sensible and reasonable person, and you will see that you were mistaken in many ways.
It was not for nothing that I begged everyone to read my book several times, anticipating all these misunderstandings in advance. Believe me, it is not easy to judge such a book, where one’s own heartfelt story a person who is not like others, and, moreover, a secretive person<о>, who lived for a long time within himself and suffered from the inability to express himself. It was also not easy to decide on the feat of exposing yourself to general shame and ridicule, exposing part of that inner cage, the real meaning of which would not soon be felt. Already one such feat should have forced thinking man think about it and, without rushing to express your own voice about it, read it at different hours of your spiritual disposition, calmer and more attuned to your own confession, because only in such moments the soul is able to understand the soul, and in my book it is the work of the soul. You would not have made those erroneous conclusions that filled your article. How is it possible, for example, from the fact that I said that there is a lot of justice in the critics who spoke about my shortcomings, to draw the conclusion that the critics who spoke about my merits are unfair? Such logic can only be present in the head of an irritated person who continues to look for the very thing that can irritate him, and does not calmly examine the object from all sides. Well, what if I spent a long time in my head and thought about how to talk about those critics who spoke about my merits and who, regarding my writings, spread many wonderful thoughts about art? And if I impartially wanted to determine the dignity of each and those delicate shades of aesthetic sense with which each of them was more or less uniquely gifted? And if I was only waiting for the time when it would be possible for me to say about this, or, more accurately, when it would be decent for me to say about it, so that they would not later say that I was guided by some selfish goal, and not by a sense of impartiality and justice? Write the harshest criticisms, take all the words you know in order to humiliate a person, contribute to the ridicule of me in the eyes of your readers, without sparing the most sensitive strings, perhaps the most tender heart - my soul will endure all this, although not without pain and sorrowful shocks. But it’s hard for me, it’s very hard (I tell you this truly), when personal bitterness feeds against me even evil person, not only kind, but I considered you to be kind person. Here is a sincere statement of my feelings!"
Notes:
1. For Belinsky’s article on “Selected passages from correspondence with friends,” see Sovremennik 1847, No. 2, dep. 3, pp. 103-124.
2 letter
Date of creation: end of July - beginning of August 1847, publ.: 1856. Source: Gogol N.V. Complete works in 14 volumes. - M.-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952. - T. 13. Letters, 1846-1847. - pp. 435-446 A draft of Belinsky’s response to his Salzbrunn letter to Gogol dated July 3/15, 1847, not sent by Gogol.
<С чего начать мой>response to your letter?<Начну его с ваших же слов>: “Come to your senses, you are standing<на краю>abyss! How [far] you have strayed from the straight path, in what a twisted form things have become before you! In what a rude, ignorant sense you took my book! How did you interpret it! Oh, may the holy powers bring peace into your suffering, tormented soul<у! Зачем вам>was to change once chosen, the world<ную дорогу?>What could be more beautiful than showing readers the beauty in the works of our writers, elevating their soul and strength to an understanding of all that is beautiful, enjoying the thrill of the sympathy awakened in them and thus<асно>affect their souls? This road would lead you to reconciliation with life, this road would make you bless everything in nature. As for political events, society would naturally reconcile if reconciliation were in the spirit of those who have influence on society. And now your lips breathe bile and hatred. Why should you, with your ardent soul, go into this political maelstrom, into these murky events?<енности>, among which is a firm, prudent multilateral<ость>gets lost? With your one-sided mind, ardent as gunpowder, already flaring up before you even know what the truth is, how can you not get lost? You will burn out like a candle, and you will burn others. Oh, how my heart aches [at this moment for you!] What if I am also to blame, what if my writings have led you astray?
But no, no matter how I consider all my previous works<мои>, I see that they could not<и соблазнить вас. Как ни?>look at them in<них нет лжи некоторых?>modern works.
How strange<м заблуждении вы находитесь! Ваш светлый ум>got foggy.<В каком превратном>you received the form, see<ысл моих произведений.>IN<н>theirs is my answer. When [I wrote them, I was in awe]<ред>everyone, in front of<чем>a person owes good<го>vet. The ridicule [and dislike I heard] was not at the authorities, not at the fundamental laws of our state, but at perversion, at deviations, at incorrect interpretations, at bad<приложением их?..>, over the scab that has accumulated, over<...>life unusual for him<ю>. Nowhere did I mock what constitutes the basis of the Russian character and its great strengths. The ridicule was only for small things that were out of character for him. My mistake is that I discovered little of the Russian man, I did not open him up, did not expose him to those great springs that are stored in his soul. But this is not an easy matter. Although I observed the Russian man more than you, although some gift of clairvoyance could help me, I was not blinded by myself, my eyes were clear. I saw that I was still immature to deal with events higher than those that had hitherto appeared in my writings, and with the strongest characters. Everything could seem exaggerated and stressful. This is what happened with this book of mine, which you attacked so much. You looked at her with inflamed eyes, and everything about her seemed to you in a different form. You didn't recognize her. I won't defend my book. How to respond to any of your accusations when they are all gone? I attacked her myself and am attacking her. It was published in hasty haste, uncharacteristic of my prudent and prudent character. But the movement was honest. I didn’t want to flatter or poop anyone with it. I only wanted to use it to stop a few ardent heads that were ready to spin and get lost in this whirlpool and disorder in which all the things of the world suddenly found themselves. I fell into excess, but I'm telling you, I didn't even notice it. I didn’t have any selfish goals before, when I was still somewhat occupied by the temptations of the world, and especially since<лее теперь>when it's time to think about death. I didn't have any selfish mind<ысла>. I didn't want anything<я>straighten it out<ашивать>. [It’s not in my nature either]. There is beauty in poverty. If only you could remember<что>I don’t even have a corner, and I’m only trying to figure out how to make my small traveling suitcase even lighter, so that it’s easier to part with [the world]. You should have restrained yourself from branding me with those offensive suspicions with which I would not have the courage to sully the last scoundrel. It is for you<нужно>I wish I could remember. You excuse yourself by being in an angry mood. But how<в гневном расположении духа?>[you dare to speak]<о таких?>important subjects and not<дите, что вас ослепляет гневный?>mind and takes away sp<окойствие...>
How can I defend myself against your attacks when the attacks are random? My words to the sovereign, reminding him of the sanctity of his title and his high responsibilities, seemed like a lie to you. you call<их>flattery. No, each of us should be reminded that his title is sacred, and even more so the sovereign<арю>. Let him remember how<ой>strict answer<буется>From him. But if the title of each of us is sacred, then even more so is the title of the one who has been given the difficult and terrible lot of caring for the dear ones.<л>and she<х>. Why remind us of the holiness of the title? Yes, we should even remind each other of our sacred<тости на>our duties and titles. Without this, a person will become mired in material feelings.<Вы говорите?>by the way, as if I<спел>a paean to our government. I didn't sing anywhere. I told<ал>only that the government consists of us. We curry favor and form the government. What if the government is a huge gang of thieves, or do you think none of the Russians know this? Let's take a closer look, why is this? Is it not because of this complexity and the monstrous accumulation of rights, is it not because we are all in the forest, some in need of firewood? One looks to England, another to Prussia, the third to France. One leaves on one basis, the other on another. One thrusts that project onto the sovereign, the other<иной, третий?>different again. No matter what person<то разные проекты и раз>new thoughts no matter what<город?>, then different thoughts and<проекты... Как же не>form in the middle<такой разладицы вор>and all sorts of things<плутням и неспра>prudence, when everyone<видит, что везде>there are obstacles, everyone thinks only about themselves and how to get a warmer apartment?.. You say that the salvation of Russia lies in European civilization. But what a boundless and boundless word this is. If only you could define what is meant by the name of European civility<зации>which everyone repeats pointlessly. Here the phalansterie, and the red, and everyone, and everyone is ready to eat each other, and everyone wears such destructive, such destroying principles that even every thinking head in Europe is trembling and involuntarily asks, where is our civilization? And she became European civilization a ghost that definitely<никто>haven't seen it yet, and if<пытались ее>grab with your hands, she races<пается>. And there was progress too, until I thought about it<али, когда же?>they began to catch him, and he scattered<ся>.
Why did you think that I also sang a song to our vile, like<вы>you say, the clergy? Is it really my word that a preacher of the Eastern Church must preach by life and deeds? And why do you have such a spirit of hatred? I knew a lot of bad priests and I can tell you a lot of funny jokes about them, maybe more than you. But I also met those whose holiness of life and exploits I marveled at, and saw that they were the creation of our Eastern Church, and not the Western. So, I did not at all think of paying hymn to the clergy who disgraced our church, but to the clergy who exalted our church.
How strange it all is! How strange is my position, that I must defend myself against those attacks which are not all directed against me and not against my book! You say that you have read my book a hundred times, while your own words say that you have not read it even once. Anger has clouded your eyes and prevented you from seeing anything in the real sense. There are sparkles of truth wandering here and there among a huge heap of sophistry and rash youths<ких>hobbies. But what ignorance shines on every page<нице>! You separate the church from<Христа и>Christianity, that very church, those very<...>shepherds who martyred<своей смертью>sealed the truth of every word of Christ, who perished in thousands under the knives and swords of murderers, praying for them, and finally tired of the executioners themselves, so that the victors fell at the feet of the vanquished, and the whole world confessed<это слово>. And you want to separate these very shepherds, these martyred bishops, who carried the shrine of the church on their shoulders, from Christ, calling them unjust interpreters of Christ. Who do you think can interpret Christ closer and better now? Are the current<м>Unists and socialists, [explaining that Christ commanded to take away property and land<бить>those [who have made a fortune for themselves?] Come to your senses! Called Voltaire<ете>who have rendered a service to Christianity and say that this is known to every student of the hymn<зии>. Yes, when I was still in the gymnasium, I did not admire Voltaire even then. Even then I was smart enough to see in Voltaire a clever wit, but far from deep man. Voltaire could not be admired by full and mature minds; he was admired by uneducated youth. Voltaire, despite all his brilliant manners, remained the same Frenchman. One can say about him what Pushkin says about the Frenchman in general:
The Frenchman is a child:
He's like that, jokingly,
Will destroy the throne
And he will give the law;
And quick as a glance
And empty as nonsense
And it will surprise
And it will make you laugh.
<...Христос>doesn't tell anyone anywhere<что нужно приобрета?>yes, and also on the contrary<настоятельно нам?>he orders to yield:<снимаю>taking your clothes off,<отдай последнюю>rub<ашку, с прося>I want you to go with you<одно>field, go through two.<Не>lzya, getting easy magazine images<ание, судить>about such items. Needed for this<го изучи>there is the history of the church.
Need again<прочи>thief with thought for all historians<чело>of the world in the source<х, а не в нынешних>light brochures,<написанных...?>God knows who. These<поверхностные энциклопеди>technical information scatters the mind rather than focusing it<от>revive him. What can I say to you in response to the harsh remark that the Russian peasant is not inclined towards religion and that, when speaking about God, he scratches his lower back with his other hand, a remark that you pronounce with such self-confidence, as if you have been treating the Russian peasant for centuries? Whats up<гово>to speak when so eloquent<говорят>thousands of churches and monasteries covering<русскую землю>. They are built [not by gifts] from the rich, but from the poor<ми>mites of the poor, the very people about whom you say that they speak with disrespect of God, and who share their last penny with the poor and God, suffer bitter need, about which<рой знает каждый из нас?>to be able to bring diligence<ное подаяние Богу?>. No, Vissarion Gr<игорьевич>, one cannot judge the Russian people by someone who has lived a century in St. Petersburg, engaged in light magazine reading<статейками и романами>those French people<манистов, которые>so biased<что не хотят видеть>, as from the Gospel ref.<одит истина?>, and do not notice how ugly and<пошло?>their life is depicted. Now let me<азать>that I have more before you [the right to speak]<о русском>people. At least all my works, one by one<душному>conviction, show knowledge of<ироды>Russian, they hand over a man who was observing with the people<ателен и... стало>may already have the gift of entry<ить в его жизнь>what is being said<было>much that you yourself have confirmed in your critics. And what<вы предста>vite as proof of your knowledge human nature and the Russian people, that you have produced one in which you can see<это>know<ние>? Item<этот>great, and I could tell you about this<написать>books. You yourself would be ashamed of the crude meaning that you gave to my advice to the landowner. No matter how much these tips are cut off by censorship,<в н>there is no protest against literacy,<а>isn't it<лишь>protest against corruption<народа русск>Oh, a letter, instead of the fact that a letter was given to us in order to strive for the highest light of man. Your reviews about the landowner generally echo Fonvizin’s times. Since then, much, much has changed in Russia, and now much more has appeared. What is more profitable for the peasants, the rule of one landowner, already quite educated, [who] was brought up at the university and who nevertheless [therefore should already feel a lot] or<быть>governed by<многих чиновнико>in, less educated,<корыстолюбив>s and caring about that<только, чтобы нажи>is there? Yes and a lot<есть таких предмето>in, which should be mentioned<каждому из нас>think ahead before<нежели с>with the ardor of an intemperate knight and a young man to talk about liberation, so that this can be mastered<божде>nothing was worse than slavery. In general, we are somehow more concerned about change<назва>ny and names. Aren't you ashamed of your mind?<шительных име>ours, [which we give]<...>[sometimes to comrades], in<иде>humiliation<чел>sheepishness and a sign of barbarism? These are the childish conclusions that an incorrect view of the main subject leads to...
I was also amazed by this brave arrogance with which you say: “I know about<щество>ours and his spirit,” and you guarantee<в этом>. How can you vouch for this constantly changing chameleon? What data can you certify that you know the society? Where are your means to do this? Have you shown anywhere in your writings that you are a deep knower of the human soul? Have you gone through life experience?<ни>? Living almost without touching people and light, leading peaceful life magazine employee, always busy<х>feuilleton articles, how do you have an idea about this huge monster that<ое неожи>these phenomena<ловит нас>into that trap<торую попадают>all young pi<сатели, рассуждающие>about the whole world and humanity, while<довольно>worries to us and around us. Need to<прежде всего>fulfill them, then society<само>will go well by itself. And if<пренебрежём>responsibilities regarding persons<близких и погони>I'm after society, then<упустим и те и другие?>just the same. I met in Lately many beautiful l<юдей, которые>completely lost. ABOUT<д>They don’t think [that] through transformations and reforms, by turning this way and that way, the world can be corrected; others think that through some special, rather mediocre<ной>literature, which you call fiction, can have an effect on the education of society. But the welfare of society will not lead to best condition no riots, no [hot heads]. The fermentation within cannot be corrected by any constitution.<...Общест>is formed by itself, socially<тво>made up of units.<Надобно, чтобы каждая едини>she did her duty<ность свою.> <...>Man needs to remember<что>he is not a material beast at all,<но вы>juicy citizen of the high heaven<го гра>waiting. As long as<он хоть ско>Somebody won't live life<неб>natural citizen, until then<пр>goes in order and ze<мное>citizenship.
You say that Russia is<олго и напрасно моли>las. No, Russia m<олилась не напрасно. К>when she prayed, she saved<лась. О>she prayed in 1612 and was saved from the Poles; she prayed in 1812 and escaped from the French. Or is this what you call a prayer, which is one out of a hundred<молится>, and all the others revel, headlong, from morning to evening at all sorts of shows, bets<вая>the last of your property to enjoy all the comforts<ми>, which this b has endowed us with<естолковая?>European civilization?
No, let's leave it<одобные сом>specific provisions<и посмотрим на>yourself [honestly].<Будем стара>try not to bury it in the ground<алант свой>. We will carry out our craft according to our conscience<о. Тогда>everything will be fine, and the state of society will improve on its own. IN<этом>the sovereign means a lot.<Ему дана должн>awn, which is important<на и>pre<выше?>everyone. Everyone takes their example from the sovereign. All he has to do is, without distorting anything,<править?>ok, everything will go by itself. Why do you know, maybe the idea will come to him to live the rest of the time from business modestly, in solitude,<в>far from the corrupting court,<от>all this accumulation. That's all<обер>It doesn’t go without saying. Crazy<ую жизнь захотят?>quit. The owners will disperse to their estates and get down to business. Officials will see that there is no need to live richly, they will stop stealing. And the ambitious man, seeing that important places are not rewarded with either money or a rich salary,<оставит службу. Оставь>those this world has become insolent<евших?..>, who died<для которого>neither you nor I are born.<Позвольте мне>remind your previous ones<раб?>from<ы>and Sochin<ен>and I. let me<также>remind you of your old path<...>. The writer exists<твует для другого>. He must serve art,<которое вносит в души мира высшую примиряющую <исти>well, not hostility,<лю>bless the man<а>not bitter<ение и>hatred.<Возьмитесь снова>for his field, with<которого вы удалились?>with the frivolity of youth<ши>. Get started<сызнова?>learning. Take on those poets<и му>wise men who educate the soul. You<сами>realized<что>Journal studies erode your soul and you finally notice the emptiness in yourself.<Это>and it cannot be otherwise. Remember that you studied somehow and didn’t even finish your university course. Reward<это>by reading large works, not owls<ременных>brochures written in the heat of the moment<умом>, seducing from direct sight.
I'm definitely backing down<говорить?..>about such subject<ах, о которых дано?>the right to speak alone<ому тому, кто получил его в силу многоопыт?>no life. Not m<оё дело говорить?>about God. I should have<говорить не о Боге, а?>about what is around us, what<должен изображать?>writer, but so that<каждому?>I would like it myself<ворить?>about God<...>
Although my book is not at all filled with the thoughtfulness that you suspect<ете>, on the contrary, it was printed in a hurry, it even contained letters written<ные>during printing itself, although<в ней>there really is<ного не>clear and so true<оятно>you can accept something else<...>but to such an extent<спутаться>how confused you are, accept<всё>in that<ком>in a strange way! Only by anger, which darkened the mind and fogged<голову>, can be explained like this<ое заблуждение...>
You took my words about literacy in a literal, close sense. These words were spoken to a landowner whose peasants are farmers. I even found it funny when from these words you understood that I was armed against the Gramo<тности>. It’s as if this is the question now, when this is a question that was resolved long ago by our fathers. Our fathers and grandfathers, even illiterate ones, decided that it was literate<сть>needed. Not in this case. The thought that runs through my entire book is how to enlighten the literate before the illiterate, how to enlighten before those who have close encounters with the people than the people themselves, all these petty officials and authorities who are all literate and who, at the same time, They do a lot of abuse. Believe me, it is more important for these gentlemen to publish those books that you think are useful for the people. The people are less corrupted than the entire literate population. But to publish books for these gentlemen, which would reveal to them the secret of how to deal with the people and with the subordinates who are entrusted to them, not in that broad sense in which the word is repeated: do not steal, keep the truth or: remember that your subordinate people are like this the same as you, and so<подобные>, but which could reveal to him exactly how not to steal, and to accurately comply<юдалась>Truth.
Notes:
1.Here and below, the text taken out from the original and restored by the editor is enclosed in angle brackets. Dots indicate torn out places that cannot be restored. (Editor's note)
2. This poem is not by Pushkin, but by Polezhaev (“Four Nations”). (Editor's note)
3 letter
Granovsky. However, it does not follow from this that our own bourgeoisie will have to follow this path.
Herzen. No, it should.
Granovsky. And how can you know about this?
Herzen. I am from nowhere. It was you and Turgenev who were there. But they never gave me a passport. I applied again.
Catcher. Due to illness?
Herzen (laughs). Because of Kolya... Natalie and I want to show him to the best doctors...
Ogarev (looks around). Where is Kolya?…
Catcher. I am a doctor myself. He's deaf. (Shrugs shoulders.) Sorry.
Ogarev, not paying attention, leaves to look for Kolya.
Turgenev. There is not only one philistinism there. The only thing that will save Russia is Western culture, which will be brought here by people... like us.
Catcher. No, she will be saved by the Spirit of History, the irresistible Force of Progress...
Herzen (giving vent to his anger). Damn those capital letters of yours! Spare me the vain thought that we are all playing in a play from the life of abstract concepts!
Catcher. Ah, so this is my vanity?
Herzen (Granovsky). I don't look at France with tears of tenderness. The thought that you can sit in a cafe with Louis Blanc or Ledru-Rollin, that you can buy La Reform, still wet with paint, at a kiosk and walk along the Place de la Concorde - this thought, I admit, makes me happy like a child. But Aksakov is right - I don’t know what to do next. Where should we go? Who has a card? We are studying ideal societies... And they are all surprisingly harmonious, fair and efficient. But the only, main question is why should anyone obey anyone else?
Granovsky. Because without this there can be no society. Why should we wait to be enslaved by our own industrial Huns? Everything that is dear to us in our civilization, they will smash to pieces on the altar of equality... equality of barracks.
Herzen. You judge ordinary people after they have been turned into beasts. But by their nature they are worthy of respect. I believe in them.
Granovsky. Without faith in something higher, a person is no different from an animal.
Herzen forgets to restrain himself, and Granovsky begins to answer him in tone, until a skirmish begins between them.
Herzen. You mean - without superstitions.
Granovsky. Superstitions? Is that what you call it?
Herzen. Yes, superstitions! A sanctimonious and pathetic belief in something that exists outside. Or upstairs. Or God knows where else, without which a person cannot gain his own dignity.
Herzen. How can you, how dare you, dismiss self-respect? You, a person, can decide for yourself what is good and what is bad, without looking at the ghost. You are a free person, Granovsky, there is no other kind of people.
Natalie quickly enters. She's scared. Her upset is initially misinterpreted. She runs to Alexander and hugs him. There are some mushrooms in her basket.
Natalie. Alexander…
Herzen (in an apologetic tone). We had an argument...
Granovsky (turns to Natalie). It is with deep regret that I must leave the house where I have always been so warmly received. (He's about to leave.)
Natalie. The gendarme came, he’s in the house, I saw it.
Herzen. Gendarme?
The servant leaves the house and is overtaken by a gendarme.
Oh, Lord, again... Natalie, Natalie...
Gendarme. Which one of you is Mr. Herzen?
Herzen. I.
Herzen opens the envelope and reads the letter.
Natalie (to the gendarme). I'll go with him.
Gendarme. I don't know anything about this...
Granovsky (To Herzen, changes tone). I'm sorry…
Herzen. No, everything is okay. (Announces.) After twelve years of police surveillance and exile, Count Orlov kindly notifies me that I can submit papers to travel abroad!..
The others surround him with relief and congratulations. The gendarme hesitates. Natalie snatches the letter.
Catcher. You will see Sazonov again.
Granovsky. He has changed.
Turgenev. And with Bakunin...
Granovsky. This one, I'm afraid, is still the same.
Natalie. “...To go abroad for treatment of your son Nikolai Alexandrovich...”
Herzen (picks her up and lifts her up). Paris, Natalie!
Her basket falls and the mushrooms scatter.
Natalie (cries with joy). Kolya!.. (Runs away.)
Herzen. Where is Nick?
Gendarme. So, good news?
Herzen takes the hint and gives him a tip. The gendarme leaves.
Natalie (returns). Where is Kolya?
Herzen. Kolya? Don't know. And what?
Natalie. Where is he? (Runs away, calls him by name.)
(Behind the scenes.) Kolya! Kolya!
Herzen (hurries after her). He can't hear you...
Turgenev runs out after them. Alarmed, Granovsky and Ketcher follow. After a pause, during which Natalie's voice is heard from afar, silence falls.
Distant rumbles of thunder.
Sasha enters from the other side, turns around and looks back. He comes forward and notices the scattered mushrooms and adjusts the basket. Ogarev enters slowly. He carries Sasha’s fishing rod and can and looks back.
Ogarev (calls). Kolya, let's go!
Sasha. He doesn't hear you.
Ogarev. Let's go quickly!
Sasha. He doesn't hear.
Ogarev goes back to meet Kolya. Distant thunder.
Ogarev. Here you see. I heard. (Comes out.)
Sasha begins to collect mushrooms in a basket.
July 1847
Salzbrunn, a resort town in Germany. Belinsky and Turgenev rent rooms on the ground floor of a small wooden house on the main street. They use the canopy in the yard as a summer gazebo.
Both read: Belinsky - a story, and Turgenev - a long letter. While reading, from time to time they sip mineral water from cups with spouts. Belinsky is 36 years old and has less than a year to live. He is pale, his face is puffy. Next to him stands a massive cane, on which he leans when walking. Turgenev finishes reading first. He puts the letter on the table. He waits for Belinsky to finish reading, meanwhile he drinks from a cup, wincing. Belinsky finishes reading and gives the manuscript to Turgenev. Turgenev waits for Belinsky to express his opinion. Belinsky nods thoughtfully and takes a sip from his cup.
Belinsky. Hm. Why don't you say what you think about it yourself?
Turgenev. What I Think? Why should the reader care about this?
Belinsky laughs, coughs, knocks his stick on the ground, and comes to his senses.
Belinsky. I mean, what do you think of my letter to Gogol?
Turgenev. Well... it seems unnecessary to me.
Belinsky. Look, cabin boy, I'll put you in a corner.
Turgenev. You have already said everything you wanted about this book in Sovremennik. Is this really the future of literary criticism: first a devastating review, then an offensive letter to the author?
Belinsky. The censors cut out at least a third of my article. But that's not the point. Gogol obviously believes that I scolded his book only because he attacks me in it. I can't leave it like this. He must understand that I took his book as a personal insult from the first to the last page! I love him. I was the one who opened it. And now this madman, this royal henchman, defender of serfdom, flogging, censorship, ignorance and obscurantist piety, believes that I chopped him to pieces because of a stupid insult. His book is a crime against humanity and civilization.
Turgenev. No, it's just a book... A stupid book, but written with all the sincerity of a religious fanatic. But why drive him completely crazy? You would feel sorry for him.
Belinsky angrily hits him with his stick.
Belinsky. This is too serious for pity... In other countries, everyone tries to help improve morals to the best of their ability. And in Russia there is no division of labor. Literature has to cope alone. It was a hard lesson, cabin boy, but I learned it. When I first started, it seemed to me that art was aimless - pure spirituality. I was a young provincial bully with the artistic views of a Parisian dandy. Remember Gaultier's? - “Fools! Cretins! A novel is not a pair of boots!”
Turgenev. “A sonnet is not a syringe! A play is not a railroad!”
Belinsky (picks up Turgenev in tone).“A play is not a railway!” But we don’t have railways. This is another task for literature - to reveal this country. Are you laughing at me, cabin boy? I heard one minister say that the railways would, they say, push the people, who are supposed to sit in one place, to idle travel, as a result of which anything can happen. This is what we have to deal with.
Turgenev. I am not a pure spirit, but I am not a mentor to society either. No, captain! People complain that I don't have my own attitude in my stories. The reader is puzzled. What does the author agree with and what does he condemn? Do I want them to sympathize with this character or that character? Who is to blame for the man’s drinking – us or him? Where is the writer's position? Why is he avoiding answering? Maybe I'm wrong, but will I be a better writer if I answer? What does it matter? (Raises voice.) And why are you attacking me? After all, you know that I am unwell. So I'm not as unhealthy as you. (Hurry.) You'll get better though, don't worry. Sorry. But since I’m sitting in this swamp, so that you don’t get bored... Is it really impossible to avoid talking about art and society while mineral water gurgles in my kidneys... (Belinsky, who has been coughing for some time, suddenly has a fit. Turgenev rushes to help him.) Take it easy, captain! Take it easy...
Belinsky (comes to his senses). Salzbrunn water is not the elixir of life. It is not clear where all these places get such a reputation. Everyone can see that people here are dying like flies.
Turgenev. Let's escape! Come with me to Berlin. Friends are leaving for London, I promised to see them off.
Belinsky. I don't like opera... You go.
Turgenev. Or we can meet them in Paris. You can't go home without seeing Paris!
Belinsky. No, i guess.
Turgenev. Are you feeling better?
Belinsky. Yes. (Drinks water.)
Pause.
Turgenev. So you didn't like my story?
Belinsky. Who said you didn't like it? You will be one of our great writers, one of the few. I'm never wrong.
Turgenev (touched). A. (Easily.) Why did you announce that Fenimore Cooper is as great as Shakespeare?
Belinsky. It wasn't a mistake, it was just stupidity.
Change of scenery.
July 1847
Paris.
Turgenev and Belinsky stand on the Place de la Concorde. Belinsky looks around gloomily.
Turgenev. Herzen settled on Avenue Marigny. He got himself a chandelier and a footman with a silver tray. The snow on his shoes had completely melted. (Shows.) That obelisk was placed in the place where the guillotine was.
Belinsky. They say that Place de la Concorde is the most beautiful square in the world, right?
Turgenev. So.
Belinsky. So that's great. Now I saw her. Let's go to that store where such a red and white robe hung in the window.
Turgenev. It is expensive.
Belinsky. I just want to watch.
Turgenev. Forgive me that... well, you know... that you have to leave for London like this.
Belinsky. Nothing. (Coughs heavily.)
Belinsky. In such a robe I could write amazing things.
Turgenev leaves.
September 1847
Belinsky is better. A chandelier descends onto the stage. Belinsky looks at her.
Turgenev unwraps some kind of package. Hatali has a bag with toys and books from the store. Madame Haag, Herzen's mother, who is in her fifties, looks after Sasha and Kolya (who is four years old). Sasha “talks” to Kolya, turning to face him and saying “Kolya, Kolya” with emphasized articulation. Kolya has a toy top. Georg Herwegh, 30, lies on a sun lounger, feigning romantic fatigue. He is a handsome young man with delicate feminine features, despite the mustache and beard. Emma, his wife, wets his forehead with cologne. She is blonde, more beautiful than pretty. Sazonov, a somewhat degraded gentleman of 35 years old, tries his best to help everyone. The nanny appears and approaches Madame Haag and the children. The servant - bellhop and footman - serves like a waiter.
The way Herzen and Natalie dressed completely changed. They turned into real Parisians. Herzen's previously combed-back hair and “Russian” beard are now fashionably trimmed.
In the first part of this scene, several different conversations occur simultaneously. They take turns “moving forward” to the foreground of sound, but continue without interruption.
Herzen. You always look at my chandelier...
Turgenev (about convolution). Can I have a look?...
Sasha. Ko-la... Ko-la...
Herzen. There is something about this chandelier...
Belinsky. No... I just...
Herzen...Which confuses all my Russian friends. As if it were written on it: “Herzen is our first bourgeois, worthy of this name! What a loss for the intelligentsia!”
The servant, with aristocratic confidence, offers a tray of snacks to the mother.
Servant. Madam... would you like it?
Mother. No…
Servant. Of course. Maybe later. (Offers a tray here and there, then leaves.)
Natalie. Vissarion, look... look what kind of toys I bought...
Sasha. Can I have a look?
Mother. This is not for you, you have enough of your own, even too much. (She detains Natalie.)
Mother (upset). I just can't get used to your servant's manners.
Natalie. Jean-Marie? But, grandma, he has wonderful manners.
Mother. That's it. He behaves like an equal. He starts talking...
Turgenev unwrapped a chic silk robe with a large red pattern on a white background. He puts it on.
Turgenev. Hmmm... yes, very nice. This is how you think you know a person, and then it turns out that you don’t.
Belinsky (embarrassed). When I said that Paris is a quagmire of philistinism and vulgarity, I meant everything except my robe.
Natalie. Beautiful robe. You did well to buy it. (Shows his purchases.) Look - you can’t return home without gifts for your daughter...
Belinsky. Thank you…
Sasha. Kolya, look...
Belinsky. Yes... I also had a boy, but he died very young.
Mother. Let's go, honey, let's go to Tata, let's go, Sasha... such a big boy, but you want to play all the time...
Herzen. ABOUT, maman, let him be a child.
Turgenev takes off his robe. Natalie takes it and rolls it up.
Natalie (To Turgenev). Have you been to London?
Turgenev. Just a week.
Natalie. Don't be so mysterious.
Turgenev. I? No. My friends, the Viardot family...
Natalie. Have you gone to listen to Pauline Viardot sing?
Turgenev. I wanted to see London.
Natalie (laughs). So what is it like, London?
Turgenev. Fog. The streets are full of bulldogs...
Meanwhile, Mother, Sasha, Kolya and Nanny go to the exit. Kolya leaves the top in the room.
Bakuni comes towards them. He is 35 years old and has a brilliantly bohemian look. He greets the Mother, kisses the children and takes a glass from the Servant's tray.
Bakunin. The Russians have arrived! (Kisses Natalie's hand.) Natalie.
Herzen. Bakunin! With whom you are?
Bakunin. Annenkov and Botkin are there. We didn't let go of our stroller, and they went for two more.
Natalie. Great. We'll all go to the station together.
Bakunin. Sazonov! Mon frere! (Confidentially.) The green canary will fly by tonight. At ten o'clock. Place as usual - pass it on to others.
Sazonov. That's what I told you.
Bakunin (To Georg and Emma). I was sure that Georg was here. Eau de Cologne – even in front of the house smells of Cologne water. You know, you need to drink it, that’s how it’s supposed to be with German waters. (Belinsky.) I hope you at least used this water for its intended purpose in Salzbrunn? Turgenev! (Pulls Turgenev aside.) For the last time, I will never ask you for anything again.
Turgenev. No.
Belinsky. Isn't it time for us?
Herzen. We still have a lot of time.
Bakunin. Belinsky! Herzen thinks that your letter to Gogol is brilliant. He calls it your will.
Belinsky. Doesn't sound very reassuring.
Belinsky. Here it would mean nothing... in the empty ringing of hired hacks and famous names... filling the newspapers every day with bleating, roaring and grunting... This is a zoo in which seals throw fish to the public. Nobody cares here. We look at writers as leaders. In our country, the title of poet or writer is worth something. The writers here think they are having success. They don't know what success is. To do this, you need to be a writer in Russia... Even a not very talented one, even a critic... My articles are cut by the censor, but already a week before the release of Sovremennik, students are hanging around Smirdin’s bookstore, asking if they have brought more copies... And then they pick up every hint , which the censor missed, and they argue about it half the night, passing the magazine from hand to hand... Yes, if the local writers knew, they would already be packing their suitcases for Moscow or St. Petersburg.
His words are met with silence. Bakunin then hugs him. Herzen, wiping his eyes, does the same.
Herzen, still moved, raises his glass. All the Russians in the room seriously raise their glasses after him.
Herzen. For the Russia we know. But they don’t. But they will find out.
Russians drink.
Bakunin. I didn't say goodbye when I left.
Belinsky. We didn't talk then.
Bakunin. Ah, philosophy! That was the time!
Natalie (Belinsky). Well, okay, but what about the wife?
Belinsky. Batiste handkerchiefs.
Natalie. Not too romantic.
Belinsky. She's not very romantic to me.
Natalie. What a shame!
Belinsky. She is a teacher.
Belinsky. Nothing to do with it.
Bakunin (Belinsky). Okay, see you soon in St. Petersburg.
Herzen. How will you return? After all, you were sentenced in absentia for not returning when they called you?
Bakunin. Yes, but you're forgetting about the revolution.
Herzen. What revolution?
Bakunin. About the Russian revolution.
Herzen. Oh, sorry, I haven't seen today's newspapers yet.
Bakunin. The Tsar and his ilk will disappear in a year, or at most in two.
Sazonov (excitedly). We are the children of the Decembrists. (To Herzen.) When you were arrested, they miraculously missed me and Ketcher.
Herzen. This is all frivolous. First there must be a European revolution, but it is not yet in sight. Six months ago, meeting Ledru-Rollin or Louis Blanc in a cafe, I felt like a cadet next to veterans. Their condescending attitude towards Russia seemed natural. What could we offer? Belinsky's articles and Granovsky's historical lectures. But all the radicals here do is write headlines for tomorrow's newspapers in the hope that someone else will do something worthy of their headlines. But they already know what is good for us! Virtue by decree. New prisons made from Bastille stones. There is no country in the world that, having shed so much blood for freedom, understands so little about it. I'm leaving for Italy.
Sazonov shushes him. A servant enters. He whispers something to Bakunin.
The driver can't wait any longer. Will you lend me five francs?
Herzen. No. It was necessary to walk.
Turgenev. I will cry. (Gives five francs to the servant, who leaves.)
Belinsky. Isn't it time yet?
Sazonov. It's a pity. With your abilities, you could do a lot instead of wasting time in Russia.
Herzen. Tell me, what did you all do? Or do you think that sitting all day in the Lamblan café discussing the borders of Poland is the point?
Sazonov. You forget our position.
Sazonov (in a fury). Who told you about...
Herzen. You.
Sazonov (in tears). I knew I couldn't be trusted with anything!
Bakunin (hugs Sazonov as a sign of support). I trust you.
Natalie. Is everything okay with Georg?
Herzen. I have never seen a person in more order in my life.
Natalie goes to see Georg and Emma.
Bakunin (To Herzen). Make no mistake about Georg Herwegh. He was expelled from Saxony for political activities.
Herzen. Activity? Georg's?
Bakunin. In addition, he has what every revolutionary needs - a rich wife. Moreover, she is ready to do anything for him. I once watched Marx explain economics to Georg for an hour, while Emma massaged his feet the entire time.
Herzen. Marx's feet? For what?
Bakunin. No, Georga. He said that his feet were cold... It seems that the other parts of his body are warmed by the Countess d'Agoux.
