The glorification of Russian Christianity in the work of Leskov, Lefty. N.S

Cowardice is a person’s behavior, determined by his psychological and moral characteristics, reflecting the impossibility or inability of a person to realize his desires or ideas in his real life space, to defend his views or support his aspirations. A person can show cowardice through cowardice (where there are no objective threatening factors), envy (large and petty, because one’s own desires are blocked), manifestations of involuntary aggression (uncontrollable outbursts of discontent restrained by titanic efforts). The root cause of such development of the psyche may be the fear of rejection by the family (which raises subconscious fears of not surviving without the support of the pack), uncertainty, weakness of volitional manifestations, or fear of the negative attitude of those to whom the chosen positions are opposed (actually or in reality).

Cowardice is not temporary, but is a permanent feature of the psyche, therefore, only if lack of will and uncertainty are constant, then a person can be considered cowardly and consider this personality trait. If these traits appear in a strong-willed and confident, courageous and striving person, then it is likely that either a rather severe emotional shock will develop that destroys willpower.

What is cowardice

Cowardice is considered a negative trait, both for the person himself and for those around him. This is a certain weakness that distorts everything human life, which requires you to manifest yourself in external space in a way that is not what you want, to support intolerable ideas and not to satisfy true needs. Anyone can show cowardice in situations that go beyond the ordinary and are on the verge of an important turn of fate. So we stop defending the rightness of a friend and become silent, valuing our workplace, or refuse to admit that we like what a significant person is now criticizing. All these are small or large benefits that look like a betrayal of oneself.

A cowardly person himself has a hard life, being in tension and living a separate, fictitious life, he still does not receive the events necessary for his personality. For those who have to frequently come into contact with such people, it is also quite unsafe, because if you are in a dominant position, then such a person will bend out of fear (he will support you and love surprisingly the same combinations as you), but there is always a threat that you will be betrayed. It is impossible to know what such a person really wants, since he lives with an eye on those around him, but such attention does not at all reflect the desire to make them better. No, such a person will betray you and renounce, tell secrets or pretend not to know you as soon as the situation changes. There can be no talk of friendship and trust, because these concepts require loyalty to the chosen person, nobility towards him, the immutability of one’s principles and fortitude. There is none of this in cowardice.

Cowardice and cowardice are similar concepts and are often caused not by objective factors, but by the upbringing that a person receives. Typically, children with such traits grow up in families where there was an authoritarian upbringing, and the child’s will was suppressed, which deprived him of the opportunity to learn to develop this quality. Also, cowardice develops where impunity and lack of rights, violence and crime reign - in such conditions a person loses not only his orientation in what is happening (after all, honesty and integrity in such societies are subject to punishment), but also gains the experience of his own powerlessness against the outside world. Only the adjustment model that turns out to be the most adaptive for survival is learned. This can develop in the parental family, where the child is a priori weaker and is obliged to obey, or during teenage changes and clarification of leadership roles. The one who turns out to be weaker quickly learns that open conflict is unsafe and begins to act hidden and mean, showing humility on an external level.

The model of children's response, fixed in such situations, manifests itself in adulthood as cowardice and fear of living the chosen life, defending one's own interests, either out of fear of punishment, or out of powerlessness and disbelief in a favorable outcome. This does not speak about people; on the contrary, among the faint-hearted there are excellent opportunists, then this quality can develop into cunning of such a level that even loved ones will not understand what is happening. But, unfortunately, everything that develops as a result of cowardice is not positive changes, but only works for further destruction of the personality. A resourceful mind is not aimed at solving other people's problems, but only its own, and envy can direct activity to the detriment of others. The ability to avoid punishment, well absorbed in a negative environment, can give birth to criminals. For the person himself, this brings eternal embitterment, dissatisfaction and constriction, in addition to the fact that over time there is a risk of being left alone, as people begin to avoid such characters.

How to deal with cowardice

Cowardice and cowardice are always nearby, but it manifests itself through ingratiation, stinginess, indecisiveness, and pretense. In order to overcome this habit and character trait in oneself, one should not eradicate what is in oneself through the use of will (with cowardice, it is weak and will not give results), but by developing opposite qualities. Watch yourself exactly how your cowardice manifests itself: if you are afraid to talk about your desires, then start voicing them, preferably small (in response to an offer to drink coffee, you can say that you want juice, and in response to a request to meet at five, say that you would like to earlier) .

Subjection to other people's influence and choosing someone else's desires as guidelines is a well-trodden path of cowardice. You can combat this with the help of pauses, which should be taken every time you make decisions (no matter how global they are - from choosing tea to choosing an apartment). Listen to yourself for a while and act in accordance with the desires of your inner state or needs; this is more effective and conscious than simply starting to do everything in spite of it (by doing this, you do not free your life from the influence of other people’s opinions). Perhaps the first time you will be able to fulfill your desires only when they coincide with others, but even a simple remark is already good and you can refuse to fulfill someone else’s opinion, i.e. to be in this kind of gray zone, where it’s neither yours nor anyone else’s. Watch your manifestations, if your internal concept of worldview is significantly different from others, and you are afraid to stand out, then start with the manifestation of small differences. Perhaps it just seems to you that you are so different, but by showing your interest publicly, you will find new (and most importantly real, with genuine interest) friends, and perhaps inspire others to make the same changes.

Make a to-do list for the day and solve it, and little by little include existing problems that you previously avoided. Of course, shifting responsibility is more convenient and less scary, pretending that problems do not exist also helps, but solving them will give new emotions. Try to help someone, not at his request, but when you yourself see that the person needs help and try to help yourself, instead of using others as a resource for fulfillment.

Watch your words, if necessary, write down your promises and agreements. You can come up with a reward for a fulfilled promise and a punishment for a failed one - this will force you to treat this word more responsibly, choose when to give a 100% guarantee, and when to question your help in the required process.

New skills take a long time to develop, and reshaping your character is generally a long and complex process, so tune in to notice small daily victories, you can write them down to make it more clear how changes are moving. At the same time, remember that you need to work on yourself every day, don’t be cowardly, giving yourself a break or once again finding excuses to act in the usual way, better reduce the degree of risk and differences in your own behavior, choose safer situations, start trying among those who will support you. In developing your will, it is always better to take a small step than not make any progress at all, promising yourself to catch up.

The ideological and aesthetic originality of the work of Nikolai Semenovich Leskov (1831 - 1895) is primarily determined by the religious and moral foundations of the writer’s worldview. Participated in a priestly family, educated in an Orthodox religious environment, with which he was connected hereditarily, genetically, Leskov invariably strove for the truth preserved by the Russian paternal faith. The writer passionately advocated for the restoration of “the spirit that befits a society that bears the name of Christ.” He stated his religious and moral position directly and unequivocally: “I honor Christianity as a teaching and I know that it contains the salvation of life, and I don’t need everything else.”

The theme of spiritual transformation, restoration of the “fallen image” (according to the Christmas motto: “Christ is born before the fallen image is restored”) especially worried the writer throughout his entire career and found vivid expression in such masterpieces as "Soborians" (1872), "Imprinted Angel" (1873), "On the edge of the world"(1875), in a cycle "Yuletide Stories"(1886), in stories about the righteous.

Leskovskaya story "Unbaptized Pop"(1877) did not attract particularly close attention from domestic literary scholars. The work was more often attributed to the genus of Little Russian “landscapes” and “genres”, “full of humor or even evil, but cheerful sparkling satire.” Indeed, what are the episodic, but unusually colorful images of the local deacon - “a lover of choreographic art” worth, who “with merry feet” “snatched in front of the guests trepak", or the unlucky Cossack Kerasenko: he still unsuccessfully tried to keep track of his “fearless squatter” - Zhinka.

In foreign Leskoviana, the Italian researcher of Ukrainian origin Zhanna Petrova prepared a translation of “The Unbaptized Priest” and a preface to it (1993). She managed to establish connections between Leskov’s story and the tradition of the Ukrainian folk district.

According to the American researcher Hugh MacLane, the Little Russian background of the story is nothing more than camouflage - part of Leskov’s method of “literary pretense,” “multi-level camouflage” wound “around the core of the author’s idea.” English-speaking scholars Hugh MacLane and James Mackle mainly tried to approach the work “through the Protestant spectrum,” believing that “The Unbaptized Pop” is a clear demonstration of the Protestant views of Leskov, who, in their opinion, since 1875, “decisively moves towards pro-Testantism."

However, the writer’s attention to the spirit of Western religiosity should not be exaggerated. Leskov spoke quite clearly about this in his article "Cartoon Ideal" in 1877 - at the same time when “The Unbaptized Priest” was created: “It’s not good for us to look faith in German". The writer put a lot of effort into calling for religious tolerance in order to “attract the minds and hearts of his compatriots to gentleness and respect for the religious freedom of everyone,” but he adhered to the opinion that “one’s own is dearer, warmer, more trusting.”

According to the exact words of the researcher, Leskov showed a “brilliant instinct for Orthodoxy,” in which faith is “heartened” with love for God and “inexpressible knowledge” received in the spirit. As for Protestantism, “it generally removes the problem and the need for an internal invisible battle with sin, and aims a person at external practical activity as the main content of his existence in the world.” A significant moment in Leskov’s essay "Russian secret marriage"(1878), when an Orthodox priest gives a “sinful” woman hope for God’s forgiveness, reminding her that he is not a Catholic priest who could reproach her, and not a Protestant pastor who would be horrified and despair at her sin.

In connection with the objectives of this article, it is important to clarify from what positions the writer depicts the fate of his heroes, their way of thinking, and actions; how it interprets the essence of the human personality and the universe. “An incredible event”, “a legendary incident” - as the author defined his story in the subtitle - also has a paradoxical name - “The Unbaptized Priest”. It is no coincidence that Andrei Nikolaevich Leskov, the writer’s son, defined this title as surprisingly “brave.” At a superficial dogmatic glance, it may seem that an “anti-baptismal motive” is stated here, the rejection of church sacraments. This is precisely the opinion held by Hugh MacLane.

However, such a subjective interpretation is opposed by the objective truth of the entire artistic and semantic content of the work, which continues the development of the theme stated by Leskov earlier in the stories "On the edge of the world"(1875) and "Sovereign Court"(1877), - the theme of the need for baptism, not formal (“We are baptized into Christ, lest we put on it”), but spiritual, entrusted to God’s will.

The hidden meaning of Orthodoxy is determined not only by the catechism. This is also “the way of life, the worldview and worldview of the people.” It is in this non-dogmatic sense that Leskov considers “a real, albeit incredible event” that has received “among the people the character of a completely completed legend;<...>and to trace how a legend takes shape is no less interesting than to understand “how history is made.”

Thus, aesthetically and conceptually, Leskov combines reality and legend, which are melted into an ever-new reality of the historical and superhistorical, like the “fullness of times” commanded in the Gospel.

A similar sacred time with unusual forms of flow is inherent in the poetics of Gogol’s “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka” and - in particular - the Yuletide masterpiece "Christmas Eve". The Christian holiday is shown as a unique state of the whole world. The Little Russian village, where Christmastide is celebrated, at night before Christmas becomes, as it were, the center of the entire world: “in almost all the light, both on the other side of Dikanka, and on this side of Dikanka.”

Gogol cannot be adequately understood outside of church tradition, patristic heritage, and Russian spirituality as a whole. Leskov is one of the Russian classics closest in spirit to Gogol. According to him, he recognized a “kindred soul” in Gogol. Gogolevskoe artistic heritage was a living inspiring reference point for Leskov, and in the story “The Unbaptized Priest” this tradition is quite visible - not only and not so much in the recreation of the Little Russian flavor, but in the understanding of personality and the universe through the New Testament prism. Both Gogol and Leskov never parted with the Gospel. “You can’t invent anything higher than what is already in the Gospel,” said Gogol. Leskov agreed with this idea and developed it: “Everything is in the Gospel, even what is not.” “The only outcome of society from the current situation is the Gospel”, - Gogol prophetically asserted, calling for the renewal of the entire system of life on the basis of Christianity. “A well-read Gospel” helped, according to Leskovsky, to finally understand “where the truth is.”

The core of the artistic awareness of the world in the story becomes the New Testament, in which, as Leskov puts it, “the deepest meaning of life" The New Testament concept determined the leading principle in the formation of the Christian space-time organization of the story, which is based on events going back to the Gospels. Among them, the Orthodox holidays of Christmas, Epiphany, Resurrection, Transfiguration, and Dormition are especially noted. The Gospel context is not only given, but also implied in the super-fable reality of the work.

The intricate story of the incidental case about the “unbaptized priest” unfolds under Leskov’s pen slowly, like a scroll of an ancient chronicler, but in the end the narrative takes on “the character of an entertaining legend of recent origin.”

The life of the Little Russian village of Paripsy (the name may be collective: it is also often found in modern Ukrainian toponymy) appears not as a closed isolated space, but as a special state of the universe, where battles between Angels and demons eternally unfold in the hearts of people, between good and evil.

The first fifteen chapters of the story are built according to all the canons of the Christmastide genre with its indispensable archetypes of miracle, salvation, and gift. The birth of a baby, snow and blizzard confusion, a guiding star, “the laughter and crying of Christmas” - these and other Christmas motifs and images dating back to the Gospel events are present in Leskov’s story.

In the birth of the boy Savva to elderly childless parents, the “hope beyond hope” commanded in the Gospel is revealed. The Lord does not allow a believer to despair: even in the most hopeless circumstances there is hope that the world will be transformed by God’s grace. Thus, Abraham “believed in hope, and became the father of many nations.”<...>And, not fainting in faith, he did not consider that his body, almost a century old, was already dead, and the womb of Sarah was dead" (Rom. 4: 18, 19), "Therefore it was counted to him for righteousness. However, it was not written in relation to him alone that what was imputed to him, but also in relation to us” (Rom. 4: 22 - 24). This Christian universal - beyond temporal and spatial boundaries - is realized in Leskov’s narrative about the life of a Little Russian village.

The old rich Cossack nicknamed Dukach - Savva's father - was not at all distinguished by righteousness. On the contrary, his nickname meant “a heavy, grumpy and impudent man” who was disliked and feared. Moreover, his negative psychological portrait is complemented by another unsightly trait - exorbitant pride - according to patristic teaching, the mother of all vices, stemming from demonic instigation. With one expressive stroke, the author emphasizes that Dukach is almost obsessed with dark forces: “when they met him, they disowned him,” “he, being by nature very smart person, lost self-control and all his sanity and rushed at people like a demoniac.”

In turn, fellow villagers wish the formidable Dukach only harm. Thus, everyone is in a vicious and vain circle of mutual hostility: “they thought that the sky, only through an incomprehensible omission, would have long ago struck the grumpy Cossack to pieces so that not even his guts would remain, and everyone who could, would gladly try to correct this is an omission of Providence.”

However, the miracle of God's Providence is not subject to human vanity and takes place in its own way. God gives Dukach a son. The circumstances of the boy’s birth are natural to the atmosphere of Christmas: “on one frosty December night<...>in the sacred pangs of childbirth, a child appeared. The new inhabitant of this world was a boy.” His appearance: “unusually clean and beautiful, with a black head and large blue eyes" - refers to the image of the Divine Child - the Savior who came to earth, “for He will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1: 21).

In Paripsy they did not yet know that the newborn was sent into the world with a special mission: he would become the priest of their village; the preaching of the New Testament and the example of good living will turn people away from evil, enlighten their minds and hearts, and turn them to God. However, in their inert vanity, people living by passions are not able to foresee God's Providence. Even before the birth of the baby, who later became their beloved “good priest Savva,” his fellow villagers hated him, considering him “like he would be a child of the Antichrist,” “animal-like deformity.” The midwife Kerasivna, who “swore that the child had neither horns nor a tail, was spat on and wanted to be beaten.” Also, no one wanted to baptize the son of the evil Dukach, “but the child still remained pretty, very pretty, and also surprisingly tame: she breathed quietly, but was ashamed to scream.”

Thus, existence appears in a complex interweaving of good and evil, faith and superstition, Christian and semi-pagan ideas. However, Leskov never called for turning away from reality in the name of individual salvation. The writer was aware that existence is good, and just like the Divine image in man, given to him in gift And exercise, being is not just given by the Creator, but given as co-creation: “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you”(John 14:27), says Christ, commanding the “crown of creation” to create itself. A person needs to begin this process of transformation and creation with himself.

The circumstances of the hero's baptism are providential. Since none of the respected people in the village agreed to baptize Dukachonok, the godparents of the future priest, again, paradoxically, became people who seemed unworthy: one with external deformity - the crooked "crooked" Agap - Dukach's nephew; the other - with a bad reputation: the midwife Kerasivna, who “was the most undoubted witch.”

However, Kerasivna is not at all like Solokha in Go-Gol’s “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka,” although the jealous Cossack Kerasenko suspects his wife of sometimes intending to “fly down the drain.” Her name is emphatically Christian - Christina.

The story of Christ is an independent, curious short story within the main Christmastide narrative about the circumstances of the birth and baptism of the baby Savva. Under Christmas circumstances, “in winter, in the evening, on holidays, when no Cossack, even the most jealous one, can sit at home,” Kerasivna managed to cleverly lead her husband with her nobleman suitor (it’s not for nothing that he is nicknamed “Rogachev’s nobleman,” that is, he instructs husbands "horns"). In a figurative and literal sense, the lovers planted a pig on the unlucky Cossack - the Christmas “dew”, and this strengthened Christ’s “such witch fame that from that time on, everyone was afraid to see Kerasivna in their house, and not just to call her godfather.”

The gospel antinomy about the “first” and the “last” comes true: “the last will become first, and the first will be last.” It was precisely these “last” people that the arrogant Dukach was forced to invite into his godfathers.

On a cold December day, immediately after the godparents and the baby left for the large village of Peregudy (later known to readers from Leskov’s “farewell” story “The Hare Remiz”), a severe snow storm broke out. The motif of holy snow is a stable attribute of the poetics of Christmas literature. In this context, it takes on an additional metaphysical meaning: as if evil forces are condensing around a child for whom everyone, without any reason, wished harm in advance: “The sky above was clouded with lead; Snowy dust blew up below, and a fierce blizzard began to blow.” In metaphorical imagery, this is the embodiment dark passions and the evil thoughts that played out around the event of baptism: “All the people who wished harm to Dukachev’s child, seeing this, crossed themselves religiously and felt satisfied.” Such sanctimonious ostentatious piety, based on superstition, is equivalent to the devilish power “from the evil one.”

The patristic heritage holds the idea that God created man and everything that surrounds him in such a way that some actions are consistent with human dignity and the good order of the world, while others are contrary. Man was endowed with the ability to recognize good, choose it and act morally. Yielding to evil thoughts, the villagers seemed to provoke and let out dark forces, played out to prevent the event of baptism. It is not at all by chance that Leskov defines the blizzard confusion as “hell”, creating a truly infernal picture: “there was a real hell in the yard; the storm raged violently, and in the continuous mass of snow, which shook and blew, it was impossible to take a breath. If this happened near the dwelling, in a lull, then what should have happened in the open steppe, in which all this horror should have caught the godfathers and the child? If this is so unbearable for an adult, then how much did it take to strangle a child with it?” The questions were posed rhetorically, and it would seem that the baby’s fate was predetermined. However, events develop according to the non-rational laws of Christmas salvation by the miracle of God's Providence.

The child is saved on Kerasivna’s chest, under a warm hare’s fur coat, “covered with a blue nankee.” It is deeply symbolic that this fur coat is blue - a heavenly color, which signifies God's intercession. Moreover, the baby was preserved, like Christ’s, “in the bosom.” This Orthodox, trusting image of the “Russian God, Who creates an abode for Himself “behind the bosom”,” was formed by Leskov in the story “At the End of the World” - in the confession of the righteous father Kiriak, who, like the heroes of “The Unbaptized Priest,” had to go through through the cold and impenetrable darkness of a snow hurricane.

A special feature of Christmastide is “a carnival-like disruption of the usual order of the world, a return to the original chaos so that out of this chaos a harmonious cosmos would be born again, and the act of creation of the world would be “repeated.” The blizzard confusion and chaos in Christmas symbolism are inevitably transformed into the harmony of God's world order.

However, harmony is achieved only through the transformation of fallen human nature. So, around Dukach, forced to admit that he has never done any good to anyone, the terrifying attributes of death thicken. Unable to find his son, he ends up in terrible snowdrifts and sits for a long time in this snowy dungeon in the darkness of a blizzard. As if the sins of his entire unrighteous life, Dukach sees only a row of “some long, very long ghosts that seemed to dance in a circle above his head and sprinkled snow on him.”

The episode of the hero's wanderings in the blizzard darkness should be interpreted in a Christian metasemantic context. The image of the cross is especially significant. Wandering into the cemetery in the dark, Dukach stumbles upon a cross, then another, and a third. The Lord, as it were, makes the hero clearly understand that he will not escape his cross. But the “burden of the cross” is not only a burden and a burden. This is the path to salvation.

At the same time, in a snowstorm, the baptism of his son took place: the godparents, caught in the blizzard, drew on the child’s forehead with melted snow water the symbol of the cross - “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” A new Christian was born. Blood father and son united spiritually. Both are saved from the snowy “hell” by the cross of the Heavenly Father.

Old Dukach does not know about this for the time being. He is still spiritually blind. The lost soul, tangled heavily and for a long time in the darkness, searches for the road, its path to the light. The hero of the story still hopes to get out, having seen some faint flickering through the snowstorm. However, this deceptive earthly will-o'-the-wisp finally leads him astray from the path of life: Dukach falls into someone's grave and loses consciousness.

It was necessary to go through this test in order for the world to transform from chaos to a harmonious cosmos. Waking up, the hero saw the world, born again, renewed: “it’s completely quiet around him, and above him the sky is blue and there’s a star.” In the New Testament context, the Bethlehem guiding star showed the Magi the way to the Infant Christ. So Dukach found his son. For the old sinner, the heavenly light of truth gradually began to open: “the storm noticeably subsided, and there were stars in the sky.”

At the same time, Leskov rightly shows that people who are not firm in their faith are not able to free themselves from semi-pagan ideas. A dukach who accidentally falls into someone’s grave is persuaded by his wife to make a sacrifice to God - to kill at least a sheep or a hare, in order to protect himself from the consequences of an evil sign. A profane, as in a distorting mirror, performance of a Christian rite in a pagan manner takes place: a “necessary” sacrifice - the accidental murder of the unrequited orphan Agap, sent to baptize the child and swept away by snow. The only thing sticking out of the snowdrift was his fur hat made of smushka - lamb's wool, which Dukach mistook for a hare. Thus, along with the image of the slaughtered Agap, the Yuletide motif of an orphan child is included in the narrative, as well as a peculiar phenomenon of Yuletide literature called “the laughter and crying of Christmas.” Agap in a sheep's cap unwittingly played the role of a traditional sacrificial animal, an uncomplaining “lamb of God” given to the slaughter.

The problem of awareness of the horror of sin and deep repentance is posed very acutely in the story. Repentance is considered “the door that takes a person out of darkness and into the light,” into a new life.

According to the New Testament, life is constantly renewed and changing, although for a person this may be unexpected and unpredictable. So, we see a completely new Dukach, a new Kerasivna, not at all similar to the old dashing Cossack girl, but quiet, humble; internally renewed village residents. Everything that happened for Dukach served as a “terrible lesson,” and Dukach accepted it well. Having served his formal repentance, after five years of absence from home, he came to Paripsy as a very kind old man, confessed his pride to everyone, asked everyone for forgiveness and again went to the monastery where he repented by court decision.”

Sava’s mother made a vow to dedicate her son to God, and the child “grew up under the roof of God and knew that no one would take him from His hands.” In church service, Father Savva is a real Orthodox priest, wise and sympathetic to his parishioners, and not a conductor of Protestant ideas in the Russian church (as English-speaking researchers see him). Leskov emphasizes: “there was a shtunda all around him<христианское движение, берущее начало в протестантизме немецких эмигрантов на Украине. А.Н.-C.>, and his small church is still full of people...” The way of thinking of Leskov's heroes is determined by the traditions of the Orthodox worldview, and this determines the ideological and artistic originality of the story.

As popular wisdom says: “Like the priest, so is the parish.” Even when the secret of Savva’s baptism was revealed and a terrible commotion arose among the parishioners: if their priest was not baptized, were marriages, christenings, communions valid - all the sacraments performed by him - still the Cossacks “don’t want another priest as long as their good Savva lives” . The bishop resolves the confusion: even though the baptismal rite was not completed in its entire “form,” the godparents “with the melted water of that cloud wrote a cross on the baby’s face in the name of the Holy Trinity. What else do you need?<...>And you, boys, be without a doubt: your priest Savva, who is good to you, is good to me, and is pleasing to God.”

We must agree with the position of the Italian scientist Piero Cazzola that Savva belongs to Leskov’s type of righteous clergy along with Archpriest Savely Tuberozov in “Councils” and Archbishop Neil in the story “At the End of the World.”

The most important thing for Leskov is the idea of ​​life-creation, life-building in a harmonious synthesis of the secular and the sacred. In the Christian model of the world, man is not in the power of pagan “blind chance” or ancient “fate,” but in the power of Divine Providence. The writer constantly turned his gaze to faith, the New Testament: “ Dondezhe light imate

1. INTRODUCTION.

2.BRIEF WORK OF LESKOV.

3. “CATHOLOGICALS” - A REFLECTION OF THE LIFE OF THE CLergy.

4. “LITTLE THINGS OF BISHOP’S LIFE” - “SHADOWS” AND “LIGHT” OF THE CHURCH.

5. ANTI-RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.

6.CONCLUSION.

7. LITERATURE

You can't understand Russia with your mind,

A common arshin cannot be measured...

F.I. Tyutchev

He lived, striving with all his heart to “serve his homeland with the word of truth and truth,” to seek only “truth in life,” giving every picture, in his words, “the proper illumination and interpretation according to reason and conscience.” Each of his works is an artistically developed fact of life, it is an artistic melody that arises on the basis of real events and, as it were, invisibly correlates, connects these events with the past and turns to reflections on the future.

“The best time is not behind us. This is true and worthy of acceptance,” as N. S. Leskov wrote in his declining years. In those years when his contemporaries argued a lot about Leskov’s works, Leo Tolstoy perspicaciously remarked: “Leskov is the writer of the future, and his life in literature is deeply instructive.” The writer's fate is dramatic; his life, sparse in major events, is full of intense ideological quests. Spiritualized great love to his people, he sought, in the words of Gorky, to “encourage, inspire Rus'.”

Leskov's rich, diverse creativity, although not without contradictions, is at the same time distinguished by amazing artistic and aesthetic integrity. The writer's works are united by the pathos of high morality and the bright originality of poetic forms.

His vision of reality, his poetics organically combined realism and romantic dream, the saturation of the narrative with a mass of specific, sometimes documentary details, almost

naturalistic sketches and deep artistic generality of the recreated paintings.

In Leskov’s stories and tales, as if born again, almost unknown areas of life arose, forcing readers to suddenly look back at the entire Russian world. Here both the “departing self-thinking Rus'” and contemporary reality were presented.

Leskov served his native literature for thirty-five years. And, despite involuntary and bitter misconceptions, he was and throughout his life remained a deeply democratic artist and a genuine humanist. He always spoke out in defense of the honor and dignity of man and constantly advocated for “freedom of mind and conscience,” perceiving the individual as the only enduring value that cannot be sacrificed either to various kinds of ideas or to the opinions of contradictory worlds. In his artistic study of the past and present, Leskov persistently and passionately searched for the truth and discovered so many previously unknown, beautiful and instructive things that we cannot help but appreciate the writer’s literary feat...

Leskov did not come to literature from the ranks of that “professional” democratic intelligentsia, which traced its ideological origins to Belinsky, from the social and philosophical circles of the 40s. He grew and developed outside of this movement, which determined the main features of Russian literature and journalism of the second half of the 19th century. Until the age of thirty, his life went in such a way that he could least of all think about literature and writing. In this sense, he was right when he later repeatedly said that he got into literature “by accident.” Nikolai Semenovich Leskov was born in 1831 in the village of Gorokhov, Oryol province. His father came from a spiritual background: “a great, wonderful smart guy and a dense seminarian,” according to his son. Having broken with the spiritual environment, he became an official and served in the Oryol criminal chamber. In 1848, he died, and Leskov, having left the gymnasium, decided to follow in his father’s footsteps: he entered service in the same criminal chamber. In 1849, he moved from Orel to Kyiv, where his maternal uncle S.P. Alferyev, then a well-known professor at the Faculty of Medicine, lived. Life has become more interesting and meaningful. Leskov entered the service of the Treasury Chamber, but sometimes had the opportunity to “privately” listen to lectures on medicine, agriculture, statistics, etc. at the university. In the story “Product of Nature” he recalls himself: “I was then still a very young boy and not knew what to define myself for. First I wanted to study science, then painting, and my family wanted me to go to serve. In their opinion, this was the most reliable thing.” Leskov served, but stubbornly dreamed of some kind of “living business,” especially since the service itself brought him into contact with the diverse environment of the local population. He read a lot and over the years of his life in Kyiv mastered Ukrainian and Polish languages. Next to Gogol, Shevchenko became his favorite writer.

Started Crimean War, which Leskov later called “a significant sound of the alarm for Russian life.” Nicholas I died (1855), and that social movement began, which led to the liberation of the peasants and to a number of other consequences that changed the old way of Russian life. These events also affected Leskov’s life: he left the government service and switched to private service - to the Englishman Shcott (his aunt’s husband), who managed the vast estates of the Naryshkins and Perovskys. Thus, to some extent, his dream of a “living business” came true: as Shcott’s representative, he traveled all over Russia - no longer as an official, but as a commercial figure, who, by the very nature of his activities, was in close communication with the people.

In letters to Shkott, Leskov shared his impressions; Shcott’s neighbor on the estate, F.I. Selivanov, became interested in these letters, who, as Leskov himself later recalled, “began to ask them, read them and found them “worthy of publication,” and he predicted a writer in the author.” Thus began Leskov’s literary activity, initially limited to a narrow range of economic and everyday topics.

It seemed that Leskov decided to enter into competition with all the major writers of that time, contrasting them with his life experience and his unusual literary language. Gorky noted this characteristic feature of his first works, which immediately attracted the attention of his contemporaries: “He knew the people from childhood; By the age of thirty, he had traveled all over Great Russia, visited the steppe provinces, lived for a long time in Ukraine - in an area of ​​a slightly different way of life, a different culture... He took up the work of a writer as a mature man, superbly armed not with book knowledge, but with genuine knowledge of people’s life.”

In letters and conversations, he sometimes ironically uses the word “intellectual” and contrasts himself with “theorists”, as a writer who has much more and, most importantly, more diverse life experience. He willingly writes and speaks a lot on this topic that worries him, each time trying to highlight what seems to him the strongest side of his position. “I didn’t study the people from conversations with St. Petersburg cab drivers,” he says with some passion, clearly hinting at the capital’s intellectual writers, “but I grew up among the people on the Gostomel pasture... I was one of my own with the people... Journalistic races about the fact that the people I need to study it, I didn’t understand and now I don’t understand. People just need to know how our life itself is, not by studying it, but by living through it.” Or this: “Books didn’t tell me even a hundredth part of what the collision with life told me... All young writers need to leave St. Petersburg to serve in the Ussuri region, in Siberia, in the southern steppes... Away from Nevsky!” Or like this: “I didn’t have to break through books and ready-made concepts to the people and their way of life. Books were good helpers for me, but I was the root. For this reason, I did not join any school, because I did not study at school, but at Sarkakh with Shcott.”

The theme of the “righteous man” in Leskov’s work goes beyond the scope of this book, its origins lie in Leskov’s earliest works of art, and it stretches, refracting in variety, right up to the end of the writer’s life. This theme was expressed sharply and clearly in “The Cathedrals” (1872), followed by “The Sealed Angel” (1873) and “The Enchanted Wanderer” (1873). Their goodies Leskov is not looking for them at all where Gogol, and later Dostoevsky or Turgenev were looking for them, he is looking for them in different strata of the people, in the Russian outback, in that diverse social environment, knowledge of life and attention to which, the ability to penetrate the interests and needs of which testify about the deeply democratic orientation of Leskov’s creative searches.

First, under the obvious influence of Katkov’s reactionary ideas, he turned to the life of the provincial Russian clergy: this is how the idea of ​​“God’s Houses” arose, from which the “Soborians” with Archpriest Tuberozov in the center emerged. It is clear in connection with everything said above that the general ideological and artistic concept of “Soboryan” - this, according to Gorky’s definition, “magnificent book”, is marked by extreme inconsistency. At the center of the story is a completely unexpected hero - the old provincial Russian priest Savely Tuberose. The old archpriest is characterized by features common to a number of Leskov’s heroes. On the one hand, there are features in him that are firmly associated with a certain everyday environment, he is emphatically “class,” as is always the case with Leskov, his life path, his skills, customs are unthinkable anywhere except among the Russian clergy. The everyday principle, very clearly and comprehensively outlined, is here the key to the human personality, to psychology, to the peculiarities of mental life - in this sense, the principles of character construction are absolutely no different from those that we saw in “The Life of a Woman” or in “ Lady Macbeth Mtsensk district" At the same time, Saveliy Tuberozov is not to a lesser extent than Leskov’s other heroes, he seems to have “broken out” from his environment. The old archpriest is a black sheep in the circle of people and morals typical of the spiritual environment, the reader learns about this from the very first pages of his “life”. He behaves completely differently from how an ordinary, ordinary Russian priest should behave, and, moreover, he does this literally from the very first steps of his activity. He is a man who “broke out” from the very moment he entered the active life estates. The Demi-Coton Book" is the diary of old man Tuberozov for thirty years of his pre-reform life (the action in the book takes place in the 60s). The entire "Demi-Coton Book" is filled with variants of one life plot - Tuberozov’s continuous clashes with church and partly civil authorities. Tuberozov imagines its activities as a civil and moral service to society and people. With horror, the archpriest is convinced that the church itself evaluates its functions completely differently. The church administration is represented as a completely dead bureaucratic organization, above all else seeking the external fulfillment of ossified and internally meaningless rituals and rules. The clash of the living man and the dead class ritual: - this is the theme of the “demicoton” book. The archpriest receives, say, a solid official “scolding” for the fact that he dared in one of his sermons to present as an example to follow the old man Constantine of Piso, a man who shows his life an example of effective philanthropy. The official church is interested in everything except what Tuberozov seems to be the very essence of Christianity; it meticulously monitors the implementation of a dead ritual and cruelly punishes its minister who dares to look at himself as a worker assigned to a living task. It is no coincidence that everything that happens in the “demicoton book” is attributed mainly to the pre-reform era. Leskov suggests that by the era of reforms, the same signs of internal decay appeared among the clergy as in other classes - merchants, peasants, etc.

In the post-reform era, in the 60s, the drama of the “broken out” archpriest developed into a genuine tragedy, the culmination and denouement of which were conveyed by Leskov with enormous artistic power. The obstinate archpriest is becoming more and more violent as social contradictions in the country worsen. Persecuted by both church and civil authorities, the old priest decides to take an unusually bold step (for this social environment, of course): he calls all the officials to church on one of the official service days. provincial town and spiritually “puts the tax collectors to shame”: he delivers a sermon in which he accuses officials of an outwardly official, bureaucratic attitude towards religion, of “mercenary prayer”, which is “disgusting to the church.” According to Tuberozov, the life and daily affairs of the officials gathered in the church reveal that this “mercenary prayer” is not accidental - in their very lives there is not a drop of that “Christian ideal” that Tuberozov himself serves. Therefore, “it would be enough for me to take a rope and drive out with it those who are now selling in this temple.” Naturally, after this, both church and civil punishments fall on Tuberozov. “Don’t bother: life is already over, life begins,” - this is how Tuberozov, taken away for punishment to the provincial town, says goodbye to his archpriest. The social, inter-class norms of the bureaucratic state culminated in Nastya and Katerina Izmailova. The culmination of “Soboryan” is the challenge posed by Tuberose to social and inter-class relations. Particularly clear in these parts of the book is the literary analogy persistently drawn by Leskov and by no means accidental for the general concept of the “Soborians”: the violent archpriest of the old town clearly resembles central character the brilliant “Life of Archpriest Avvakum”.

It is essential for understanding the general inconsistency of the ideological and artistic structure of “Soboryan” that the enemies of the frantic truth-seeker Tuberozov are not only spiritual and secular officials representing the administrative apparatus of the autocratic-serf state, but also former “nihilists.” Moreover: the former “nihilists” act together in the book, in alliance with officials in robes and uniforms.

Just as in the novels “Nowhere” and especially “On Knives,” Leskov does not show the progressive people of the 60s, but the self-interested and anarchistic human scum that lives by the principle “everything is allowed” and which is not shy about means to achieve its goals. small goals. Here, in depicting the machinations of officials Termosesov and Bornovolokov, whom Leskov persistently seeks to pass off as former representatives of the advanced social movement of the era, Leskov makes a crude attack against progressive social circles. This mistake is connected with the general inconsistency of the ideological composition of the “Soboryan”. Leskov does not consider the revolt of Archpriest Tuberozov to be a random and private phenomenon: in this rebellion, according to the writer, the general crisis is reflected serfdom and the collapse of old estate-class ties. When applied to Tuberozov, it is no coincidence that the book persistently uses the word “citizen”; the rebellious clergyman himself interprets his frantic rampage as an act of civil service, the fulfillment of a public duty that arises before every person of any class group in new historical conditions. The special acuteness of the struggle of Tuberozov with the Termasesovs, Bornovolokovs and Prepotenskys, according to the archpriest and the author himself, is that “the fruit of your loins is already growing,” as Tuberozov puts it, or, in other words, the actions of the Bornozolokovs and Termosesovs seem to Leskov to be one of forms of social crisis, which was also expressed in the pre-reform activities of people like Tuberozov himself. Tuberozov and Bornovolokov are fighting on the same historical ground; their different methods of action have the same social premise - the historical crisis of serfdom.

The most impressive pages of “Soboryan” are the story of the tragic death of a violent archpriest, who naturally turned out to be powerless in his lonely struggle with the church and police bureaucracy. Tuberozov’s comrade-in-arms in this struggle becomes deacon Achilla Desnitsyn, who found it “hard to hear the news from our sleepy slumber when a thousand lives burn within him alone.” It is no coincidence that Deacon Achilles is placed in the book next to the tragically self-centered “righteous man” Tuberozov. Deacon Achilles wears a cassock only due to a misunderstanding and has an unusual comic look. Above all, he values ​​wild horse riding in the steppe and even tries to get spurs for himself. But this man, living a direct, thoughtless life, with all his simple-minded colorfulness, is also “hurt” by the search for “righteousness” and “truth” and, like the archpriest himself, will stop at nothing in serving this truth.

Deacon Achilles, with his entire appearance and behavior, no less than Tuberozov, testifies to the destruction of old class household and moral norms in the new era. The comic epic of Achilles' trip to St. Petersburg is by no means comical in its meaning: it is an epic of the search for truth.

Achilles and Tuberozov, according to Leskov, represent different faces uniform in its foundations of a national Russian character. The archpriest's tragedy lies in his intransigence. Even after an anti-church sermon in the temple, the matter could have easily been settled. The church and secular bureaucracy are so rotten in their very essence that the decorum of order is most important to them. It was enough for the archpriest to repent, and the case would have been dropped. But the archpriest who “broke out” from his midst does not bring repentance, and even the death of the archpriest does not force him to repent.

The petitions of the dwarf Nikolai Afanasyevich lead to the fact that Tuberozov was sent home, but he still does not repent until his death. In the finale, it was no coincidence that the figures of Plodomasov’s dwarf and the frantic archpriest collided - they represent, according to Leskov, different stages, Russian life. When leaving their environment into the world of inter-class relations, Nastya and Katerina Izmailova found themselves victims of the system that had fallen upon them. Tuberozov holds his fate in his hands to the end and does not reconcile with anything. Compositionally, the book is structured differently than Leskov’s early works. The theme of Tuberozov's rebellion, the theme of inter-class relations, is most developed, within which the bright, unyielding, irreconcilable character of the hero appears most clearly. After the death of Tuberozov, Deacon Achilles wages a fierce battle for his memory in ways characteristic of his personality, as a worthy heir to the daring Zaporozhye Sich, and in this battle his nationally unique character, as the character of a “righteous man” and a “truth seeker,” is also most clearly revealed. In its conclusion, the “magnificent book” turns out to be a book of reflection on the peculiarities and uniqueness of the national character. The theme of the “righteous man” is resolved differently in the works that followed “Councils.” Leskov is moving away more and more from the idealization of the “old fairy tale”, his critical attitude towards reality is deepening more and more, and, accordingly, the writer is looking for “righteous people” in a different environment. In “The Sealed Angel” (1873), the heroes are the Old Believers, who are fighting against Orthodoxy, but the story ends with their transition to the fold of the Orthodox Church. This was clearly a stretch. In 1875, Leskov informed his friend from abroad that he had become a “turnover” and no longer burned incense to many of the old gods: “Most of all, I was at odds with churchism, on the issues of which I had read to my heart’s content about things that are not allowed in Russia... I will only say one thing: If I had read everything that I have now read on this subject, and listened to what I heard, I would not have written “The Council” the way they were written... But now I am twitching to write a Russian heretic - an intelligent, well-read and free spiritual Christian.” Here he reports that in relation to Katkov he feels something “that he cannot help but feel.” literary man to the killer of native literature."

That special ideological approach to the phenomena of social life, which is characteristic of Leskov’s mature work, determines the writer’s original, unique approach to the problems of artistic form. Gorky saw the most important distinctive feature of Leskov - a master of form - in the principles of his solution: the problem of poetic language. Gorky wrote: “Leskov is also a wizard of words, but he wrote not plastically, but through storytelling, and in this art he has no equal. His story is an inspired song, simple, purely Great Russian words, descending one with the other into intricate lines, sometimes thoughtfully, sometimes laughingly, ringing, and you can always hear in them a reverent love for people, covertly tender, almost feminine; pure love, she is a little ashamed of herself. The people in his stories often talk about themselves, but their speech is so amazingly alive, so truthful and convincing that they appear before you as mysteriously tangible, physically clear, like people from the books of L. Tolstoy and others - in other words, Leskov achieves the same result, but with a different technique of mastery,” Leskov wants the Russian person to speak about himself and for himself - and, moreover, a simple person who does not look at himself from the outside, as the author usually looks at his characters, He wants so that the reader listens to these people themselves, and for this they must speak and tell in their own language, without the intervention of the author.

Living from the very beginning of his literary career on magazine earnings, financially poor, Leskov was forced for many years to be a member of the Academic Committee of the Ministry of Public Education, despite a number of humiliating details of promotion and meager pay for extremely labor-intensive activities. However, for Leskov, who was greedy for diverse life experiences and inquisitive about the most diverse aspects of Russian life, this service also had some creative interest: he sometimes published the departmental material that most interested him, subjecting it to journalistic or artistic treatment.

It was these publications that aroused the unfavorable attention of such pillars of autocratic reaction as K. P. Pobedonostsev and T. I. Filippov. Lighting that. Leskov interpreted the facts he published as far from coinciding with the intentions and aspirations of government leaders. Dissatisfaction with Leskov's literary activities especially intensified at the beginning of 1883, apparently in connection with Leskov's speeches on issues of church life.

The Minister of Public Education I.D. Delyanov was instructed to “bring some sense” to the willful writer in the sense that Leskov would align his literary activities with the types of government reaction. Leskov did not succumb to any persuasion and categorically rejected the attempts of the authorities to determine the direction and nature of his literary work. The question of resignation arose. In order to give the matter a decent bureaucratic appearance, Delyanov asks Leskov to submit a letter of resignation. The writer resolutely rejects this proposal. Frightened by the threat of a public scandal, the confused minister asks Leskov why he needs dismissal without a request, to which Leskov replies: “It is necessary! At least for obituaries: mine and... yours.”

Leskov's expulsion from service caused a well-known public outcry. Of even greater social significance, undoubtedly, was the scandal that broke out when Leskov published, already at the end of his life, his collected works. The publication of a ten-volume collected works undertaken by the writer in 1888 had a double meaning for him. First of all, it was supposed to sum up the results of his thirty-year creative journey, the revision and rethinking of everything he created over these long and turbulent years. On the other hand, who lived after retirement solely on literary earnings, the writer wanted to achieve a certain material security in order to focus all his attention on the implementation of the final creative ideas. The publication was started, and the matter went well until the sixth volume, which included the chronicle “A Seedy Family” and a number of works treating issues of church life (“Little things in bishop’s life”, “Diocesan Court”, etc.). The volume was seized because anti-church tendencies were seen in its content. For Leskov, this was a huge moral blow - there was a threat of collapse of the entire publication. At the cost of removing and replacing things objectionable to the censorship, after much ordeal, the publication was saved. (The part of the volume seized by censorship was apparently subsequently burned.) The collected works were a success and justified the hopes placed on it by the writer, but scandalous story with the sixth volume was costly for the writer: on the day when Leskov learned about the arrest of the book, for the first time, according to his own testimony, he suffered an attack of illness, which a few years later (February 21/March 5, 1895) brought him to the grave.

If you don’t really think about the meaning of Leskov’s satirical task in “Trifles of a Bishop’s Life” (1878), then these sketches at first glance may seem completely harmless. It may even seem strange that this book so excited the highest spiritual hierarchy and, by order of spiritual censorship, was delayed in publication and burned. Meanwhile, Leskov’s task here is extremely poisonous and truly satirical in Leskov’s way. With the most innocent look, the author talks about how bishops get sick with indigestion, how they treat prominent officials with selected wines, while almost dancing, how they exercise to combat obesity, how they do good only because the petitioner was able to find a vulnerable place in their likes and dislikes, how petty and funny they quarrel and compete with secular authorities, etc. The selection of small, at first glance, everyday details, skillfully recreating the everyday existence of spiritual officials, is subordinated to a single task. Leskov seems to consistently expose the masquerade of external forms by which the church artificially separates itself from ordinary philistine Russian life. Quite ordinary townsfolk are discovered who are absolutely no different from those who flock the name of spiritual children. Colorlessness, emptiness, the banality of ordinary bourgeois life, the absence of any bright personal life - this is the theme that permeates seemingly innocent everyday sketches. It really turns out to be satire, very offensive to those depicted, but the satire is special. All this is a shame for clergy, first of all, because the reason for the masquerade is quite clearly exposed - special forms clothing, language, etc. This masquerade is needed because, in essence, an ordinary bishop is absolutely no different from an ordinary tradesman or an ordinary official. There is not even a glimpse of the main thing that the bishop officially represents - spiritual life. The spiritual principle is likened here to a cassock - hidden under the cassock is an ordinary official with indigestion or hemorrhoids. If among Leskov’s bishops there are people with a humanly pure soul and a warm heart, then this relates exclusively to their personal qualities and has nothing to do with their official and professional functions and official social position. In general, Leskov, in his own special ways, exposes the everyday ritual of churchliness , in many ways close to the “tearing off of masks” that Leo Tolstoy later carried out so vividly and sharply.

In the 80-90s, the themes and images of folk heroism and talent were replaced by Leskov with anti-government and anti-church satire, exposing the Pobedonostsev regime.

Starting from “Trifles of Bishop's Life” to “Hare Remise”, for almost twenty years, Leskov tirelessly exposes the “ideology” and practice of the church and religion. And it must be said that there was not a single writer in Russia who would inflict such fierce and crushing blows on the strongest stronghold of autocracy - the church, as did Leskov, who was never a consistent and completely convinced atheist.

In the essays “Trifles of Bishop’s Life” (1878-1880) 1 Leskov is trying to write about the clergy from the position of an “ideal”, imaginary church, and therefore he sees not only shadows, but also “light”. He devotes a number of sketches to the Kiev Metropolitan F. Amfitheatrov and other bishops rebelling against the Byzantine pomp and seclusion of hierarchal life, proposes to eliminate the diocesan (that is, spiritual) court, according to which churchmen, committing criminal offenses,

often remain unpunished, and calls for reforms in Orthodoxy following the example of Protestantism and the Church of England. On the other hand, the first chapters of the essays (G-IV), which appeared gradually, are distinguished by a particularly harsh tone, and it can be assumed that they were subsequently softened under external pressure, but in any case, “Trifles” was only an initial, relatively weak experience of anti-church satire.

Having become acquainted with the circles of the highest clergy during the years of cooperation in the Russian Bulletin and church magazines, Leskov was aware of all the policies of the ruling clique, carried out through the church, about all the intrigues and moods of the synod. This served him as material for accurate and irrefutable portraits of Russian hierarchs.

Oryol Bishop Smaragd did not get along with Governor Trubetskoy. Their quarrel filled the emptiness of provincial life, and the idle wit Major Schultz put on the window dummies of a fighting rooster (governor) and goat (bishop) and every day, depending on the circumstances, changed the arrangement of the figures. “Then the rooster pecked and beat with flapping wings the goat, which, with its head bowed, held its hood with its paw, which was moving to the back of its head, That the goat crushed the spurs of the rooster with its hooves, hooking it under its jaws with its horns, causing its head to lift up, its helmet to fall onto the back of its head, its tail to droop, and its pitifully gaping mouth seemed to cry out for protection... It was, however, impossible not to watch the figures, because There have been cases when a goat appeared to the eyes of passers-by with a slate tablet on which was written large: “P-r-i-h-o-d”, and below under this heading it was written: “On such and such a date: I took these rubles and two heads of sugar" or something like that." This trick of the witty major allows Leskov to present with great liveliness and humor both the Oryol archpastor, bribe-taker and tyrant, and his enemy - the “crazy governor.

In another chapter, also based on memoir material, he sketched the Penza bishop, who was distinguished by his obstinate disposition. Leskov depicts him in a clash with an Englishman who had no reason to fear the Russian bishop. “The bishop turned red like a lobster, and, clicking his nails on the stick, no longer spoke, but croaked: “Now I must report that This such? He was informed that This(A.Ya. Sh[kott], chief administrator of the estates of the Perovsky counts. The bishop immediately fell silent and asked: “Why is he in such a dress?” - but, without waiting for any answer to this, he went straight to his uncle. The moment was the most decisive , but ended with the bishop extending his hand to Schcott and saying: “I have great respect the English nation».

What makes the essays especially convincing is the unique position of the author, who, as a sincerely interested person, “talks about hierarchal and church life in general; however, this also leads to filling some chapters with truly “petty” facts and to a certain discrepancy in the tone of the essays - it’s difficult, for example, to coordinate extremely gentle scenes designed to touch the heart with sharply satirical, bold characteristics and provisions relating to Filaret Drozdov, Smaragd Kryzhanovsky and others.

“Trifles of Bishop's Life” for the first time showed the general reader the special world of caste not from its external, but from its carefully hidden sides. Leskov cited countless facts of ecclesiastical and monastic criminality, not subject to civil trial, spoke about priestly hypocrisy and love of money, and a series of his “pictures from life” presented the entire Russian church in its true form from rural sexton to Moscow metropolitan. At the same time, Leskov’s essays were not a single work in style: along with excellent humorous stories, they included extensive newspaper and documentary material. At the end of the 70s, “Trifles of Bishop's Life” had a well-deserved success with the reader and in the progressive democratic press. The reactionary-priestly press reacted differently, of course. In the article “Innocent and Disgraced Honor,” the Church Messenger, powerless to respond on the merits, accused Leskov of “boorish ridicule ... most often of the invented shortcomings” of church ministers. "IN Lately, - says the editorial, - a whole book has been published, capitalizing on flattery to the grossly selfish instincts of the underdeveloped crowd. Compiled primarily from gossip of the lowest sort, it shamelessly throws dirt and slander at the most venerable representatives of the Russian Church."

In the essays written after “Trifles,” “The Noble Revolt in the Dobrynsky Parish” (1881), “The Impoverished People” (1881), “The Serpent of Paradise” (1882), “Popov’s Leapfrog” (1883), etc. Leskov also avoids any generalizations that are inconvenient for the church, but only presents archival materials and documents with emphasized dispassion, but the true facts of church life, with the author’s honest attitude towards them, arouse enormous dissatisfaction with the insidious “renegade”, which soon takes on the character of persecution. And Leskov, for his part, becomes sharper with each successive work; he no longer touches only on the life of monasticism and priesthood, but also on the ritual practice of the church and the dogmas of Orthodoxy. Hence, the need inevitably arises to present the images of previous “church” works in a new light.

In the essays “Pechersk Antiquities” (1883), Mr. Leskov, as mentioned above, turns to an explanation of the final episode of “The Sealed Angel” and, instead of the poetically depicted religiosity of the Old Believers, shows funny fanaticism and religious massacres, instead of the iconographic fanatic Leontiy - stupid, but also fanatical the youth Gehazi. “The masons,” says Leskov in “Pechersk Antiques,” “were people of a very sedate and impressive appearance, moreover, with all the signs of high-grade Russian piety: the bangs on their foreheads were trimmed, and on the tops of their heads they were shaved in honor of the Lord... How Pomors would sometimes begin to sing and pray, Gehazi would climb onto a mountain ash tree and tease them from there, shouting: “Tropari-tax collectors.” And they could not stand it and answered: “Non-molly-raskoryak.” Thus, both faiths were mutually condemned, and the consequences of this were skirmishes and "stone-throwing", sometimes ending with the breaking of windows on both sides. At the conclusion of all this spiritual strife, Gehazi, as the direct culprit of the clashes, was "started" with a rope and sometimes (walked for three days bent over."

IN humorous stories 80s “White Eagle” (1880), “The Spirit of Madame Zhanlis” (1881), “Little Mistake” (1883) Leskov caustically ridicules the belief in “crazy “prophets” in the middle-class merchant community and the passion for mysticism and spiritualism in high society society, and in the story “Chertogon” (1880) he creates an almost fantastic picture of merchant revelry, culminating in holy foolish hypocrisy.

Leskov's acquaintances tried to influence him and stop his anti-religious activities. Colonel Pashkov, one of the first leaders of Russian evangelists, wrote to him on September 22, 1884: “I feel inexpressibly sorry that you, whose heart once responded to everything true and good, are now mocking... what the... apostles taught.” 1 . At the same time, the Slavophile I. Aksakov tried to admonish Leskov, “... in recent times,” Aksakov wrote on November 15, 1884, “they have completely desecrated your Muse and turned her into a simple cook... There are a lot of terrible, terribly happening abominations in our church life. It is necessary to expose, but in the Russian song it is sung:

I wish you the same word

I wouldn't say it that way.

This once. There is also a way of denunciation in the manner of Ham, who made fun of his father’s nakedness. Feel this, most respected Nikolai Semenovich...”2. However, censorship bans, admonitions and abuse from former comrades from conservative circles could not stop Leskov.

The most interesting anti-church work of this time can be considered “Notes of an Unknown” (1882-1884) 3. They represent a series of independent stories, united by common characters and the personality of the narrator. In the preface, Leskov writes that he allegedly acquired an old manuscript, which is of “considerable interest as an artless depiction of events that at one time interested some apparently very respectable, original and serious-minded social circle.” This “social circle,” of course, is priests and monks, as evidenced by the Church Slavonic language and the point of view of the narrator, which does not coincide at all with the reader’s attitude to the events.

In “Notes of an Unknown” Leskov uses anecdotal humor, an adventurous story, an evil satirical grotesque, and combines all this into a holistic picture of the morals and customs of the clergy. He gives a whole gallery of colorful portraits: Father John, who, being drunk, fell asleep during a church service; Father Vist and Father Preferantz are “two priests, both of academic learning and such passionate lovers of playing cards that the city has even forgotten their names”; rich sheep farmer Father Pavel; a European-style priest, Father George, who “swapped all the best ladies in the city from other priests”; the hierodeacon-hero, who fought in a tavern with a policeman on the “great sorrowful day” - Friday of Holy Week, etc. The unknown narrator fully sympathizes with these heroes, and therefore the author’s irony is especially noticeable. It is reflected even in the titles, which are comically inappropriate to the content of the stories (“About the madness of one prince”, “The cramped limitations of English art”).

But the funny alternates in “Notes of an Unknown” with the Tragic and terrible. Leskov, as in “Pechersk Antiques,” seems to be returning to his first works about the clergy. So, for example, in “The Soborians”, with good-natured irony, the funny quarrel between Savely and Achilla over the canes given to them is told; a similar story with a gift comes to life in a reduced satirical interpretation in the short story “On the harm from reading secular books that happens to many.” A new version of the fate of Savely Tuberozov can be the short story “Stopping a Growing Language.” Leskov shows how the clergy persecuted the “undressed” archimandrite. The hero of the story, having removed his rank, tries to get a job as a teacher, but due to denunciations of the priests he is persecuted by the police and in the end, “living in the spring in a water-filled rostal in a damp stone barn, next to an abandoned mill, he fell ill ... with that disgusting and fatal disease called scurvy, and died alone in the night, biting his tongue with his teeth, which began to protrude from his mouth to the surface to such an extent that it was very unpleasant and scary to watch.” Next comes the miraculous stopping of this growing tongue, performed by the monk in front of the frightened peasants. Leskov sarcastically exposes the “miracle” and the intricate moral teaching of the deceitful narrator.

Remarkable for their elegant, subtle finishing and witty parody of speech, the short stories lead to a convincing conclusion: there is no such vileness that these heroes, corrupted by age-old parasitism and the constant readiness to serve the “political authorities,” would not commit.

Under reaction conditions Alexandra III“Notes of an Unknown” is undoubtedly a bold and risky statement against church obscurantism, and they finally determine Leskov’s future path, the hold on Leskov’s work, especially clearly expressed in the images he created of people of honest and selfless “righteous” life, Russian heroes, “enchanted by the love of life and people,” masters of their craft who see hard and joyful work in art and turn work into high art - and influenced Gorky. “I saw in life dozens of bright, richly gifted, excellently talented people,” writes Gorky, but in literature, the “mirror of life,” they were not reflected or were reflected so dimly that I did not notice them. But Leskov, a tireless hunter for a unique, original person, had such people, although they were not dressed as - in my opinion - they should have been dressed."

The romantic brilliance of Leskov’s prose, the multicoloredness of his linguistic means, the landscape framing of Leskov’s heroes in the brilliance of the “silver sea of ​​steppes,” “in the bright powerful lighting” of crimson and azure, in the sparkle of the snowy deserts of Siberia - all this turned out to be consonant with the optimistic romance of nature and life in Gorky’s stories . Finally, the bright national color, folklore motifs and beauty of folk speech in Leskov’s work could not help but influence Gorky, an expert and poet of Russian life. And this literary continuity shows that Leskov worked not only for his own, but also for the future era, which for the first time in the history of mankind opened a free outlet for the inexhaustible sources of heroism and creativity of the people, who are now voting for “beautiful laws, war and peace.”

In these days of the flourishing of all popular forces and talents and the construction of a culture that is national in form and socialist in content, his images of a talented and strong Russian man resound in a new and clearer way than for many of Leskov’s contemporaries, and his verbal mastery can be highly recognized and appreciated and Leskov’s love for the “rich and beautiful” language of the people.

LITERATURE

1. Russian writers and poets. Brief biographical dictionary. Moscow, 2000.

2.Collected works in 11 volumes. T. 6. M.: State Publishing House of Fiction, 1957 OCR Bychkov M.N.

3. Collected works in twelve volumes. N. S. Leskov “Pravda” 1989.

4. The life of Nikolai Leskov according to his personal family and non-family records and memories. A. N. Leskov “Fiction” 1984.

5. Energetic tactlessness. N.S. Leskov “Orthodox Review” 1876.

F.M. Dostoevsky and N.S. Leskov

Speaking about the Russian classic writers F.M. Dostoevsky and N.S. Leskov in the above-mentioned capacity, I would immediately like to emphasize that they were not just eyewitnesses of the evangelical awakening in St. Petersburg, but, moreover, its chroniclers and critics. In their works they not only captured the events that interested us, but also gave them their assessment.

At the same time, their written works (articles, diaries, letters), which are a treasury of primary material, are little known and insufficiently studied by modern church historians. Therefore, the study of their rich heritage will help in restoring a more complete and detailed historical painting evangelical movement in St. Petersburg.

It is worthy of attention that the topic is of interest not only to church historians, but also to secular literary scholars, which significantly expands the source base, allows one to look at the issue from different angles and come to more substantiated conclusions.

This abstract aims to give a brief overview of the topic raised, introduce some of the results obtained and outline ways for further research.

Literary circles and Lord Redstock

God so pleased that from the very beginning the missionary activity of the English preacher Lord Redstock in St. Petersburg became widely known thanks to publications in periodicals. The topic was covered by many newspapers and magazines, especially actively by such publications as “Citizen”, “Voice”, “Church and Public Bulletin”, “Russian World”, “Orthodox Review”, “New Time”, “Modernity”, “Church Bulletin” ", "News and stock exchange newspaper" and others.

Lord Redstock

The writer Leskov believed that the press did more for Redstock’s fame than his followers, who, according to his own testimony, “admired him quietly” (Leskov, N.S. High Society Schism, pp. 2-3). This statement by Leskov can be disputed, but there is no doubt that the topic turned out to be interesting for many writers and writers.

Among those who wrote about Redstock were: Prince V.P. Meshchersky, priest I.S. Bellustin, Count L.N. Tolstoy, rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Ioann Yanyshev, Bishop Feofan the Recluse, historian and publicist A.S. Prugavin, statesmen K P. Pobedonostsev, F. G. Turner and A. A. Polovtsov.

More than anyone else, N.S. Leskov wrote about him for many years. In addition to him, it is necessary to highlight F.M. Dostoevsky, who was the first to attract public attention to the figure of Redstock and arouse a discussion about him in the press.

All writers in their attitude towards Redstock were divided into two camps: critics and sympathizers. Dostoevsky belonged to the first camp, Leskov, with some reservations, to the second.

Yulia Denisovna Zasetskaya

In introducing our classics to Lord Redstock, Yu.D. played a key role. Zasetskaya is a writer, translator, evangelist, philanthropist and friend of Dostoevsky and Leskov, with whom she regularly met and corresponded. It is clear from the letters that this relationship was mutually valued. Zasetskaya more than once explained to them the essence of the Evangelical faith and the reasons that prompted her to leave Orthodoxy, and tried to convince her opponents of the truth of the Evangelical faith. The writers, while paying tribute to the woman’s intelligence and personal qualities, quite actively polemicized with her.

Julia with her brother

Zasetskaya's acquaintance with Lord Redstock took place in England and produced a spiritual revolution in her. She became so close to the lord's family that she later wrote to N.S. Leskov: “I spent my days with their family, including his recently deceased mother and his sister, I visited them as if I were at home” (Leskov A., p. 339).

Returning to Russia, Zasetskaya invested a significant amount of her money in the construction and opening of the first overnight shelter for the homeless in St. Petersburg.

This is what Anna Grigorievna Dostoevskaya, the writer’s wife, wrote:

“Fyodor Mikhailovich met Yulia Denisovna Zasetskaya, the daughter of partisan Denis Davydov, in 1873. She had just founded the first shelter in St. Petersburg (according to the 2nd company of the Izmailovsky Regiment) and, through the secretary of the editorial board of the Citizen, invited Fyodor Mikhailovich on the appointed day to inspect the shelter she had set up for the homeless. Yu. D. Zasetskaya was a Redstockist, and Fyodor Mikhailovich, at her invitation, was present several times at the spiritual conversations of Lord Redstock and other outstanding preachers of this teaching. Fyodor Mikhailovich greatly appreciated the intelligence and extraordinary kindness of Yu. D. Zasetskaya, often visited her and corresponded with her” (Dostoevskaya A. G., p. 278).

Leskov showed no less affection for Yulia Denisovna, writing: “I loved and respected this kind lady, just like the late Dostoevsky” (Leskov N.S. New Testament Jews, p. 77).

In 1881, Zasetskaya left Russia forever for Paris, where she lived for a short time and died on December 27, 1882.

Dostoevsky's first publication about Redstock

In 1873-1874, Dostoevsky was the editor-publisher of the weekly magazine “Citizen”. On February 24, 1874, he received a note from the then secretary of the editorial office of this magazine, V. F. Putsykovich, with the words: “On the instructions of Yu. D. Zasetskaya, I am forwarding to you (...) the attached ticket.” This was the writer’s invitation to Lord Redstock’s sermon (Chronicle of the life and work of F.M. Dostoevsky, pp. 459-460).

The next day the Citizen was the first to introduce the public to the figure of Redstock. From a lengthy editorial entitled “The New Apostle in St. Petersburg big world Here's just a short quote:

“The venerable lord arrived in St. Petersburg the other day. The next day the whole wide world shook. Lord Redstock receives ten or twenty invitations a day from ladies of high society to come and talk about Christ. He speaks in an American kirk - all the Russian ladies come there and listen to the sermon in English; conversations are held in private homes; everyone is eager to go there, everyone is eager to know Christ from the lips of Lord Redstock! (...) He says well. The ladies listen in rapt awe; their appearance is reminiscent of the pagan women of the time of the Apostle Paul, with burning eyes, riveted to the face of the preacher, and for the first time recognizing the name of Christ and His teaching! And after such a sermon, streams of tears flow from the eyes of these high-society princesses and countesses; they thank Lord Redstock for revealing Christ to them” (Citizen, No. 8, 02/25/1874, pp. 217-218).

According to most literary scholars, this article, signed with the pseudonym “N.”, was written by the owner of the magazine, Prince V. Meshchersky. However, in our opinion, taking into account Dostoevsky’s visit to Redstock’s conversation and his status as editor-publisher, it is impossible to exclude, at a minimum, his co-authorship.

This article, critical of Redstock, provoked controversy in two letters of opposite reaction, published in the next issue of the Citizen. The first letter was signed: “ Princess D-ya(mother of five children)”, under the second: “One of the listeners of the conversations.” The “listener” (most likely Zasetskaya) cleverly defended Redstock.

The editorial response placed under her letter, entitled “Here is our answer to anonymous,” according to the generally accepted opinion in academic circles, belongs to the pen of Dostoevsky, and this is what the writer saw:

“A beautiful hall, well furnished, with an elegant audience, where (...) I heard him (Redstock); he is not very eloquent, makes rather serious mistakes and knows the human heart rather poorly (specifically on the topic of faith and good deeds). This is the gentleman who announces that he is bringing us a “precious liquid”; but at the same time he insists that she must be carried without a glass and, of course, would like to break the glass. He rejects forms, he even composes his own prayers”; (...) he “spoke to Mrs. Zas(ets)koy in the hall, where there were up to 100 invited by printed notes” (Dostoevsky F.M. PSS in 30 volumes, L., 1990, volume 30, book 2, pp. 22-24, 80-83).

This article ended with the words:

“No, Mesdames, for you, in your great light, one excellent word, a name, was invented for reproof and edification. It was you who were called: “the priestless people of the great world.” It's impossible to imagine anything better. N." (Citizen, No. 9, 03/04/1874, pp. 247-248).

Ten days later, the Russkiy Mir newspaper published the Diary of Merkul Forefathers, written by Leskov, containing a response to this article. Leskov describes a visit to himself by two cousins, listeners of Lord Redstock’s sermon, offended by Dostoevsky’s speech: “He called us “secular lack of priesthood.” It’s impolite, it’s rude” (Russkiy Mir, No. 70, 03/14/1874).

Leskov, who at that time was painfully polemicizing with Dostoevsky, writes in the heat of the moment:

“Dostoevsky offended them in “Citizen” and called them “secular lack of priesthood.” What to do? Sorry. He did not realize that people baptized in the church and performing its sacraments and rituals cannot be called priestless. This is chronic with him: whenever he talks about something related to religion, he will certainly always express himself in such a way that all that remains is to pray for him: “Father, let him go!” (Chronicle of the life and work of F.M. Dostoevsky T.2, St. Petersburg, 1999, p.466).

Dostoevsky about Redstock and Pashkov

Particularly important for understanding Dostoevsky’s position is the chapter “Lord Redstock” from the “Diary of a Writer” for March 1876. Having learned about the new arrival of an English preacher in the capital, Dostoevsky writes:

"It happened to me then ( approx. auto- in 1874) to hear in one “hall”, at a sermon, and I remember that I did not find anything special in him: he spoke neither particularly intelligently nor particularly boringly. Meanwhile, he works wonders on the hearts of people; they cling to him; many are amazed: they are looking for the poor in order to quickly benefit them, and almost want to give away their property. (...) He produces extraordinary conversions and arouses generous feelings in the hearts of his followers. However, this is how it should be: if he is really sincere and preaches a new faith, then, of course, he is possessed by all the spirit and fervor of the founder of the sect. I repeat, here is our deplorable isolation, our ignorance of the people, our break with nationality, and at the head of everything is a weak, insignificant concept of Orthodoxy” (Dostoevsky F.M. Diary of a Writer, pp. 189-190).

V.A Pashkov

About Dostoevsky’s attitude towards Redstock’s successor, Colonel V.A. We learn about Pashkova from the writer’s response to two articles about Pashkovites, as the Redstockists came to be called. These articles were published one after another in the newspaper “Novoye Vremya” on May 11 and 13, 1880. The short text of the second note is given in full:

“In the “Church(ram). Vestn(ike)." a statement of the “creed” of the famous Mr. Pashkov is given according to his letters to Father I. Yanyshev. Reporting in these letters that he “does not have any theological knowledge,” but acts by inspiration, Mr. Pashkov says among other things: The Lord has appointed me to serve Him - to service, to which I have been surrendering with joy for almost five years now; it consists in testifying to people about Him, about His boundless love, which He allows people to experience every day. And in our opinion, Mr. Pashkov is doing a good job.”

This note, sympathetic to Pashkov’s sermon, caused a painful reaction from Dostoevsky. The writer immediately wrote to the newspaper publisher A.S. Suvorin:

“May 14, 1880. Staraya Russa. Dear Alexey Sergeevich, thank you for your kind letter. (...) Why do you praise Pashkov and why did you write (I just read it in the issue of May 13) that Pashkov does what he preaches well? And who is this clergyman who, three days ago, published an article for you in defense of the Pashkovites? This is an ugly article. Please excuse me for this frankness. This is precisely why I am annoyed that all this appears in Novoye Vremya - in the newspaper that I love. Sincerely respecting you, F. Dostoevsky” (Dostoevsky F.M. PSS in 30 vols.; vol. 30, book 1, p. 336).

So, on the one hand, Dostoevsky recognized the success of Redstock, on the other hand, he did not sympathize with either Redstock or his successor Pashkov, believing that the success of their preaching was due only to ignorance of Orthodoxy and the separation of part of high society from it.

The writer was talking about the ordinary Russian people better opinion. In his last “Diary of a Writer” (1880, August), Dostoevsky repeats an important thought for himself:

“I affirm that our people have long been enlightened, having accepted Christ and His teaching into their essence. They will tell me: he doesn’t know the teachings of Christ, and they don’t preach to him, but this objection is empty: he knows everything, everything that exactly needs to be known, although he will not pass the exam from the catechism.”

The idealization of the people and Orthodoxy was the writer’s fixation. However, he has statements that Evangelical Christians will readily share with him. For example, Dostoevsky, through the mouth of Elder Zosima, says:

“On earth, truly, we seem to be wandering, and if there were no precious image of Christ before us, we would perish and become completely lost, like the human race before the flood.”

Isn’t the writer right when he asserts that only the Lord restrains the increase of evil in the world, and only the image of Christ can lead humanity out of a state of spiritual impasse, similar to the state of people before Noah’s flood?!

Nikolai Semenovich Leskov

Of the Russian writers, N.S. wrote most about Redstock and the results of his preaching. Leskov. However, as we have already seen, Leskov’s attention to this topic arose not without the participation of Dostoevsky and the magazine “Citizen” edited by him.

Then, after Dostoevsky resigned as editor in April 1874, this magazine made Lord Redstock a constant target of its criticism in 1875-1876. The scandalous publications were written by Prince V.P. Meshchersky.

The apotheosis of absurdity, almost a libel, turned out to be his lengthy novel “The Lord Apostle in the St. Petersburg Great Society” (Citizen, Nos. 17-29, 31-43, 1875), in which “Lord Apostle Hitchik” (read: Redstock) appeared inveterate a swindler and a lustful bon vivant, skillfully masquerading under the mask of religiosity and virtue and preaching that “sinning is not at all as terrible as it seems” (Ipatova, pp. 417-418).

The outright slander outraged even Dostoevsky: “Well, what Prince Meshchersky has written in his “Lord Apostle” is horror,” he wrote to his wife on June 15, 1875. Leskov spoke no less sharply about Meshchersky in a letter to I.S. Aksakov in March 1875: “He writes and writes, and whatever he doesn’t undertake, he will vulgarize everything” (Unpublished Leskov, book 2, p. 216).

In addition, Leskov wrote, the magazine “Citizen” for three winters zealously tracked down where Redstock was converting, and everywhere sent him “sharp reproaches for seducing our high society people from Orthodoxy into their own special, Redstock schism or heresy; but this observational publication did not reveal anything about this heresy itself, about its essence and tasks” (Leskov N.S. High Society Schism, pp. 3-4). Thus, Meshchersky’s deliberately distorted caricature of Lord Redstock, who was not at all a frivolous Don Juan, and at the same time the lack of objective information about the lord and the essence of his faith, forced Leskov to take up serious research Topics.

There was also a personal reason for this. By this time, the writer’s disappointment in Orthodoxy was fully revealed, in which he was outraged by many things: stagnation, bureaucracy, pharisaism, lack of teaching, “self-interest and stupidity” (Dunaev, pp. 424, 456). And he began to look for his own reading of the Gospel, which would satisfy him, and therefore carefully observed the life of the Old Believers and Evangelical believers.

Redstock's personality particularly interested him. In June 1876, Leskov entered into correspondence with Zasetskaya, asking her to provide as much information as possible about the lord. She readily responds. This is facilitated by the fact that Leskov, together with his teenage son Andrei, is at this time in Pikruki (near Vyborg) at the dacha of Zasetskaya, who friendly invited and arranged the writer’s summer holiday (Leskov N.S. Collected Works. vol. XI, M. , 1958, p.815).

“Your telegram made me very happy, dear Nikolai Semenovich! I didn’t understand anything, except that you would offer me nothing but good things. (...) It’s not that I find it difficult to write in detail about all the views of R/edsto/ka, but I can’t fully understand whether I have the right to do so, since a lot was said to me, but not to the public. I spent my days with their family, including his recently deceased mother and his sister, I was like at home with them, I often touched on issues that he never talks about, and it happened that he would tell me: you see - I’m telling you this , others may misinterpret my thoughts. - Judge for yourself. However, here's what I'll do. I’ll write you everything, like a letter, and anything that seems dangerous to him and indelicate on my part, I’ll mark with a cross...”

However, in the midst of work, the writer was no longer able to take into account any restrictive conventions and “crosses” of Zasetskaya. In a creative passion, a temperamental publicist thinks about one thing: to give more bright pictures, rich dialogues, colorful images, although a little caricatured, but well remembered and impressive” (Leskov A., p. 339).

In September, the journal “Orthodox Review” begins publishing Leskov’s essay “The High Society Schism: Lord Redstock and His Followers.”

In this essay, the writer creates a visible picture of the evangelical movement, which absorbed many representatives of high society who longed for a genuine Christian life. Having found nothing in the soulless formalism and boredom of the state church, these souls seeking God found themselves in the position of sheep without a shepherd. It turned out to be easier for them to turn to God through a teacher of faith from England than to satisfy their spiritual thirst in communication with Orthodox pastors. And here is the writer’s conclusion: having become disillusioned with their own clergy, having encountered only Pharisaism, these good and well-intentioned Russian people found in Protestant parish life an example and leadership that they wanted to introduce into the Russian Church (Leskov, Mirror of Life, pp. 113-115).

The ending of the essay is very important, where Leskov asks the question: is the religious movement that has begun a schism? No, the writer is convinced. — For now, this is only a difference of opinion with the Orthodox Church. Nothing has been formed yet. Redstockists advocate for the renewal of the church, for true Orthodoxy.

But at the same time, the writer sees a danger in the fact that the Redstockists’ need for “live teaching in churches and direct participation in church parish activities” may not materialize, which will push them away from the church. Leskov fears, and fears with good reason, that the clergy’s insensitivity to the spiritual awakening that the Redstockists wanted to bring into parish life will sooner or later lead to a schism. “Only it will not be Lord Redstock and his admirers who will be to blame for this, but the too long delay in the fulfillment of these good and fair desires,” the writer concludes (Ibid., pp. 119-121).

In other words, Leskov foresaw that the Orthodox Church may not be ready to accept spiritual awakening under its wing and allow the laity to preach the Gospel, gospel readings from house to house, works of mercy and other forms of social service. In Lutheranism, a similar form of renewal of church life through the activity of the laity has been known since the 17th century and received the name Pietism. Despite historical tensions and difficulties between pastors and flocks, Pietism fit within the framework of Lutheranism and did not lead to painful schisms there.

So, we see that Leskov foresaw a danger for the church, and careful reading of his book by the bishops could have saved the situation, but this did not happen. The church wineskins were old, and the new wine of spiritual awakening burst through them...

Two-thirds of the essay “The High Society Schism” was devoted to the biography of Redstock, his theological views, manner of presenting Scripture, and the reasons for the success of his preaching in Russian society. Complex image The English preacher turned out to be open not only to praise, but also to criticism. Moreover, in places the writer ridiculed his hero.

Redstock's friends and true followers were outraged. Zasetskaya is killed: she is guilty of unintentionally betraying someone whom she so honors and values! They console her with the fact that she is nothing more than a victim of the writer's treachery. This does not assuage her remorse. Depressed, she writes:

“Nikolai Semenovich!

The Gospel teaches us to repay good for evil and forgive offenses. I won’t blame you...

Our Teacher, the Son of God, called the world Satan and madmen - what should His followers expect? If someone does not know you, but judges you both according to your writings, it is enough to be convinced that: “you are of the world and speak in the worldly way, and the world listens to you.” Is it surprising that you mock those who are not at all from the world, and those that are still out of reach for you?

Leskov, justifying himself, refers to the wide approval of his “essay” by the press, to which he receives, as it were, a final absolution:

“Nikolai Semenovich, I received your note and a magazine clipping. But I can assure you that I do not recognize magazine opinions as authority and allow myself to have personal views. I completely agree that you could describe a thousand times worse than the person whom I place morally above everyone else. famous people. Didn't Meshchersky describe him as the ultimate scoundrel? When the purpose of a book is to amuse the public, and most importantly, to make the book a success at any cost, writers probably, without regret, sacrifice everything: friendship, opinion and the confidence of such modest individuals as myself. I am guilty of imagining that you have some feeling of friendship for me, which will not allow you to ridicule (and for this purpose even choose me as a tool) a person whom I respect infinitely. Whether it’s due to an excess of imagination, I’m stupidly gullible.

You can be congratulated: your goal has been fully achieved. I am not at all angry with you, I was mistaken, and this consciousness destroys me in my own eyes for a while.

Again I will end with the words that I once wrote to you: “You are of the world and speak in the worldly way, and the world listens to you.”

May God help you to see the light in time...” (Leskov A., pp. 340-341).

True, not all redstockists were outraged by Leskov’s book. Bobrinsky, Turner, and Redstock himself received it favorably (Leskov N.S. Sobr.soch., vol. 10, 1958, p. 457). Evidence has been preserved that Redstock not only was not offended, but even fell in love with this book extremely much (Shlyapkin I.A., p. 213).

Leskov's rapprochement with the Redstockists

Feeling guilty and valuing his friendship with Zasetskaya, and also wanting to better understand Redstock and his followers, Leskov enters into closer relations with the Redstockists, visits their homes, listens to the sermons of Redstock and Pashkov. The writer’s interest in the English preacher reaches its maximum, despite the fact that “The High Secular Schism” has already been published. In the winter of 1877-78, he, according to his own testimony, “attended the full course of the Lord’s science” (Leskov N.S. Signs and Wonders // TsOV, No. 28, p. 5).

By the spring of 1878, Leskov's views on Redstock underwent significant changes. He openly admits that his criticism of the English preacher was hasty and largely incorrect in the past, and the new literary portrait on the pages of the “Church and Public Bulletin” was written out by Leskov in a much more favorable light (Leskov N.S. Miracles and Signs // TsOV, No. 40, 04/02/1878, p. 3-5).

In the winter of 1878-79, Leskov became close and became a regular attendee of the Peyker family evenings (Leskov A., p. 341). Mother Maria Grigorievna and daughter Alexandra Ivanovna published the magazine “Russian Worker,” which Leskov had previously, in 1876, subjected to serious criticism, partly fair (Leskov N.S. Sentimental Piety). Now he becomes their consultant.

In 1879, Leskov's help was expressed in editing a number of issues of the Russian Worker, which included several of his articles. Later he published them separately under the title “A Collection of Fatherly Opinions on the Importance of the Holy Scriptures” (1881). Leskov's participation in the publication and his professional advice contributed to a noticeable increase in the popularity of the magazine, the monthly circulation of which reached 3,000 copies (Heyer, pp. 80-82).

Maria Grigorievna soon, on February 27, 1881, passed away. Leskov sympathized with this, in his words, “a very pleasant, subtle lady” (Leskov N.S. New Testament Jews, p. 84) “and, moreover, a strongly convinced Christian” (New Time, March 1, 1881, No. 1798).

After all that has been said, it is not surprising that the second half of the 1870s saw the apogee of literary interest in Redstock and his followers, which was reflected in St. Petersburg periodicals. In the newspaper “Novoye Vremya” alone, Leskov published several dozen notes and articles about the Pashkovites (Mayorova O.E., pp. 161-185). For example, on April 9, 1880, this newspaper reported the cessation of preaching by “high society preachers” in several houses in St. Petersburg at the insistence of frightened householders, “who did not want to allow the continuation of large gatherings of children and teenagers.” Here is an excerpt from this Leskov note:

“Good ladies endure this first “persecution for the faith” not only without joy, but with delight. Whoever their Diocletian was, he could not think how much he added courage and energy to them. Knocked out of their home rut by homeowners, they rushed to the outskirts of the capital - to Kolpino and other places where there are many working, artisan people. This, of course, is much more troublesome, but the seething energy that animates the preachers overcomes everything. Every day at the Nikolaevskaya station railway one can see several of these “black ladies” undertaking their saving “pilerinage” (pelerinage (French) - pilgrimage, wandering), with the goal of convincing the Russian workers of the truth insidiously hidden from them, that they are “saved” and in order to assimilate this salvation to them nothing more is needed than to “believe in it.” (...) In addition to the Kolpino workers, they are also saving the workers of Kumberg and are planning to save the dense artisan population of the Sestroretsk arms factory. (...)

All this is funny to some and not funny to others, but nevertheless worthy of attention and interesting. As a matter of fact, in our not only practical, but even greedy and greedy times, such a disinterested religious impulse arises, and at the same time the impulse is persistent and in no way cooling. If the preachers survive from the shelters, they penetrate into factories and workshops, push them out of there - they appear in bathhouses and prisons; there they will be escorted out, they open their apartments to everyone. In this they are finally constrained, they rushed out of the city like spring swallows - through villages and villages... (...) Even keeping up with them, as you can see, is not easy, they flutter so quickly here and there, and everyone sings their rhymes everywhere, and “ are proclaiming salvation”... So what good they are, they will worry the entire Russian clergy so much that they will actually decide to establish in all churches not only one divine service, but also teaching, which has been in place for so long This is how the people thirst in vain (obsolete - in vain), running away to all sorts of “educational” sects where there is “mental understanding.” As if these religious swallows really didn’t bring with them at least some semblance of spring. And then we’ll probably have to say about them that they did something... (...)” (New Time, No. 1478, 04/09/1880, p. 2-3).

The writer writes about the evangelist ladies, these “spring swallows,” with obvious sympathy, although not without irony. Leskov’s lines recreate a vivid picture of the past, visibly taking us to the 19th century.

And thanks to his publications, the “blank spots” of our history are gradually being erased. Thus, in the book of the Orthodox author Terletsky “The Sect of the Pashkovites” (1891) you can read that since 1880 Pashkov did not live so freely in St. Petersburg, he was forbidden to have Sunday conversations, and therefore the preaching of the Pashkovites began to spread on the outskirts of the capital, where there were fewer police officers supervision. Terletsky does not indicate the names of the suburbs, and from Leskov’s note we learn that the gospel then began in Kolpino and Sestroretsk. By the way, Leskov’s famous “Lefty” (1881) was written under the impression of a visit to the Sestroretsk arms factory, and the writer received the impetus for that trip through his interest in the activities of the Pashkovites.

Clash between Leskov and Pashkov

In the 1880s, Leskov gradually moved away from the Pashkovites. He never accepted the biblical teaching of the atonement for sin through the blood of Jesus Christ. He did not agree that for salvation nothing else is needed but to accept this gift by faith and, out of love for Christ, please Him by doing His will and doing good deeds (Faresov, Mental Fractures, p. 794). However, his long association with redstockists had an influence on him. In his literary works critics began to discover “the influence of the Protestant spirit” (Ibid., p. 800).

In 1884, Leskov clashed with Pashkov under the following circumstances. In the magazine “Citizen”, Prince Meshchersky accused the Pashkovites of spreading Stundism and leading the peasants away from the Orthodox Church (Citizen, No. 36, 09/2/1884, p. 23).

Having entered into a polemic with Meshchersky, Leskov wrote the article “Princely Slanders.” However, what he intended as a defense of the Pashkovites, in fact turned out to be their criticism. Leskov called them a “foggy mystical society” that is supported by Pashkov himself and his money, and that their doctrine of justification by faith will not bring positive results in Russia.

Leskov's ambiguity caused conflicting reactions. Most newspapers took his response to Meshchersky as a passionate defense of the Pashkovites. However, Pashkov himself was outraged by many of Leskov’s statements, and from abroad, where he was in exile, he responded to the writer’s criticism with a well-reasoned letter, which included the following words: “I feel inexpressibly sorry that you, whose heart once responded to everything that is true and good, now you mock (...) what was taught in the name of Christ the Son of God, His apostles” (Faresov, Mental Fractures, pp. 795-796).

Surprised by this interpretation of his words, Leskov replied to Pashkov that his goal was to tell the truth and not to insult. But the writer’s conciliatory words took on an accusatory tone at the end of the letter. He warned against any group of people claiming to have found the only true path to salvation (Heyer, 83-84).

After 1884, Leskov ceased to conduct an active dialogue with the Pashkovites, his publications about them in the press became sporadic. There are several reasons: the redstockists closest to him passed away into eternity (Yu.D. Zasetskaya, M.G. Peiker); after the expulsion of Pashkov and Korf, the activities of evangelical believers took on a secret, non-public character; finally, the state strengthened spiritual censorship. It became difficult for the writer to write about the Pashkovites in the new conditions.

The last years of Leskov's life

However, thoughts about the “Pashkov faith” did not leave him until the end of his life. In a notebook, begun in 1893, he writes: “Everything is good in Pashkov’s faith, but why do they put goose fat in lamps” (Unpublished Leskov, book 2, p. 589). A year later, again in the notebook, similar words: “In Pashkov’s agreement, goose fat is put into lamps” (ibid., p. 590). What kind of obsessive thought did not let go of the writer? Literary scholars have left these statements without comment, but we must try to understand them.

It is known that in last years life Leskov sharply criticized Orthodoxy. In a letter to A.S. To Suvorin on March 9, 1888, defending the persecuted Stundists, he wrote, becoming in clear opposition to the views of Dostoevsky:

“The fact of the matter is that you cannot believe in the Orthodox way if the person is not a fool; but according to the Stundists, that is, according to the Gospel, you can believe. (...) The worst thing is the trick that invented that “the Russian nation is bound by Orthodoxy” and that “a non-Orthodox cannot be Russian.” From here, it seems to me, comes irritation against good, sincere Russian people, who are not capable of bending their faith... (...) Do not attack the stunda: this is the work of God and the Holy Spirit with them - “do not quench the spirit” (...) (63 letters from N.S. Leskova, p.454).

Back in 1883, Leskov wrote that among the Redstockists, only Zasetskaya had the sincerity and courage to publicly admit that she did not like Orthodoxy, that she left it and converted to Protestantism. For the same reason, she bequeathed that her body should not be transported to Russia, so that she would not be buried as an Orthodox Christian. The rest of the Redstockists are disingenuous, Leskov believed, by participating in Orthodox confession and communion, although with their views on the Orthodox sacraments, rituals and priesthood, one cannot come to the Orthodox chalice and say “I believe and confess”... (Leskov N.S. Confessional registration, p. .2).

Obviously, until the end of his life, Leskov sympathized with both the capital’s Pashkovites and the Stundists of Little Russia, putting their piety above Orthodox. For him, the moral, practical side of faith was most important, and therefore he condemned the Pashkovites precisely for their incomplete break with Orthodoxy. This explanation can be supported by the mentioned lamp, lit in front of the icons. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that the Pashkovites, as is known, did not keep icons and lamps in the house. Therefore, Leskov’s words, if our assumption is correct, should be understood not literally, but figuratively.

According to the Orthodox author M.M. Dunaeva, Leskov, although he did not join Redstock Protestantism, was close to it in spirit (Dunaev, pp. 425, 459). A similar idea was expressed by literary critic Faresov: Leskov “was strongly supported by many people against Redstock. (...) The more, however, Leskov fought against the Redstockists (...), the clearer his enemies became to him, and much about them ceased to repel him” (A. Faresov. Mental fractures, p. 799).

So, the internal forces of attraction and repulsion experienced by the writer in relation to the Pashkovites explain the duality and inconsistency of Leskov’s judgments about their faith throughout his life. What was it that repelled the writer from the evangelical believers, with whom he largely sympathized?

In the second half of the 1880s, Leskov became close to Leo Tolstoy. Two years before his death (01/04/1893), seriously ill, he wrote a confessional letter to Tolstoy, which also mentioned his past relations with the Redstockists:

“Dear Lev Nikolaevich! (...) You know what kindness you did to me: from an early age in my life I had an attraction to questions of faith, and began to write about religious people when this was considered obscene and impossible (“The Cathedralians”, “The Sealed Angel”, “ "Odnodum" and "Trifles of Bishop's Life", etc.), but I was still confused and contented with "raking up the rubbish at the sanctuary", but I did not know what to go to the sanctuary with. I was under pressure from the clergy and Redstock (Zasetskaya, Pashkov and Al.P. Bobrinsky), but this only made me feel worse: I myself approached what I saw in you, but with myself I was still afraid that this was a mistake, because although the same thing shone in my consciousness that I learned from you, everything with me was in chaos - vague and unclear, and I did not rely on myself; and when I heard your explanations, logical and strong, I understood everything, as if “remembering”, and I no longer needed my own, and I began to live in the light that I saw from you and which was more pleasant to me, because it is incomparably stronger and brighter than what I delved into on my own. From now on, you have a meaning for me that cannot pass away, because with him I hope to move into another existence, and therefore there is no one else but you who would be as dear and memorable to me as you are. I think that you feel that I am telling the truth” (Leskov N.S. Sobr.soch, vol. 3, 1993, p. 371).

So, Leskov ends his life as a follower of Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoyism as an ethical teaching was captive of the prevailing philosophy of rationalism in the 19th century. Tolstoy elevated human reason above Scripture, reshaped the Gospel in his own way, which led to his denial of the divine nature of Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice made for the sin of the world. There was an insurmountable gap between Tolstoyism, which preserved only the moral teaching of Christ, and the genuine Gospel of grace, which did not allow either Tolstoy or Leskov to join the evangelical believers, despite mutual human sympathies and many years of communication between both writers with them.

conclusions

1) Despite the prevailing spirit of criticism, numerous writers and journalists with their publications aroused interest in the figure of Redstock, making him famous in wide St. Petersburg circles. According to Leskov, the magazine “Citizen” “dedicated so much attention to Redstock that the importance of this man immediately rose” (Leskov N.S. High Society Schism, St. Petersburg, 1877, p. 3). As a result, more and more new authors became involved in covering the topic, the range of newspapers and magazines expanded, which contributed to the fame of the English preacher and the growth of awakening.

2) In our opinion, God used the talents of Dostoevsky and Leskov, making them a kind of “nestor-chroniclers” of the St. Petersburg awakening. Today, the articles they wrote (especially numerous by Leskov), along with archival documents, serve as a rich storehouse of primary material. The study of this heritage will help in restoring a more complete and detailed historical picture of the awakening.

From the results already obtained, I would like to emphasize that Dostoevsky’s publications as editor-publisher of the magazine “Citizen” helped clarify the time of the beginning of the awakening. It can be considered established that Redstock arrived in St. Petersburg no later than the first week of Lent (February 10-17, 1874) (Citizen, No. 8, 02.25.1874, p. 218).

3) Currently, significant assistance to evangelical historians is provided by the works of literary scholars engaged in a comprehensive study of the life and work of classical writers, including their relationship to the evangelical awakening and to its individual representatives (Redstock, Pashkov, Zasetskaya, Peyker, etc. ). In this regard, the studies of Faresov, Dunaev, Mayorova, Ipatova, Ilyinskaya and others are very useful.

As an example, we can cite the informative article by O.E. Mayorova “Leskov in Suvorin’s “New Time” (1876-1880)”, which is a valuable contribution to the historiography of the awakening and contains numerous references to little-known primary sources (Unpublished Leskov, book 2, pp. 161-185). This article helped establish that the persecution of Pashkovites in the capital in 1880 contributed to the beginning of the gospel in Kolpino and Sestroretsk, which is a valuable historical fact for modern evangelical churches of these satellite cities of St. Petersburg.

4) The personal relationships of Leskov and Dostoevsky with the Pashkovites, the mutual influence of their worldviews and talents, are of independent interest and require separate study. As has been shown, Leskov’s work cannot be correctly understood without taking into account his long-term relationship with the Pashkovites.

5) The dialogue conducted by the participants of the St. Petersburg awakening (Redstock, Zasetskaya, Pashkov, Peiker) with our classics (Leskov, Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy) demonstrates the deep rootedness of evangelical Christians (Pashkovites) in Russian history and culture. Knowing the interest in Russian society in the topic of the life and work of our literary geniuses, further study and popularization of the proposed topic may have wide public interest, far beyond the scope of purely confessional history.

References

Citizen, No. 8, 02/25/1874; No. 9, 03/04/1874.

Citizen, Nos. 17-29, 31-43, 1875.

Citizen, No. 36, 2.09.1884.

Dostoevskaya, A. G. Memoirs, 1987.

Dostoevsky, F.M. Diary of a Writer, St. Petersburg, 1999.

Dostoevsky, F.M. PSS in 30 volumes, L., 1990.

Dunaev, M.M. Orthodoxy and Russian literature. Part IV. M., 1998.

Ilyinskaya, T.B. Russian diversity in the works of N.S. Leskov, St. Petersburg, Publishing House of the Nevsky Institute of Language and Culture, 2010.

Ipatova, S.A. Dostoevsky, Leskov and Yu.D. Zasetskaya: dispute about redstockism: (Letters from Yu.D. Zasetskaya to Dostoevsky) // Dostoevsky: Materials and Research, St. Petersburg, 2001. - T. 16. - P. 409-436.

Kolesova, O.S. Sow the reasonable, the good, the eternal, St. Petersburg, 2003.

Leskov, A. Life of Nikolai Leskov, M., 1954.

Leskov, N.S. High society schism, St. Petersburg, 1877.

Leskov, N.S. Religious registration//News and stock exchange newspaper, 1st ed., 1883, No. 65, June 7.

Leskov, N.S. Mirror of Life (incl. High Society Schism), St. Petersburg, 1999.

Leskov N.S. Collection of fatherly opinions on the importance of the Holy Scriptures, St. Petersburg, 1881.

Leskov N.S. New Testament Jews // Nov, No. 1, 11/1/1884.

Leskov N.S. Sentimental piety // Orthodox Review, March 1876, pp. 526-551.

Leskov, N.S. Collected works in 11 volumes, M., 1956-1958.

Leskov, N.S. Collected works in 6 volumes, M., 1993.

Leskov N.S. Miracles and signs//Church and Public Bulletin, No. 28, 03/05/1878, pp. 3-6.

Leskov N.S. Miracles and signs//Church and Public Bulletin, No. 40, 04/02/1878, pp. 3-5.

Chronicle of the life and work of F. M. Dostoevsky, vol. 2, St. Petersburg, 1999.

Mayorova O.E. Leskov in Suvorin’s “New Time” (1876-1880) // Unpublished Leskov, M., 2000, pp. 161-185. — (Literary heritage, vol. 101, book 2).

New Time, No. 1478, 04/09/1880; No. 1510, 05/13/1880.

New time, No. 1798, 03/01/1881.

Russian World, No. 70, 03/14/1874.

Terletsky G. Sect of Pashkovites, St. Petersburg, 1891.

Tikhomirov, B. N. With Dostoevsky on Nevsky Prospekt, St. Petersburg, 2012.

Faresov, A. Materials for the characterization of N.S. Leskova//Picturesque Review, April 1900, volume II, pp. 30-58.

Faresov, A. Mental turning points in the activities of N.S. Leskova // Historical Bulletin, 1916, March, pp. 786-819.

Heyer, Edmund. Religious schism among Russian aristocrats in 1860-1900, M., 2002.

Shlyapkin I.A. To the biography of N.S. Leskov // Russian antiquity, 1895, No. 12, pp. 205-215.

From the collection: Materials of scientific and historical conferences "The Phenomenon of Russian Protestantism" (St. Petersburg: Gamma, 2016)

Leskov is ready to back it up with historical documents, in particular, a decree issued by Peter I. In the decree of 1723, Peter I and the Holy Synod called on the clergy to serve not formally, but to make the church service reach the mind, heart and conscience of every parishioner.

Acting as a church historian, Leskov found and published the original of this decree, about which “until now I had not had to read anything” (233), in the VIII volume of the journal “Historical Bulletin” for 1882, that is, more than one hundred and fifty years later. Actualizing the half-forgotten historical document, about which “many of today’s clergy do not even know at all” (234), the writer acts as the bearer of a non-idle “teaching” word for the modern clergy.

IN “Lenten Decree of Peter the Great”(1882) was “depicted” (233) literally the following: “by His Imperial Majesty’s decree, the Holy Synod, discussing the use (sic) of readings in the churches during Lent, agreed in agreement, they sentenced, in the place of the former, from Ephraim the Syrian and from the Collector and from others readings, read newly printed primers with an interpretation of the commandments of God, distributing them sparingly, so that those who come to the Church of God, preparing for confession and St. Through the mysteries of communion, people, hearing the commandments of God and looking at their conscience, could better prepare themselves for true repentance” (233).

The same decree noted the incompetence of many priests, the complete inability to fulfill the high spiritual mission entrusted to them: “Before the spiritual consistory, it was known that many priests<…>they do not teach people who come to church during Lent, but they themselves, when there are questions in God’s commandments, cannot answer them, and therefore, teaching the common people entrusted to them to be their flock is invalid” (233).

It turned out that pastors often show not only indifference to the education of their flock in the Christian spirit, but also ignorance and ignorance of the basic issues of the Holy Scriptures. That is why Peter I and the Synod, in their decree, were forced to “firmly order all priests (that) they do not do so during Great Lent and on all Sundays and holidays According to the liturgy, one commandment with an interpretation was read in the parish churches, and the priests themselves, as it is now known that requests for God’s commandments are unanswered, would study them” (234). In the church life of the 18th century, a paradoxical, in Leskovian tragicomic, situation of “laughter and grief” developed: spiritual teachers of the law were first ordered to thoroughly learn what they were obliged and called upon to teach.

The Apostle James speaks about the strictly demanding attitude towards the teacher-preacher on the part of those around him: “My brothers! Let not many become teachers, knowing that we will suffer greater condemnation” (James 3:1). The Lord calls not to be like the scribes and Pharisees, who love “so that people call them “teacher!” teacher!" But do not call yourself teachers, for you have only one Teacher – Christ” (Matthew 23: 7 – 8), and “A student is not higher than his teacher; but also, having been perfected, everyone will become like his teacher” (Luke 6:40). That is why the constant care of shepherds to maintain their high spiritual title is necessary, but few of them care about this.

According to the writer’s witty remark, “there are many masters of throwing history in the eye,” but it is necessary to make efforts to change the situation in the present. “This situation has not changed until very recently” (234), states Leskov. "Invalid" pastors was manifested, for example, in the fact that “the question arose about allowing lay teachers to teach children the law of God in those rural schools, where priests do not want or cannot do this” (234). The writer cites statistics from the Ministry of Public Education showing that “now the law of God is not taught at all in 20% of schools. From here it is clear that the “commandments”, which set out all the prescriptions of pious morality, are now not read either in churches, as Peter the Great demanded, or in a fifth of schools, where this would be very appropriate and appropriate” (234).

The same state of affairs is highlighted in Leskov’s article with a polemical title “Godless schools in Russia”(1881): “The people, apt in their characteristic expressions, called “godless schools” those primary schools where there is no teaching of Sacred History and in general the so-called Law of God. We have a lot of them and a whole fifth part» .

On this issue, the author of the article cannot agree with the guidelines of the Synod, which is unable to provide all schools with teachers of the law from the clergy and at the same time prohibits secular teachers from teaching lessons in Sacred History. “It’s a pity for our Orthodox Christians,” writes Leskov with pain, “in practice, teachers and teachers in many places, so as not to upset the peasants with “godlessness,” secretly and smuggling, at your own risk teach children the Law of God without reward and without permission...” .

But if in other schools the Law of God is taught, it is often done ineptly and incompetently.

This situation cannot leave Leskov an unperturbed observer. Alarmed and indignant, the writer seems to sound the alarm: “We are absolutely perplexed: how can this most important matter be left in this situation!” ; “We cannot remain silent about what these gentlemen have arranged for us.”

In one of the articles in the series “Wonders and signs. Observations, experiments and notes”(1878) in the journal “Church and Public Bulletin” Leskov shares reflections caused by “the art of modern teachers of the Law of God.” According to the writer, “this is the most vibrant, most enjoyable and necessary subject in the school curriculum” (3). However, “inept teachers of the law” “almost everywhere” turned it “into a painful bore,” exposing children to “vain torment.”

A zealous, caring attitude towards issues of faith and “pious morality” dictates the writer’s high demands on those who are entrusted with education young souls: “We do not want and cannot leave our children without religion, which is made unpleasant and disgusting to them by various “beginnings” and “ends”, invented with the aim of abolishing the study of the Word of God in its simple and everyone accessible form” (3).

Leskov writes this with great knowledge of the matter, relying on his own personal experience. What was done in “recent memories” is extremely important “Vladychnycourt" the following autobiographical confession: “I grew up in my native noble family, in the city of Orel, with his father, a very smart man, well-read and an expert in theology, and with his mother, very God-fearing and pious; I learned religion from the best and at one time most famous of the teachers of the law, Fr. Evfimy Andreevich Ostromyslensky<…>I was the way I was, learning to think Orthodoxy from my own father and from my excellent teacher of the law - who is still, thank God, alive and well. (May he accept from afar the low bow I send him). In a word: none of us could be suspected of the slightest ill will of the Church” (6, 125).

In the only famous letter to Leskov, Father Euthymius thanks his former student for the greeting he sent; reports that over 50 years of teaching, he has accumulated a lot of materials that can be useful for the cause of religious education.

It is no coincidence that Leskov is so principled when he raises the question of spiritual and moral formation younger generation in a series of articles “Wonders and Signs”: “We want, we ask, but we have the right to demand so that we may preserve in our children the faith that we sowed in them from their cradles, just as our fathers sowed it in us. In this case we cannot give in nobody, nothing, not even a single hair” (3).

The writer speaks with passionate interest about teaching the word of God to children - as a most important matter that “needs to be developed and improved” ( “On teaching the Law of God in public schools” – 1880).

Leskov argues that religious feeling is living, inquisitive, developing and developing. In the story of the righteous “Cadet Monastery”(1880) Father Archimandrite is precisely that talented teacher of the Law of God, the lack of which Leskov wrote so passionately in his journalistic series “Wonders and signs.” The story contains the same lyrical, deeply felt autobiographical confession of Leskov in his love for his father’s faith and sincere gratitude to his “excellent teacher of the law”: “I think now, and even before in life, when I had to listen to a frivolous review of religion, that it seems boring and useless, - I always thought: “You are talking nonsense, my dears: you are only saying this because you haven’t found a master who would interest you and reveal this to you.” poetry of eternal truth and undying life " And now I’m thinking about that last archimandrite of our corps, who blessed me forever, forming my religious feeling <выделено мной – А.Н.— S.>” (6, 342).

The following self-characterization of the writer is indicative: “I am not an enemy of the Church, but her friend, or more: I am her obedient and devoted son and a confident Orthodox Christian” (10, 329).

Although Leskov called himself a “obedient” son of the Church, he did not always manage to remain so - the ebullient nature of the writer took its toll, requiring, as he himself recognized, “self-restraint.” But in any case, the writer was not a blind son of the Church and clearly saw its disorder. Leskov was well aware of the facts about the shortcomings of some of the “clergy,” who often exacted exorbitant bribes from parishioners, sinned with drunkenness, laziness and other vices, and maintained an obsequious tone with the authorities.

In the article “Patriarchal habits”(1877) the writer retells an eloquent scene from the essay of Bishop Zephaniah “ Modern life and the liturgy of heterodox Christians, Jacobites and Nestorians” (St. Petersburg, 1876). In this episode, the Turkish Sultan restrained two patriarchs who “wanted in full regalia do him<…> greeting with prostration, telling them:

- At this moment I am a mere mortal, and you are servants of Allah<…>

The Turk was ashamed of their groveling and was forced to remind them that he was a man, not God, and that it was unworthy for them, the servants of Allah, to fall at the feet of the Sultan, and even “in full robes.”

Reflecting in a series of articles “Wonders and Signs” about “Russian religious vacillation, which is ready to seek confirmation of faith even from spiritualistic mediums” (3), Leskov places responsibility on Orthodox priests, who found justification for their inactivity in the fact that the official religion is under the protection of the law and the state. The writer expressed himself unambiguously about the purpose of his coverage of the church topic: “I don’t want it<Церковь – А.Н.— S.> defame; I wish her honest progress from the stagnation into which she fell, crushed by statehood, but in the new tribe of servants of the altar I do not see “great priests” (10, 329).

In a tone of bitter irony, the writer speaks about the laziness of spiritual shepherds, from whom the modern situation itself, called by Leskov “the time of buffoonery, all kinds of foolishness and antics” (5, 73), requires active preaching work and spiritual asceticism.

However, “all this is terribly troublesome for our spiritual fathers, especially at such a time of prayer! Accustomed to considering themselves under the special care and protection of the police who sanctioned their rights, they, of course, did not expect such a misfortune from religious excitement, which came from nowhere and for which they were truly not at all to blame” (5).

The writer, fulfilling his apostolic ministry, exhorts and calls on the clergy, “shaking the sleep from their eyes,” to engage in “spiritual work”: “Water does not flow anywhere under lying stones” (5). Following the “Lent Decree” of Peter the Great, Leskov repeats what has not yet been fulfilled by the clergy: “it is necessary to explain the Scripture to the people at every Sunday service and “give an example of good living”” (5).

And such examples are not scarce in the life of the Orthodox Church, and the writer notes them especially carefully.

“Benevolent”images Russian ministers of the Orthodox Church, recreated by Leskov, is his best answer to those who wondered: “Or are there no such good priests? ” (10, 243). In the article “ <О рассказах and stories by A.F. Pogossky>” (1877), the writer spoke straightforwardly on this matter: “Whoever is so impudent as to assert this will tell a lie. Even if there are few of them, they still exist, but maybe:

These falcons
Wings are tied
And there are ways for them
Everything is tied up…” (10, 243).

The painful reality did not prevent Leskov from creating the image of an ideal shepherd, without violating verisimilitude. “A simple, kind priest,” the writer noted, “<…>lives, serves, gets to know people through living relationships with them, and not only gets to know his entire parish, but becomes a friend of the parishioners and often a doctor of their conscience, a conciliator and a judge. Of course, this does not happen often, but it cannot be denied that such examples exist” (10, 202).

Leskov writes with admiration, for example, about the heroes of his essay “Priests-Doctors and Treasurers”(1883), who “kept both the requirement of the heart and the covenant of Christian love,” and showed true spiritual nobility and selflessness. When they talk about the well-known “greed of priests” (7, 209), Leskov notes in “excerpts from youthful memories” “Pechersk Antiques”(1882), - the most selfless person comes to mind - priest Efim Botvinovsky.

In the essay mentioned above “On step marriages and other infirmities” with a feeling of especially delicate love, the writer creates a whole story about a righteous hieromonk he knows: “Elder Jonah, may he forgive me for this immodesty and may he not condemn me for speaking about him” (75). Leskov describes in detail the life and activities of the elder, his teachings “in the spirit of goodness and truth”, including parish priests: “live in such a way that you know every parishioner<…>Teach them here at home the word of God and virtues patiently, non-lazyly and simply<…>and you will become shepherds” (74).

These simple, heartfelt instructions are also directed against the pompousness and detachment of spiritual shepherds from their flock.

Thus, what outraged him in F.V.’s book did not go unnoticed by Leskov. Livanova “The Life of a Village Priest. Everyday chronicle from the life of the clergy” (1877) mention of an archimandrite who “during one fire, having forgotten his rank, came to the fire a simple Christian” (sic!). Why can an archimandrite appear as a “simple Christian” only by “forgetting his rank”?..” (10, 195), Leskov asks a fair question in his “critical study” “ Caricature ideal. Utopia from church and everyday life"(1877).

In the cycle “ Little things of bishop's life (pictures from life)”(1878 – 1880) the writer debunks the prejudice that “Orthodox people love the magnificent splendor of their spiritual rulers” (6, 447). On the contrary: “The deathly pomp of our bishops, since they began to consider it an accessory to their rank, has not created for them popular respect.<…>The Russian people love to look at pomp, but respect simplicity<подчёркнуто мной; курсив Лескова – А. Н.-С.)” (6, 448).

As for lovers of “splendor in splendor” (6, 466) like Messrs. N. and Z., they often reach the point of absurdity in their exaggerated piety. Messrs. N. and Z. were arguing over whether they were worthy to “go under the sovereign's umbrella”, until the archbishop cooled their annoying empty sacredness: “What kind of shrine is really in my umbrella? ” (6, 471).

Sometimes hypocrisy descends to inhumanity. So, Mr. N. wanted, but “could not beg Providence, so that all married sons and married daughters<…>They were widowed and went to the monastery, where he himself really wanted to go, so that there he could “make peace with God”” (6, 469). Exhausted by the senseless holiness of the landowner of their village, the clergy, making puns, called the daily service “inhumane,” because “there was no not a single person” (6, 466 – 467).

Newly arrived in the city P<ермь>Eminence N.<Неофит>perplexed and disappointed the ardent admirer of Byzantine pomp to the point that he was ready to see in the actions of the church hierarch “the ruin of paternal custom” and even “sovereign nihilism” (6, 472).

The “good Orthodox Christian” who was preparing a ceremonial reception for the archbishop and his retinue found himself in a funny position when the bishop, rejecting the grandiloquence imposed on him, contrasted pomposity and pomposity with the simplicity of human relations. He even wanted to catch crucian carp in the local pond: “Ancient work - apostolic! You need to be closer to nature - it calms you down. Jesus Christ loved all the seas and hills and sat by the lakes. It’s good to think about water” (6, 474). The neophyte admonishes: “There is nothing to remember me: if I die, I will be replaced by one monk, and that’s all.” And you remember the One who commanded that we all love each other” (6, 479).

Leskov presented an impressive sketch of the meeting of His Eminence Bishop V<арлаама>with the clergy and non-spiritual people, whose behavior reveals the repulsive features of thoughtless fanatical worship and extreme servility: “two women were especially remarkable. One of these Orthodox Christian women kept laying a towel under the saint, which he stepped on for her pleasure, and the other was even more pious and strove to lie down on the road in front of him - probably so that the saint would walk along it, but he I didn’t give her this pleasure” (6, 420).

Similar “ empty holiness” noblewomen are also different. Idle ladies insistently asked for a special blessing at a time when Bishop John of Smolensk was busy with important work - working at his desk, “on which many of his inspired and profound works were probably written” (6, 433), notes with respect author. To the desperate visitors who came “ for home conversation” , John ordered to send two issues of Askochensky’s magazine “Home Conversation”: “The Smolensk ladies who pestered the bishop, so to speak, in a sanctimonious manner routine, met with firm resistance” (6, 434).

Leskov speaks with great sympathy about the saint’s ability to “put aside with firmness the deadening routine and pay tribute to living inspiration.” And if in the eyes of the “bigots and empty saints” who bother the bishops, John of Smolensk was known as “unsociable and even rude,” then “the people who knew him better,” the writer notes, “are full of the best memories of the pleasantness of his direct character, simplicity of manner, courageous and deep intelligence and true Christian freedom of opinion” (6, 434).

One of the cross-cutting themes of this cycle of stories, running through a whole series of “pictures from nature,” is the urgent need for those “who are first in the Church” to abandon the attributes of pompous grandeur, “prestige,” “some kind of Russian-Tatar nomadism.” (6, 438). According to Leskov, this is the dictate of the time, dictated by the laws of life: “Rus' wants settle down, not get big, and change her mood in the opposite spirit impossible” (6, 439). The writer notes with enthusiasm that “our best bishops want this. Forcibly throwing away the Byzantine etiquette that was instilled in them and never suited them, they themselves want forgive yourself in Russian and become people of the people, with whom at least it will be more pleasant to wait for any real measures capable of quenching our religious languor and returning a life-giving spirit to the exhausted faith of the Russian people” (6, 439).

Leskov hopes that in this case, the connections between Orthodox Christians and the highest church hierarchs will lose their largely formalized character and will be filled with new content in the living practice of faith: “a different relationship would begin - not like the current one, ending with the distribution of blessings.<…>walking among people<архиереи – А. Н.-С.>“Maybe someone would be taught something good, and would refrain, and advise” (6, 445).

Polemicizing with opponents who saw in “Trifles of Bishop’s Life” “the influence of the Protestant spirit” (6, 539), Leskov in the essay “ Bishop's rounds” (1879) did not agree with “this strange and inappropriate remark”: “I would like to say at least how much injustice and regrettable lies in the carelessness with which our hunters for importance and pomp concede to Protestants such a wonderful property as simplicity <…>They write to me: “Is it good if our bishops, when touring parishes, will be shaking in tarantasis and wagons?<…>whereas Catholic bishops will roll with gears,” etc. Protestantism got in the way there, Catholicism got in the way here... I can’t answer this difficult question, but I never thought that the example of Catholic bishops would be very important for us! No matter how they roll–they have their own way, and ours–your own way<выделено мной. А.Н.-С.> ” (6, 539 – 540).

The Protestant heresy, at the head of which are “special teachers of faith, having the image of piety, but rejecting its power, diving into houses and captivating women, always learning and never able to come into the mind of the truth” (2 Tim. 3, 5 - 7) xi Publication date: 14.05.2013