Series of studies on the history of Russian thought. T
I. Studies in the History of Russian Thought. Yearbook for 1997. St. Petersburg, 1997.
II. Studies in the History of Russian Thought. Yearbook for 1998. M., 1998.
III. Studies in the History of Russian Thought. Yearbook for 1999. M., 1999.
IV. Studies in the History of Russian Thought. Yearbook for 2000. M., 2000.
V. Studies in the History of Russian Thought. Yearbook 2001/2002. M., 2002.
VI. Studies in the History of Russian Thought. Yearbook 2003. M., 2004.
VII. Studies in the History of Russian Thought. Yearbook 2004/2005. M., 2007.
VIII. Studies in the History of Russian Thought. Yearbook 2006/2007. M., 2009.
IX. Studies in the history of Russian thought: Yearbook for 2008/2009. M., 2012.
X. Studies in the history of Russian thought: Yearbook for 2010/2011. M., 2014.
XI. Studies in the history of Russian thought: Yearbook for 2012/2014. M., 2015.
XII. Research on the history of Russian thought: Yearbook for 2015. M., 2016.
XIII. Studies in the history of Russian thought: Yearbook for 2016/2017. M., 2017.
N. Avtonomova
Slavische Rundschau and R. O. Jacobson in 1929. V
M. Alexandrov.
Russian military theorist E.E. Messner as the founder of the concept of network-centric (hybrid) war. XII
G. Alyaev.
N. O. Lossky. Letters to S. L. Frank and T. S. Frank (1947, 1953-1958). XII
G. Alyaev, T. Rezvykh.
Friendship tested by life: On the correspondence of S. Frank and V. Elyashevich. XII
Correspondence of S. L. Frank with V. B. Elyashevich and F. O. Elyashevich (1922-1950). XII
. "First Philosophy" by Semyon Frank, or Prolegomena to the book "Incomprehensible" (1928-1933): S. L. Frank.[Reflections. First philosophy]. XIII
. S. L. Frank[Synopsis of M. Heidegger's book "Being and Time"]. XIII
M. Bezrodny
From the history of Russian Germanophilism: Musaget publishing house. III
On the history of the Russian reception of the apollinisch/dyonisisch antinomy. IV
D. Belkin
German bibliography of V. S. Solovyov: 1978-2001. VI
V. Belous
Young idealists on the way to collective identity. VII
R. Bird
YMCA and the fate of Russian religious thought (1906-1947). IV
S. N. Bulgakov. The religious state of Russian society (1912). IV
English bibliography of Russian idealism (20th century). V
I. Blauberg
On the Bergsonian trace in the philosophy of S. A. Askoldov. VII
G. D. Gurvich. Russian philosophy of the first quarter of the 20th century (1926). VIII
Semyon Frank. Bergson's basic intuition (1941). Translation from French and commentary. X
N. Bogomolov
From the personal history of Russian Martinism: L. D. Ryndin. IV
From the correspondence of M. A. Kuzmin and G. V. Chicherin (1905-1914). VI
I. Borisova
. [Rec.:] Philosophical content Russian magazines of the early twentieth century. Bibliographic index / Rep. ed. A. A. Ermichev. V
L. M. Lopatin reading V. F. Ern’s book “The Philosophy of Gioberti” (1917): marginalia. VI
Briefly about the books: Ivan Kireevsky, Religious and Philosophical Society in St. Petersburg, Chizhevsky (2007). VIII
I. Borisova, L. Davydova
. "Questions of philosophy and psychology" (1889-1918). Content painting. II
K. Breckner
On the use of the words “truth” (truth-justice) and “truth” (theoretical truth) in Russian intellectual history of the 19th century using the example of N.K. Mikhailovsky and P.I. Pestel. X
K. Burmistrov
Vladimir Soloviev and Kabbalah. To the statement of the problem. II
Vasily Rozanov and Eduard Behrens: touches to an “interesting acquaintance.” VII
E. Velmezova, T. Shchedrina
Charles Bally and Gustav Shpet in a Russian-European scientific conversation (the experience of reconstructing the “archive of the era”). VIII
N. Vinyukova
Russian emigrant historians in the USA in the interwar period: expectations and reality. M.I. Rostovtsev and G.V. Vernadsky. XII
O. Vorobiev
. "Change of Milestones" (1921-1922). Content painting. III
N.V. Ustryalov. Curriculumvitae (1918). VI
I. Vorontsova
The role and place of church journalism 2nd half. XIX century in the modernization of traditional religious consciousness in Russia. XI
N. Gavryushin
The concept of “experience” in the works of G. G. Shpet. VIII
Raynov and GAKHN. VIII
. [Rec.:] Personality. The language of philosophy in Russian-German dialogue / Ed. N. S. Plotnikov and A. Haardt with the participation of V. I. Molchanov. M., 2007. VIII
. “Pillar of the Church”: Archpriest F. A. Golubinsky and his school. IX
Behind the scenes philosophical drama: metaphysics and historiosophy by N.N. Strakhov. XI
S.S. Prokofiev as a religious thinker. XI
. “Platonism is thrice anathema!”: To whom is A.F. Losev’s 1930 philippic addressed? XI
Metaphysics, historiosophy and the religious ideal of Prince V.F. Odoevsky. XIII
Heidegger and Russian philosophy (several observations). XIII
A. Galushkin
After Berdyaev: Free Academy of Spiritual Culture in 1922-1923. I
M. Gershzon
Stalin's last "Ivan the Terrible": film project 1952-1953. XII
N. Golubkova
V. V. Zenkovsky. In memory of L.I. Shestov (1939). V
. "Bulletin of the RSHD" (1925-1939). Content painting. VI
O. Sergius Bulgakov. Program in Dogmatic Theology: 1943-1944 academic year. II course. XI
A. Dmitriev
How the “formal-philosophical school” was created (or why Moscow formalism did not take place?). VIII
N. Dmitrieva
The image of a Russian neo-Kantian in letters (1905-1909): A. V. Kubitsky, B. A. Fokht, D. V. Viktorov. VIII
A failed polemic, or about one “review” in the pamphlet genre: a response to L. Katsis. IX
Man and history: on the question of the “anthropological turn” in Russian neo-Kantianism. X
Inscripts from the personal library of B. A. Fokht. X
I. Evlampiev
A. Schopenhauer and the “criticism of abstract principles” in the philosophy of Vl. Solovyova. VII
E. Evtukhova
S. N. Bulgakov. Letters to G.V. Florovsky (1923-1938). V
E. van der Zweerde
Popular upsurge and political philosophy of the “Vekhi people”. X
V. Sieveking
About the biography of D.I. Chizhevsky. Protest. XIII
D. Igumnov
The East in the journalism of S.N. Syromyatnikov ("New Time", 1893-1904). XII
H. Kaniyar
Fritz Lieb and his Russian-Slavic library. V
L. Katsis
B. G. Stolpner on Jewry. III
A. A. Meyer vs A. Z. Steinberg (from comments on Russian-Jewish disputes of the 1920s). VIII
Essays: 1. Andrei Bely and Gustav Spett on the “crisis of culture.” 2. Aaron Steinberg vs A. A. Meyer: “Dostoevsky’s system of freedom.” IX
. [Rec.:] N. Dmitrieva. Russian neo-Kantianism: “Marburg” in Russia. M., 2007. IX
The magazine “New Sunrise” is the organ of Russian-Jewish neo-Kantianism (1910-1915). X
Ilya Zdanevich’s novel “Philosophy” as Philosophy (A. V. Kartashev, Father Sergius Bulgakov, A. F. Losev, etc.). X
Cohen won’t come to the Zyryans? X
From notes from a reader of historical and philosophical literature: Losev, Maze, Eurasianism, GAKHN. XI
. Dialectics for believers and non-believers: Emelyan Yaroslavsky, Alexey Losev, Fr. Pavel Florensky, Mark Mitin (1927-1933). XIII
. Notes from a reader of historical-(anti-)philosophical literature. IV. Ilya Zdanevich (“Philosophy”) and anti-philosophy of S. V. Kudryavtsev. XIII
L. Katsis, D. Shusharin
. “Then the horror begins”: OBERIU as a religious phenomenon. I
R. Katzman
Speech by Jacob Maze in honor of Hermann Cohen (1914). Preface and translation from Hebrew. X
. How is a myth possible? On the issue of the formation of the historical-personalistic concept of myth (Matvey Kagan and Mikhail Gershenzon, 1919-1922). XIII
B. Kovalev
Philosophical conversations in a dead city: S.A. Askoldov and the occupiers in Veliky Novgorod in 1941-1943. Appendix: Articles by S.A. Askoldov from the occupation press of 1943-1944. XI
A. Kozyrev
Scientific teaching of Vladimir Solovyov: on the history of a failed plan. I (Errors and typos. II)
Prot. Sergius Bulgakov. About Vl. Solovyov (1924). III
A. Kozyrev. Bibliography (1992-1999). III
On the publication of S. N. Bulgakov’s diaries in Orel. 1. V
A. Kozyrev, N. Golubkova
Prot. S. Bulgakov. From the memory of the heart. Prague. II
M. Kolerov
Brotherhood of Hagia Sophia: documents (1918-1927). I
S. N. Bulgakov in Crimea in the fall of 1919. I
Florovsky's lost dissertation. I
Peter Struve. [Draft review of the collection “On the Paths. Confirmation of the Eurasians. Book Two" (1922)]. I
S. L. Frank about the death of N. A. Berdyaev (1948): letter to E. Yu. Rapp. I
. "Rule of People" (1917-1918). Content painting. I
. "Russian Thought" (1921-1927). Content painting. I
Unknown reviews of Bulgakov and Berdyaev in the magazine “Book” (1906-1907). II
About the weekly “On the Eve”. II
On the history of “post-revolutionary” ideas: N. Berdyaev edits “From the Depths” (1918). II
Curriculum vitae: I. A. Ilyin (1922) and A. S. Izgoev (1923). II
. "The Beginning" (1899). Content painting. II
. "On the Eve" (1918). Content painting. II
Bulgakov the Marxist and Bulgakov the revisionist. New texts. III
Gershenzon and the Marxists: on the question of the ideological freedom of the writer. III
A. A. Blok. Letter to S. N. Bulgakov (1906). III.
. “Idealistic direction” and “Christian socialism” in the timely press: New Path (1904) / Questions of Life (1905). The People (1906). Polar Star (1905-1906) / Freedom and Culture (1906). Living Life (1907-1908). Content paintings. III
. “Problems of Great Russia” (1916). Content painting. III
. [P. B. Struve] Russian monarchism, the Russian intelligentsia and their attitude to the people's famine (1892); Letters on Our Time (1894); Complicating Life (1899); About our time. I. The Supreme Value of Life (1900). IV
S. N. Bulgakov. Autobiographical letter to S. A. Vengerov (1913). IV
Project "Libraries of Public Knowledge" (1918). IV
Boris Yakovenko. [Political Declaration]. IV
Five letters from N. A. Berdyaev to P. B. Struve (1922-1923). IV (Typocorrection: V)
Failed union (letter from N.A. Berdyaev to P.N. Savitsky, 1923). IV
N. A. Berdyaev. [Explanatory note to the Police Department] (1898). IV
Sergei Bulgakov. It's time! (1904). IV
Peter Struve. Executioner of the People (1905). IV
Peter Struve. Karl Marx and the fate of Marxism (1933). IV
. « National problems"(1915). Content painting. IV
Leaflets by G. A. Gapon and the “Christian Brotherhood of Struggle” (1905). V
Notes on the archeology of Russian thought: Bulgakov, Novgorodtsev, Rozanov. V
New about “Problems of Idealism”: two letters from P. I. Novgorodtsev to A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky (1902). V
S. L. Frank. Three letters to P. B. Struve (1921, 1925). V
Inscripts by L. M. Lopatin (1889), V. F. Ern (1911), B. A. Fokht (1921), Ya. M. Bukshpan (1922) and V. V. Zenkovsky (1955). V
. "Russian Life" (1922-1923). Content painting. V
Russian “ideological” collections: additions, 1888-1938. V
. [Rec.:] Seeking hail. Chronicle of the private life of Russian religious philosophers / Comp. V. I. Keidan. V
On the publication of S. N. Bulgakov’s diaries in Orel. 2.V
S. N. Bulgakov. Letters to P. B. Struve (1901-1903). VI
P. I. Novgorodtsev. Letters to P. B. Struve (1921). VI
Marxist “New Word” (1897). Content painting. VI
P. I. Novgorodtsev, S. N. Bulgakov, G. F. Shershenevich, B. A. Kistyakovsky. Course programs at the Moscow Commercial Institute (1911-1912). VI
S. L. Frank. From reviews of manuscripts to the editors of “Russian Thought” (1915-1916). VI
Berdyaev's self-censorship: unknown text of 1919. VI
S. N. Bulgakov in 1923: from Constantinople to Prague. VI.
Social sciences in the magazine “National Economy” (1900-1904). Pointer. VI
. "Thought" (1922). Content painting. VI
Russian “ideological” collections: additions, 1930-1936. VI
. [Rec.:] B.V. Emelyanov, A.A. Ermichev. Logos magazine and its editors: Biographical index. VI
. [Rec.:] S. N. Bulgakov: The religious and philosophical path. VI
. [Rec.:] Chronicle of Russian philosophy. 862-2002 / Edited by prof. Alexander Zamaleev. VI
S. Bulgakov. On the need to introduce social sciences into the curriculum of a theological school (1906).VII
N. O. Lossky. Philosophy at the University: (On the Question of the Charter) (1915). VII
On the question of the “banality” of “Vekhi”. VII
Vyacheslav Ivanov in “From the Depths”: unaccounted for edits (1918). VII
The youthful diary of P. B. Struve (1884). VIII
N. O. Lossky. Lipps and Geffding. Two reviews from the magazine “Book” (1906-1907). VIII
On the place of philosophy in “Russian Thought”: from the letters of A. A. Kiesewetter to P. B. Struve (1909-1910). VIII
Chair for V. F. Ern: letter from S. L. Frank to V. F. Ern (1917). VIII
Inscripts by S. N. Bulgakov (1896-1912), Yu. V. Klyuchnikov (1923), G. G. Shpet (1928), P. B. Struve (1911-1942), V. V. Zenkovsky (1955). VIII
New information about S. L. Frank and S. N. Bulgakov in the magazine “Liberation” (1903-1905). VIII
. [Rec.:] Empire and religion. To the 100th anniversary of the St. Petersburg religious and philosophical meetings of 1901-1903. Materials of the All-Russian Conference / Ed. A. V. Karpov, A. I. Tafintsev. St. Petersburg, 2006. VIII
. [Rec.:] Collection “Milestones” in the context of Russian culture / Rep. ed. A. A. Taho-Godi, E. A. Taho-Godi. M., 2007. VIII
Did Fr. Sergius Bulgakov to the Jewish pogroms in 1920? IX
Towards the definition of the socio-political meaning of P. A. Florensky’s treatise “The Proposed State Structure in the Future” (1933). IX
On the issue of institutional competition in Russian thought of the 1910s: the publishing house “Put” and the magazine “Logos”. IX
P.B. Struve in Russian ideological, political and literary process: new biography. XI
Notes on the archeology of Russian thought: Bulgakov, Struve, Rozanov, Kotlyarevsky, Florovsky, Berdyaev, magazine "Scythians", GAKHN. XI
Magazine "Russian Freedom" (1917): List of contents. XI
Notes on the archeology of Russian thought: Bulgakov, Tugan-Baranovsky, Berdyaev on “People's Rule of Law”, Kareev on Sorokin, Askoldov on Lapshin, Zenkovsky (1896-1922). XII
Russian “ideological” collections: additions, 1904-1934. XII
Leonid Galich. [Rec.:] N. O. Lossky. Justification of intuitionism. St. Petersburg, 1906. XIII
N. Kotrelev
In memory of Alexander Alekseevich Nosov. V
V. Kurennaya
Intercultural transfer of knowledge: the case of “Logos”. IX
H. Kusse
Semiotic concepts of name-glorification and philosophy of name. VII
Yu. Linnik
. "Demon" by M. Yu. Lermontov in the light of the idea of Apokatastasis. XIII
O. Lokteva
S. N. Bulgakov in Kyiv in the fall of 1918. I
Political seminar of P. B. Struve (Prague, 1924). II
Curriculum vitae: V.V. Zenkovsky (1922). II
V. Lopatin, N. Lopatin
V. M. Lopatin. From memories. I
S. Magid
T. G. Masaryk and the attempt to educate Russia. VII
B. Mezhuev
On the problem of late aesthetics by V. S. Solovyov (Experience of reading newspaper obituaries). II
. [Rec.:] N. V. Boldyrev, D. V. Boldyrev. The meaning of history and revolution. V
. “Problems of idealism” in a new historical context [Rec.]. VI
R. Mnich
The legacy of Dmitry Chizhevsky and the problems of the humanities in Ukraine: notes on the publication of the collection philosophical works D. Chizhevsky. VIII
Ernst Kassirer in Russia (compendium). IX
V. Molchanov
From pure consciousness to a social thing. Semantic and conceptual aspects of the problem “I” by Gustav Shpet. VIII
I-Form in the philosophy of ghostly consciousness of Vladimir Solovyov. VIII
D. Morozov
E.N. Trubetskoy in Yaroslavl in 1886-1896. XI
K. Y. Myor
The future of the past: on the history of the concept of “Russian idea”. X
Oksana Nazarova
Metaphysics with a human face: on the philosophical project of early Frank: S. L. Frank: Knowledge and Being. I. The Problem of Transcendence (1928); Cognition and being. II. Metalological foundations of conceptual knowledge (1929); On the metaphysics of the soul (On the problem of philosophical anthropology) (1929); On the phenomenology of social phenomena (1928). XIII
T. Obolevich, T. Rezvykh
. “Two people returned the Holy Fathers to philosophy - Florovsky and my father...”: Letters from Vladimir Lossky to Semyon and Tatyana Frank (1948-1954). XIII
N. Pashkeeva
At the origins of the Russian publishing house of the YMCA Union of North America: the activities of the Swiss publishing group “Life and Book” (1917-1921). X
N. Plotnikov
On the issue of “updating” Vekhi’s philosophy: collection of Russlands politische Seele. I
European tribune of Russian philosophy: Derrussische Gedanke (1929-1938). III
Peter Struve. [Rec.:] E. Bernstein. Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismusund die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie; K. Kautsky.Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm (1898). IV
S. Frank. Die russische Geistesart in ihrer Beziehungzurdeutschen. IV
The idea of a “concrete subject” in Western European and Russian philosophy of the first half of the twentieth century. V
Waiting for Russian philosophy. Notes on the collection of B.V. Yakovenko “The Power of Philosophy” (St. Petersburg, 2000). V
Allgemeingültigkeit. On the history of translation. VI
S. L. Frank at the University of Berlin (1899-1901). V
Notes on "Vekhi". V
Greetings from Syracuse or Russian practical philosophy. [Rec.] VI
. [Rec.:] G. D. Gurvich. Philosophy and sociology of law: Selected works / Transl. M. V. Antonova, L. V. Danilova. VII
Criticism of the Russian mind. Notes on the new edition of “Essay on Russian Philosophy” by G. G. Shpet. VIII
. “Everything that is real is rational”: The discourse of personality in Russian intellectual history. VIII
N. Plotnikov, M. Kolerov
Russian image of Germany: social liberal aspect. III
V. Povilaitis
Unknown articles by L.P. Karsavin from the library of Vilnius University (1927-1952). VI
New books about Karsavin. VI
About the philosophy of Vasily Seseman. VII
. [Rec.:] T. G. Shchedrina. “I write as an echo of another...”: Essays on the intellectual biography of Gustav Shpet. VII
N. Podzemskaya
. “The return of art to the path of theoretical tradition” and “the science of art”: Kandinsky and the creation of the State Academy of Agricultural Sciences. VIII
S. Polovinkin
. “Invective rather than criticism”: Florovsky and Florensky (1911-1914). VI
T. Rezvykh
Monadology of Frank and Leibniz. V
. [Rec.:] A. S. Glinka (Volzhsky). Collected works in three books. Book one: 1900-1905. VII
The concept of form in Russian philosophy (Konstantin Leontiev and others). IX
S. N. Durylin: sketches of the “Moscow Collection” (1922). IX
. [Rec.:] Fedor Shperk. How sad that I have so much hatred... Articles, essays, letters / Prep. text and comments T.V. Savina. St. Petersburg, 2010. IX
Leontyev and Florensky: form, time and space. X
St. Petersburg Philosophical Society and the journal “Thought” (1921-1923): new documents. X
Documents from the personal university file of S. A. Alekseev (Askoldov) (1916-1926). X
A. Reznichenko
S. Frank. Christian Conscience and Politics. V
. “Non-Evening Light” by S. N. Bulgakov: spelling and its meaning. V
. [Rec.:] Ideas in Russia / Ideas in Russia / Idee w Rosji. T. 1-4. V
. [Rec.:] Chronik russischen Lebens in Deutschland. 1918-1941. V
. [Rec.:] G. V. Florovsky. Selected theological articles. V
. [Rec.:] Problems of idealism. Digest of articles . VI
S. Bulgakov. [Rec.]: Book. Evgeny Trubetskoy. The Philosophy of Nietzsche (1904). VIII
Inscripts by S. N. Durylin, V. N. Figner, I. A. Ilyin, N. K. Medtner, L. M. Lopatin, V. V. Vasnetsov, V. A. Kozhevnikov, B. L. Pasternak , M.V. Nesterov and others from the funds of the Memorial House-Museum of S.N. Durylin in Bolshevo (1904-1955). VIII
V. I. Ekzemplyarsky. Two reviews of 1916: M. M. Tareev, A. N. Schmidt. IX
Unknown reviews by S. N. Durylin on S. N. Bulgakov, I. Zeipel, Y. Slovatsky, R. M. Rilke, N. O. Lossky, S. F. Kechekyan, L. D. Semenov in the magazine “Put” (1913-1914). IX
V. V. Zenkovsky. [Rec.:] V. A. Kozhevnikov. Buddhism compared to Christianity. T. I-II. Petrograd, 1916. IX
N. Samover
Gallipoli mysticism by A. V. Kartashev. II
O. Sapozhnikov
M. A. Engelhardt. Genocide in the name of altruism. XIII
A. Sveshnikov, B. Stepanov
N. P. Antsiferov. " Historical science as one of the forms of struggle for eternity (Fragments)" (1918-1942). VI
V. Smotrov
Leonardo in Russia. Themes and figures of the XIX-XX centuries. X
A. Sobolev
Radical historicism of Father Georgy Florovsky. VI
M. Sokolov
The Eurasian writes to the Generalissimo (Based on materials from the archival investigative file of P.N. Savitsky). XI
B. Stepanov
The Eurasian dispute about the church, the individual and the state (1925-1927). V
L.P. Karsavin about the “legacy of Genghis Khan”: letter to N.S. Trubetskoy (1925). V
A. Tesla
Justification of the right: A. Valitsky. Philosophy of law of Russian liberalism / Trans. under scientific ed. S. L. Chizhkova. M., 2012. X
E. Timoshina
The idea of justice in the discourse of the St. Petersburg school of legal philosophy. X
G. Tikhanov
Gustav Shpet in the mirror of Georgy Florovsky (1922-1959). VIII
Mikhail Bakhtin: multiple discoveries and cultural transfers. X
TO. Farajev
. [Rec.:] Kollegen - Kommilitonen - Kämpfer. EuropäischeUniversitätenimErstenWeltkrieg / Hg. von Trude Mauerer.Stuttgart, 2006. VIII
M. Hagemeister
The New Middle Ages of Pavel Florensky. VI
R. Khestanov
Hiroyuki Horie
O. Sergius Bulgakov and the translator of the Japanese edition of “Philosophy of Economics” Saburo Shimano. VII
K. Hufen
Munich Freedom: Russia expert Fedor Stepun during the period cold war. XIII
R. M. Tsvalen
Companions on different paths: Nikolai Berdyaev and Sergei Bulgakov. IX
. Right as a way to truth. Reflections on law and justice by S. N. Bulgakov. X
I. Chubarov
Psychology of art by L. S. Vygotsky as an avant-garde project. VII
The problem of subjectivity in the hermeneutic philosophy of G. G. Shpet. VIII
A. Chusov, N. Plotnikov
P. B. Struve. Marx's theory of social development (1898). IV
P. Shalimov
N. O. Lossky. Letters to S. L. Frank and T. S. Frank (1925, 1945-1950). I
H. Schwenke
Theory of knowledge as the basis of ontology. A new look at the philosophy of Gustav Teichmüller. VIII
International philosopher: Oh scientific archive Gustav Teichmüller (1832-1888) in Basel. VIII
H. Stahl
. “Truth is the process of justifying truth in the style of co-truths.” The concepts of “truth” and “truth” in “The History of the Formation of the Self-Conscious Soul” by Andrei Bely. X
T. Shchedrina
Philosophical archive of Gustav Shpet: experience of historical and philosophical reconstruction. VII
O.Edelman
Pierre Pascal . Main currents of modern Russian thought (1962). Translation from French. XI
V. Janzen
Letters of Russian thinkers in the Basel archive of Fritz Lieb: N. A. Berdyaev, Lev Shestov, S. L. Frank, S. N. Bulgakov. V (Typocorrections and additions. VI)
N. A. Berdyaev. [Rec.:] Frietz Lieb. Russland unterwegs. Der russische Mensch zwischen Christentum und Kommunismus (1946). V
An episode from the history of connections between E. Husserl and M. Heidegger with Russian thought (1931). VI
Unknown letter from B.V. Yakovenko to D.I. Chizhevsky (1934): on the history of a philosophical scandal. VI
Dialogue between German and Russian religious thinkers: Orient und Occident (1929-1934), Neue Folge (1936). VI
Russian Philosophical Society in Prague based on materials from the archives of D. I. Chizhevsky (1924-1927). VII
About unrealized Russian projects of the Tübingen publishing house J. H. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) of the early twentieth century. VII
Materials of G.V. Florovsky in the Basel archive of F. Lieb (1928-1954). VII
D. Chizhevsky. On Topics in the Philosophy of History (1925). VIII
Another philosophy: correspondence between D.I. Chizhevsky and G.V. Florovsky (1926-1932, 1948-1973) as a source on the history of Russian thought. IX
P. B. Struve. Two postcards to D.I. Chizhevsky (1931, 1935). X
To the 120th anniversary of the birth of D. I. Chizhevsky: 1. D. I. Chizhevsky. Academician Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945); 2. D. I. Chizhevsky. Letters to V.I. Vernadsky (1926-1936). XI
. On the influence of Schelling’s ideas in Russia: V. M. Sechkarev and D. I. Chizhevsky. Vsevolod Sechkarev. The influence of Schelling in Russian literature of the 20s and 30s of the 19th century; D. I. Chizhevsky. [Rec.]; Vsevolod Sechkarev. About the philosophical lyrics of Baratynsky. XIII
N. O. Lossky. Letters to Fritz Lieb (1928-1936). XIII
. N. O. Lossky and “The Ways of Russian Theology” Prot. G. Florovsky: in the wake of a lost review. XIII
What connected D.I. Chizhevsky with Koenigsberg? XIII
Five main books in Russian thought of the first half of the twentieth century (answers from N. S. Plotnikov, I. V. Borisova, A. P. Kozyrev, M. A. Kolerov, L. F. Katsis, R. V. Khestanov, M. V. Bezrodny, R. von Maydel). III
Index to the Yearbooks “Studies on the History of Russian Thought” (1997-2004). VI
Consolidated index of the contents of the Yearbooks “Studies on the History of Russian Thought” (1997-2012). X
Consolidated index of the contents of the Yearbooks “Studies on the History of Russian Thought” (1997-2014). XI
Errors and typos. II
Correction of typos in the publication: P. B. Struve. Selected works. M., 1999. III
Typo corrections and additions. VI
Error correction. XI
Announcement: Reprint of the magazine “Logos” (1910-1914, 1925). VII
Over the past few years, the history of Russian religious philosophical thought from a blank spot on the map has turned into such a densely populated territory that soon there will be nowhere for an apple to fall. Already the list of literature used by Evgeniy Gollerbach shows how much has been done in the study of this layer of Russian culture of the 20th century: the works of major (and not so important) philosophers have been republished, the activities of numerous associations and circles, one way or another connected with religious and philosophical thought, have been published, correspondence of philosophers has been published etc. Monographs and articles on “religious and philosophical topics” are completely incalculable.
However, the first conquistador attempts to penetrate this long-forbidden continent were largely of an applied nature: there they hoped to find (and are still looking for) that ideology that would help either “revive Russia” or put it in its place - in both cases it was about attempts to profit from someone else’s wealth. Hollerbach’s book demonstrates a completely different approach, which in the terms of a previous era should have been called “bourgeois objectivism”: the history of the publishing house “Put”, created by M. K. Morozova as a kind of continuation of the activities of the Moscow Religious and Philosophical Society of Memory, is described without laziness and with purely bibliographic calm Vl. Solovyova.
The originality of the author's approach to the history of Russian religious and philosophical thought, consisting in the fact that the subject of study is not creative heritage of one or another thinker or philosophical direction, and an ideological publishing association gives Hollerbach the opportunity to restore horizontal connections within Russian philosophy. Hollerbach classifies the “Puteytsev” as neo-Slavophiles, and hence the modern phrase “new Russian identity” appears in the subtitle. Fortunately, the tribute to fashion ends with this subtitle, since the content of the book is not this notorious identity at all, but, first of all, a thorough source study of materials on the history of publishing. The description of the sources develops, as it were, on two levels: in the main text of the book - as a guide directly to materials reflecting the history of the publishing house (publication of books, disputes around publishing plans, editorial correspondence, reviews and responses from the press, etc.), in footnotes - as a guide to contemporary works related to various aspects of this topic. As a result, a new genre of research arises, which the author of the preface, A.V. Lavrov, successfully defined as “historical and cultural cartography.” You can also call it a “guide” or a “seminary” - and each of these definitions will have its own reason. The book can serve both as a guide to the history of philosophy and as a basis for subsequent scientific deepening into the subject - in the space of a few of its pages it is quite possible to gather material for a dissertation. By bringing together all currently available sources on the history of the publishing house “Put”, its author strives not so much to state everything he thinks about it, but everything he knows, opening the door to those who want to know more.
Hollerbach expands his source base very thoroughly, and above all in the part that concerns newspapers. Here the St. Petersburg school can celebrate a victory, because the best traditions of factual descriptions, for which the second capital has always been famous, have found a worthy successor in the person of the young scientist. I can't help but admire some of the clear findings. Recently, several works devoted to name-glorification have appeared (almost all of them, except the most recent ones, are listed in the notes to the section “Discussion of name-glorification”), thanks to which the general outlines of the discussion about the veneration of the Name of God emerge quite clearly. Hollerbach adds a small but very interesting touch to the history of these disputes - he quotes the opinion of the Times newspaper about the Athonite disputes, which saw in monastic sentiments an attempt at Russian expansion, a struggle for sea ports, etc. Of course, to the essence of the disputes, this is us does not bring us closer, but it does bring us closer, and even very close, to understanding the reasons for the fierceness with which the government intervened in these disputes. Such touches, fitting into big picture, help better than other concepts.
Hollerbach's work convinces us that source study as a branch of science has its own ways of knowing and persuasion. On the one hand, there are pages in it that clearly indicate that the author does not always clearly understand the theological side of the name-glorifying disputes: where he tries to characterize them even in the most general outline, he is clearly using other people's words. Formulations such as “the Russian Orthodox Church, numb in dangerous conservatism,” “the reptilian administration of the Russian Orthodox Church,” etc., which are not quoted in the text, just want to be put in quotation marks; they contradict the general style of the work and seem to have jumped out of the polemical speeches of the participants Religious and philosophical meetings. At times it even seems that the author is quite satisfied with the opinion about the causes of these disputes, gleaned from the same “Times”. But on the other hand, not fully understanding these debates in essence - or not fully understanding their essence - he creates a most useful work on their history, which describes the entire body of material on this topic, presents an overview of the main points of view, including the author's own is present only as one of the possible - no more.
It also unexpectedly turns out that source studies have their own methods of reviewing, when instead of general reasoning and assessments a list of inaccuracies is given. For example, almost every reference to the collection “Seeking Cities” is accompanied by the words “Published with some distortions”, and no further ratings are needed. Hollerbach not only uses sources, he is not lazy to double-check them. Of course, the Hamburg account is not an easy thing, but now it is clear that if the wolf is a forest orderly, then the source scientist is also an orderly for science, and his existence in this capacity must at least be taken into account.
In its consistent effort to remain within the boundaries of pure description, the book in some respects can be called a unique manifestation of the position of a new generation of researchers. In contrast to the older generation, whose representatives in their work were most often guided by completely individual preferences and openly appreciated (or, on the contrary, hated), for example, in P. B. Struve the classical liberal, and in P. A. Florensky - the monarchist and conservative, young researchers do not seek to notify us of what inheritance they are abandoning, nor to write their own program for a bright future in the margins of other people’s books. They choose purity of description, and when reading their books, there is no need to look for an answer to the question: “Who are you with, masters of culture?” They are just with sources. This deprives their books of some present-day bias, expels the journalistic element and exposes the past from a special angle: it appears as a dead nature that had not only a beginning, but also an end. Many thanks to them for this.
But in terms of composition and structure, Hollerbach’s work represents the height of logic: personalities, topics of discussion, points of view, intra-publishing attractions and repulsions - all in paragraphs and chronology.
Of course, the topic stated in the book is not closed or exhausted by this work, but it is clearly outlined in its main outlines and outlined within the boundaries of the cultural process of its era. The topic undoubtedly has other dimensions: the publication of the main sources is far from complete. But the guiding role of Hollerbach’s book in studying the history of the publishing house called “The Path” will remain, and the name of its author will invariably evoke the gratitude of his few colleagues.
-- [ Page 1 ] --
Research on the history of Russian thought
RESEARCH
BY HISTORY
RUSSIAN THOUGHT
Under the general editorship of M.A. Kolerov
Moscow 2005
A. S. G L I N K A
[VOLZHSKY]
COLLECTED WORKS
IN THREE BOOKS
Compilation and editing by Anna Reznichenko
BOOK FIRST: 1 9 0 0 – 1 9 0 5
MODEST KOLEROV
Moscow 2005
UDC 1(=161.1)
Compilation of the volume, comments and article: Anna Reznichenko Preparation of the text – Anna Reznichenko, Daria Simonova under the general direction. ed. Anna Reznichenko Scientific edition of the commentary: M.A. Kolerov On the frontispiece: Alexander Sergeevich Glinka (early 20th century).
Photo from the personal archive of I.G. Glinka.
A.S. GLINKA (Volzhsky). Collected works in three books. Book I:
1900–1905. - M.: MODEST KOLEROV, 2005. - 928 p. (Series: “Research on the history of Russian thought”).
The collected works of Alexander Sergeevich Glinka (Volzhsky) (1878–1940), the “Volga idealist”, friend and correspondent of S.N. Bulgakov, M.A. Novoselov, P.A. Florensky, V.V. Rozanov, is the first a complete and annotated reissue of his works.
Book I of the Collected Works includes early works A.S. Glinka “Two Essays on Uspensky and Dostoevsky” and “Essays on Chekhov”, articles and reviews 1902–1905. For a wide range of readers interested in the history of Russian thought.
© A.I. Reznichenko, volume compilation, ISBN 5-7333-0231- article, comments, © Three squares, series design, © M.A. Kolerov, series compilation, CONTENTS Anna Reznichenko. From the compiler................... Two essays about Uspensky and Dostoevsky Preface to the edition of “Two Essays” ............... .
Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky Introduction.................................. The intelligentsia split in two .................. Harmonic intelligentsia.................... Harmony of people's truth..... .................... Uspensky's truth................................ .... Realistic depiction of people's life.............. Work of conscience.............................. .......... Conclusion....................................... Who is guilty?
(The doctrine of responsibility by F.M. Dostoevsky)... Essays on Chekhov Preface................................... ..........
Conflict between ideal and reality......
The power of everyday life...................................................
Indifferent people...................................
Restless and boring......................
Parallels........................................................
Guys........................................................
In memory of Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky......
About the realistic collection...................................
About the search and about those who seek...................................
About “The Jews” by Semyon Yushkevich........................
[Literary notes and reviews] About the stories of Messrs. B. Zaitsev, L. Andreeva and M. Artsybashev..
[Rec. on the book:] Mark Krinitsky. "The Tearing Movements of Water"
Stories. M. 1904................................
[Rec. on the book:] “Nizhny Novgorod collection”.
Ed. t-va "Knowledge". 1905...........................
[Rec. on the book]: Collection of the TV “Knowledge” for 1905, book six................................. .....
[Rec. on the book:] S. Yushkevich. Stories. Volume two.
St. Petersburg Ed. "Knowledge"................................
Christian experiences in Russian literature (regarding Mr. Andreevich’s philosophy of Russian literature)......... Concerning the new edition of N. Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?”............... ........................
[Rec. on the book:] M. Artsybashev. Stories. T.I.
Ed. Skirmunta. 1905................................
Pro domo sua. Ordinary tragedy (About Shestov in response to Berdyaev’s article about him “Tragedy and Ordinaryness”)... Stanislav Pshibyshevsky.........................
Art. Przybyshevsky and Vl. Soloviev about the meaning of love...
Chapter two........................................
Chapter Three.........................................................
Chapter Four......................................
Applications Al.Gukovsky. Boundaries of analysis in literary criticism (Volzhsky. Two essays on Uspensky and Dostoevsky.
St. Petersburg, 1902)................................... *** A. Lunacharsky. Russian Faust........................ A. Lunacharsky. About Mr. Volzhsky and his ideals............ A. Lunacharsky. A short answer to Mr. Volzhsky.......... *** [Autobiographical notes of Alexander Sergeevich... Glinka-Volzhsky (1905)] Comments............... ........................... Index of names...................... ................. From the compiler The collection of works of A.S. Glinka Volzhsky presented to the reader during the period of its preparation underwent a number of significant changes. The original plan (to collect the most famous works of the “Volga idealist” in narrow circles of researchers of Russian thought in the first third of the twentieth century in a one-volume “Selected”) had to be abandoned almost immediately. “The most famous” turned out to be genetically connected and dependent both on the corpus of Glinka’s texts, scattered across magazines and newspaper periodicals of the beginning of the century1, and on the historical-literary-religious-social context of the era, which we, following the Germans, call its spirit.
Moreover. In the textual space of Glinka’s essays, “famous,” “not unknown,” or completely unknown to the educated reader, the necessary crystallization of images and concepts of Russian philosophical culture, carried out in a situation of benevolent personal (as, for example, with S.N. Bulgakov or V.V. Rozanov) or in person (with F.M. Dostoevsky, G.I. Uspensky, A.P. Chekhov, V. G. Korolenko, L.N. Tolstoy, Vladimir Solovyov, Konstantin Leontiev, Rev. Seraphim of Sarov et dii minores) dialogue - or open journal polemics 1 Of particular importance here are the magazine “Russian Wealth”, the St. Petersburg “Monthly Magazine for Everyone” , published by V.S. Mirolyubov;
“New Path” of the “idealistic” editorial staff, which, as is known, was transformed from January 1905 into the magazine “Questions of Life” and, in the 1910s, the magazine “Russian Thought”, as well as provincial (Volga region) newspaper periodicals.
Anna Reznichenko (for example, with A.V. Lunacharsky). The results of this crystallization1 were so significant that - in an implicit, unexplained, latent way, hidden from the inattentive eye - they helped and were able to redefine, rearrange the emphasis, reorient and, in many ways, predetermine the main transformations of the “spirit of the era” of the first third of the twentieth century .
For “the “end” of the century2, as one of the best observers and thinkers of this century, Fr. G. Florovsky - meant in Russian development a boundary and a beginning, a transition of consciousness.
The very feeling of life changes. (...) And this was not only a mental shift. It was a new experience... In those years, many suddenly discovered that human existence is a metaphysical k about e. In himself, a person suddenly finds unexpected depths, and often dark abysses. And the world already seems different.
For vision becomes more refined. Depth also opens up in the world.”3
1 Let us note here the attempt to define the term “idealism” undertaken by Glinka in “Essays on Chekhov”, clarifying the meaning of the concept of “reality” (controversy with Lunacharsky and reviews of Artsybashev and Mark Krinitsky) - and establishing the distinction between “near” and “distant” »
(and, accordingly, “love for one’s neighbor / love for one’s distance” (according to polemics with Lunacharsky)), which served as the basis for further ethical and ontological distinctions in Russian philosophy during the period of theologically oriented systems. As for the images, we will only mention “a child’s teardrop”, removed from the context of the great novel and becoming one of the fundamental topoi of Russian philosophical thought, as well as “touching other worlds” (from the same novel), translated with the help of Glinka into the language of philosophy quasi-Kantian model.
2 The time of Volzhsky’s literary debut;
it was sent to M.M. Filippov for publication in 1899 (See about this “Autobiographical Notes of A.S. Glinka Volzhsky”). However, Glinka’s true debut, a book that immediately attracted the attention of readers and critics to him, was “Two Essays on Uspensky and Dostoevsky,” which was published in 1902.
3 Prot. Georgy Florovsky. Paths of Russian theology. Third edition, with a foreword by Rev. I. Meyendorff and an index of names. Paris:
YMCA-PRESS, 1983, p.452. This is the beginning of Section VIII "The Eve".
From the compiler A.S. Glinka turned out to be one of the first, those with “refined vision”;
and the experience of observing a strikingly changing reality, reflected in the mirror of literature, journalism and philosophy, forms the content of his articles.
The most common mistake, repeated by all literary and biographical reference publications, starting with S.A. Vengerov’s dictionary and ending with the fundamental and multivolume biographical dictionary"Russian writers. 1800–1917” is Glinka’s qualification as a “critic” or “literary critic”. He wasn't. More precisely, with his first book, “Two Essays on Uspensky and Dostoevsky,” he violated the laws of the genre of traditional literary criticism, thereby causing considerable bewilderment among real contemporary critics1. The books that Glinka writes about and their authors are not “objects of research” or “analysis,” but rather people and texts designed to answer his “painful questions,” designed to facilitate his “work of conscience.” That is why Glinka’s style is so characterized by abundant citation with inevitable contamination of quotations;
and that is why it is sometimes so difficult to distinguish between the interpreted text and the interpretation itself.
This does not at all mean lack of independence or banality of thinking;
rather, on the contrary: Glinka was able to anticipate the form of a dialogical essay long before Bakhtinov and discern the topical similarities of The Brothers Karamazov
and “Critique of Practical Reason”2 long before Golosovker.
The point is different: the peculiarity of A.S. Glinka’s creative writing required serious research work when compiling this collected works and special care when preparing texts for publication.
1 See, for example, the article by Al. Gukovsky “Boundaries of Analysis in Literary Criticism,” republished in the Appendix to Book One of this Collected Works.
2 See the article “Two Essays on Uspensky and Dostoevsky. Who is guilty?
(Dostoevsky’s Doctrine of Responsibility)”, pp. 117–162 (present ed.).
Anna Reznichenko The collected works of A.S. Glinka-Volzhsky are expected to be published in three book volumes. Book One includes, in addition to the “Two Essays on Uspensky and Dostoevsky” and “Essays on Chekhov” collected by the author himself, articles and reviews from 1903–1905 published by the author in various periodicals (“Monthly Magazine for Everyone”, “ Questions of Philosophy and Psychology", "Education", "Questions of Life"
and “The World of God”) and not included by Glinka himself in the collection “From the World literary quest"(1906). These articles and reviews are given in chronological order, however, taking into account the history of their origin or publication fate. Thus, Glinka’s remarks in his polemic with A.V. Lunacharsky about “Russian Faust” and the ethics of “love for the distant” are highlighted in separate subheadings (Lunacharsky’s responses are given in the Appendix);
as well as articles published in certain periodicals (“Monthly Magazine for Everyone” and “Questions of Life”).
In the latter case, the compiler considered it possible to use in the titles of the sections of this book (respectively, “Literary Echoes” and “Literary Notes and Reviews”) the authentic names of those sections of the journals where Glinka’s articles, notes and reviews first saw the light, fully aware about the permissible limits of the compiler’s intervention in the structure of the book being compiled, in particular, in the area of headings and headings. All non-author's titles in the table of contents are placed in square brackets, while angle brackets - everywhere, in all three books of the Collected Works - indicate the boundaries of the necessary conjectures. In the Appendix to Book One of the Collected Works, in addition to the already mentioned articles by Al. Gukovsky and A.V. Lunacharsky, “Autobiographical Notes of A.S. Glinka-Volzhsky” of 1905, which served as the key to the work on the first volume, are published for the first time.
The second book of the Collected Works is made up of a collection of articles by Glinka “From the World of Literary Quests,” published in 1906 by the publishing house of D.E. Zhukovsky, as well as (in the Appendix) little-known reviews by V.V. Zenkov From the compiler and V.V. .Rozanova for this collection. The content of Book Three is currently subject to clarification, since the work on finding the texts of A.S. Glinka 1906–1939.
and their preparation for printing has not yet been completed. However, already now we can talk about the main sections of the volume - these are brochures, articles, notes and reviews from 1906–1919, both published1 and for various reasons not published during the author’s lifetime2;
a number of texts from the 1930s3, as well as - in the Appendix - a large corpus of contextual materials: unpublished letters from V.V. Rozanov, M.A. Novoselov, S.N. Durylin to Glinka and Glinka to P.A. Florensky;
autobiographical notes and autobiographies of Glinka from the late 1930s. and some other documents. Unfortunately, the Collected Works did not include Glinka’s fundamental work “The Biography of Dostoevsky” (1910), which did not see the light of day during the author’s lifetime, and, in addition, numerous notes and reviews that were literally scattered throughout the provincial newspaper periodicals of the beginning of the century and are waiting his lover and collector.
The spelling of Glinka's texts is only partially brought into line with the norms of modern spelling: the features of writing proper names are fully preserved (cases when a particular surname is significantly distorted are specified in the commentary), terminology, author's style and - in most cases - punctuation. Unified, taking into account the peculiarities of the author’s spelling, only 1 “Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky: Life and Sermon”, “Garshin as a religious type”, “The problem of evil in Vl. Solovyov”, “About Knu te Hamsun”, “Near the Miracle (about Tolstoy)", "Dostoevsky and Chekhov. Parallel”, “In the monastery of St. Seraphim”, “Holy Rus' and the Russian vocation”, “On truth and falsehood (on the issue of Leo Tolstoy’s family discord)”, “Socialism and Christianity (a quick note)” and not which are different.
2 Of particular value here are the essays “A Child’s Soul in the Understanding of Dostoevsky” and “About Sveta Favorsky from Prince Evgeniy Trubetskoy.”
3 “Gleb Uspensky and his “Ravage””, “Gleb Uspensky in literature and in life” and “[Gleb Uspensky in life]. From the compiler."
Anna Reznichenko about punctuation marks for direct speech and footnotes: both the titles of articles and the names of printed publications are enclosed in quotation marks.
Volzhsky’s italics have been preserved throughout, and the features of the author’s spelling of particles (continuous/separate/hyphenated) and adverbs have also been preserved.
The reader will find the history of published works and the biography of A.S. Glinka-Volzhsky himself in the comments and the final non-scientific afterword “A.S. Glinka-Volzhsky, as a religious type” to the last one Meetings.
All that remains for me is to express my deep gratitude to all those who “in deed, word or thought” contributed to the birth of the Collected Works:
G. G. Glinke;
Abbot Andronik (Trubachev), S.M. Polovinkin and V.G. Sukach;
S.V. Miturich;
I.A. Edoshina;
V.I.Molchanov;
O.V. Edelman and E.A. Uvarova - for technical assistance;
Anastasia Potanina;
employees of the Periodicals Department and the Photocopying Department of the State Public Library;
finally, Daria and Konstantin Simonov, without whose friendly support this work would hardly have been completed.
I am sincerely grateful to Irina Glebovna Glinka for the materials provided – and for the unexpected and timely moral support.
Anna Reznichenko Two essays about Uspensky and Dostoevsky Preface to the publication of “Two Essays”
“Two essays” about Uspensky and Dostoevsky, currently offered to the reader’s attention, do not represent anything integral, internally connected. Here, in one book, two articles written at different times are combined. Both essays do not and do not intend to provide an exhaustive description of the writers to whom they are dedicated.
In the essay dedicated to Uspensky, I set myself the task of finding out the essence of the artist’s ideal, the basis of his “truth,” which required determining Uspensky’s position in the litigation between the “intelligentsia” and the “people.” As a starting point for my work, I took the point of view of N.K. Mikhailovsky Uspensky.
Turning to the study of Uspensky, one is first of all struck by the quantitative paucity of literature about him. Until now we do not have his biography1. It is difficult to point out another equally important artist about whom so little has been written. Having barely appeared in literature, M. Gorky managed to become some kind of commonplace of criticism, over the past few years he has generated such an overwhelming abundance of all kinds of articles, which probably many times exceeded 1 Small notes like P. Vasin in “Russian Wealth”
for 1894 and fragmentary data in history latest literature Skabichevsky and other similar publications - that’s all that is known from the biography of G.I. Uspensky.
Two essays about Uspensky and Dostoevsky add to the amount written by the artist himself. About Uspensky, whose literary activity is completely finished, only a few articles and notes have been written.
Uspensky’s ideological legacy is not only not exhausted, but also not yet appreciated. True, his great talent enjoys universal respect in our literature, it is generally recognized, but for all this, Ouspensky is surprisingly little read, and even less seriously studied. One can directly say that he is much more respected than he is read and studied.
N.K. Mikhailovsky rightly suspects that “perhaps Uspensky was little known and understood even at the time of his greatest popularity.” We will not talk here about why this is so, why now Uspensky is silently and rather coldly respected, and about M. Gorky they break spears and make noise almost the same way as they made noise about the notorious Dreyfus. In any case, some kind of exhaustive work on Uspensky and a thorough biography of him would now be useful. Unfortunately, the reader will find neither one nor the other here. If this essay, even if not with sufficient completeness, recalls Uspensky and attracts anyone’s serious attention to further study of him, my task will be completed.
Besides other elements creative work Uspensky, it would seem, by the way, tempting to consider the so-called “economic materialism” of Uspensky, which Mr. Bogucharsky and the unknown author of the note in the “Gallery of Writers”, published by Skirmunt, the text of which was edited by Mr. Ignatov, speaks about in his article. But this did not have to be considered here either.
Essay “Who is to Blame?” aims to reveal the philosophical views of F.M. Dostoevsky, his teaching on responsibility, repentance and freedom. Here my task is still narrower. Not only do I not mean to exhaust the rich literary heritage of Dostoevsky, but I deliberately do not touch upon all the diversity of his multifaceted creativity. Literary wealth, left by Dostoevsky, is immense, you can study it from different points of view, no matter where you come from, amazing perspectives open up everywhere. AND critical literature, dedicated to the analysis of Dostoevsky’s works, has grown far both in depth and in breadth. As the literature shows last days, attention to Dostoevsky does not wane;
for the most recently Two large treatises have been written about him... Despite this, there is still almost immense scope left for the study of Dostoevsky.
My task is to consider Dostoevsky from a strictly defined angle. Without touching on the analysis of individual types and works, without assessing the artistic merits and historical significance his creativity, leaving completely aside party and political beliefs Dostoevsky, I am trying to feel only one nerve of his creative work, but, perhaps, the most vital and deep-lying nerve... Such a basic nerve is, it seems to me, the question posed in the title of my essay about Dostoevsky, “who is to blame? » How Dostoevsky was tormented by this question, how he solved and re-solved it, one can understand only by reflecting on the works and artistic images created by the writer. The most mature, complete and mature answer to the question “who is to blame?” need to look in last novel Dostoevsky, in The Brothers Karamazov. By this time, the painfully tormenting thought of the artist, the imperiously persistent question of guilt is maturing in full, reaching the highest point of its development.
Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky “The general principle to which all of Uspensky’s worries can be reduced is the principle of harmony, balance”
N.K. Mikhailovsky, Op., V vol.
[Introduction] “The hearts are filled with bitterness and the lips are filled with lies.”
From the Apostle Paul “And the desire to straighten, to free the crippled present person for a bright future, even if it does not have certain outlines, joyfully arises in the soul.”
G.I. Uspensky (Works, volume I).
Life grows and becomes more complex;
a gigantic structure called European civilization, takes on more and more colossal dimensions, overwhelming in its amazing enormity. Civilized man, the creator and owner of a motley, complex, monstrous structure that inspires admiration and horror, stops more and more often, as if puzzled by the enormity of his creation.
“The enormity of all this!..” exclaims one of Uspensky’s characters, tired and frightened by the confused confusion of our time.
Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky. [Introduction] It is not only the weak thought of this insignificant hero of Uspensky who is frightened by the enormous civilization and is lost in front of its enormity;
The advanced people of this very civilization are also frightened and lost, looking back more and more often in trembling confusion. Louder and louder, amid the general rejoicing about the success of all progress, among the hymns of praise for the health of civilization and admiration for its benefits and gifts, the dissatisfied protesting voices of critics are heard. Here and there a terrible weariness shows itself, weariness from all this noise and din generated by the victorious march of the majestic chariot of European civilization.
Fatigue, nervous exhaustion and oppressive, painful melancholy - this is the sediment that civilization sometimes forms in the human soul. Such terrible sludge burdens the soul not only of the weak, tormented, insignificant hero of Uspensky, whose entire attitude to life is expressed in the short form of helpless surprise: “the enormity of all this”, exactly the same sludge settles in the soul advanced person. The same loss of inner balance, discord with oneself, oppressive and overwhelming melancholy, and powerless fear of life is felt among the best people, among those who stand at the heights of civilization and, apparently, should multiply the choir singing hymns of praise. for her health. Meanwhile, it is these people at the heights of civilization who are most languishing with the complexity of life; in their souls it kindled that blazing hellish fire, on the fire of which they writhe in terrible convulsions.
the protest, therefore, is heard from its front ranks, from its upper floors, and represents a serious, gloomy cloud appearing on the brightly illuminated horizon of modern civilization.
This cloud is very visible, it’s worth taking a closer look at.
What primarily occupies us here, the discord of the intellectual soul, as it is depicted in the works of Uspensky, is only an insignificant part, one atom of a gloomy cloud clouding the clear sky of the delight of Two Essays on Uspensky and Dostoevsky’s admiration for civilization. On this path, Uspensky has many predecessors and successors, both in Russian and European literature, but he will not get lost among them.
The 19th century, with its brilliant flowering of all kinds of inventions, discoveries and improvements, with its progress in science, technology and industry, was a true celebration of civilization, and, moreover, a noisy and self-satisfied celebration, but, on the other hand, it was the 19th century that also caused the greatest protest against her. The thunderclaps of the criticism of J. J. Rousseau have not yet ceased, and the 19th century has already exhibited its brilliant denouncers of culture. Both in the West and in Russia XIX century has put forward a number of first-class critics of civilization.
In the works of Uspensky we find a unique, deep and sincere criticism of civilization or already - how exactly here I mean to capture this phenomenon - criticism of the intelligentsia, an understanding of its meaning and attitude towards the people.
Uspensky’s criticism of the intelligentsia now deserves special attention among the modern exposure, exposure and denial of the intelligentsia in Gorky, Chekhov, recently again in Tolstoy’s “Resurrection”, etc., not to mention the West...
The attitude of the intelligentsia to the people, Uspensky’s solution to the litigation between the people and the intelligentsia - this is the direct subject of my article. It is necessary, first of all, to clarify the general physiognomy of Uspensky as an artist, to understand what is the central focus of the rays of his creativity, what constitutes his artistic a priori. Every artist has an artistic a priori, but such an a priori has nothing in common with the epistemological a priori;
on the contrary, it is of a purely psychological nature, does not at all have the properties of necessity and universal obligatory nature, on the contrary, it is entirely individual. It hides the personal peculiarity of the creative physiognomy of this or that artist, the specific properties of his pen, talent, in a word - what he has... of his own. This is a priori - the creative synthesis of the artist;
to understand and interpret it means to study the artist, to unravel Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky. [Introduction] the secret of his work, penetrate into the soul of his inspiration.
Criticism that seeks out such artistic-psychological a priori is methodological criticism par excellence;
it reveals the very psychology of creativity, the very artistic apparatus. Rising above the content of the work, abstracting from this or that literary material, it grasps the very form, the very method of processing the material; this is not a form in the aesthetic sense, not a method of expression, not the shell of the work, but the very instrument of constructing the work, the guiding idea , the very essence of the author's soul, precisely his psychological a priori.
Often the richness and variety of material, its originality and novelty obscure this main motor nerve of creativity, leave it in the depths of the work, and often the critic from the historical-literary, aesthetic and all other points of view is not able to probe this main nerve, cannot reveal it a priori, and then there is no real understanding of the artist;
what constitutes the secret of his creativity remains unrevealed. Criticism can say a lot of accurate and true things, can understand and understand a lot, make a lot of individual conclusions and particular characteristics, but... there is no soul in it, there is no something that spiritualizes, creates, forms a whole from formless, raw material.
All this could not be more applicable to Uspensky. One can very conscientiously read and even study his works, but fail to see in them, behind the ethnographic, political-economic, everyday material, what I call the psychological a priori of the artist’s creative work, not to see the soul of the artist’s creativity. Thus, many critics do not see the forest for the trees. He didn’t see the forest for the trees, and therefore designed it, as he pleased, from arbitrarily snatched trees, by the way, and Mr. Bogucharsky1. Behind Uspensky’s “populism”, and at that “populism” dressed up in a polemical stake 1 “What are “agricultural ideals?””. "The Beginning", 1899 March.
Two essays about Uspensky and Dostoevsky, and he looked at Uspensky himself. For the same reason, Mr. Protopopov made a number of major mistakes in his articles about Uspensky. N.K. Mikhailovsky approached Uspensky differently in his criticism. It is his understanding that I will have to take as the starting point of my work;
In view of this, it is necessary to give at least a brief summary of what N.K. Mikhailovsky put at the forefront of his criticism and what, in our opinion, constitutes the real psychological a priori of Uspensky as an artist.
I. [The intelligentsia split in two] “The general principle to which all of Uspensky’s worries can be reduced is the principle of harmony, balance.” – This is the central focus of the rays of his work, as indicated by N.K. Mikhailovsky in the article that opens the two-volume edition of Uspensky’s works. “An artist of enormous talent, with enormous inclinations for completely harmonious creativity, but torn partly by external conditions, partly by his own impressionability, passionate interference in the affairs of today - he greedily searches with his eyes for something unbroken, not worn out by painful contradictions, something harmonious.” (Op. vol. V, p.
132). What kind of harmony Uspensky greedily seeks among the everyday life splitting and scattering in colorful splashes was clarified by a talented critic in the same article and again repeated and supplemented with particular force in a polemical article against Mr. Bogucharsky2. Mr. Bogucharsky’s unsuccessful article insulted the memory of a dear writer, it insulted him not with malice, but simply with the ineptitude of his conclusions, but Mikhailovsky honors the memory of his artist-friend too highly to allow even such a shadow to be cast on him simply not 1 “Literary-Critical Characteristics.”
2 “Russian Wealth”, 1900, No. 12.
Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky. [The intelligentsia split in two] skillful interpretation;
and so, with all the fervor and, if it is convenient to put it this way, the fervor of his talent, he angrily and passionately raises his pen in defense of Uspensky and at the same time gives an excellent interpretation of the main idea of his works... This interpretation and characterization of Uspensky’s personality is worthy of the artist’s memory - sufferer, even N.K. Mikhailovsky can write like this only in exceptional moments of nervous upsurge of his critical talent...
For a truly deep, truthful and undistorted understanding of the soul of Uspensky’s work, N.K. Mikhailovsky again puts forward here the same thing that he indicated earlier, general principle, giving it only a more precise formulation that corresponds to the subject of the dispute: “Conditional respect for all harmony and unconditional aversion to any “divisiveness”” (Mikhailovsky’s italics). Only by gaining an understanding of this main driving creative nerve of Uspensky can one sufficiently understand the true meaning of his ardent, but very conditional protest against interference in the “zoological”, “forest” truth of people’s life on the part of the intelligentsia and civilization, this is firstly ;
secondly, to also understand the lively, deeply sincere joy that Uspensky expressed at the sight of any harmony, no matter how negative it may seem from various other points of view. Based on the correctly understood basic principle lying in the depths of Uspensky’s artistic moods, we will no longer be surprised why he, a humane, enlightened person, in moments of fatigue from the joyless spectacle of intelligent parasites “split in two,” exclaims: “Everything I was tired of this to such an extent that God knows what I would give at this moment if I had to see something real, without embellishment and without buffoonery: some old policeman, faithful to his sincere calling to rush and rip off the sewers , some genuine shaman who believes that rubles should be taken from fools for a conspiracy against worms, in a word, some genuine ignorantness - as long as it considers itself fair.” “From this two essays about Uspensky and Dostoevsky it follows,” N.K. Mikhailovsky rightly notes immediately after the above words, “that the old stanoi, a genuine charlatan and genuine ignorance were in themselves attractive to Uspensky.” Here it is necessary to remember one more condition for the correct understanding of Uspensky, which is indicated by N.K. Mikhailovsky: “We must take into account his logical and artistic techniques, which bring the known aspects of the phenomena that occupy him to their extreme limits.” We must remember that Uspensky “is an extremely subtle writer, capturing details and shades that are elusive to others.”
It is these features of the artist’s creative techniques that give him the opportunity to see something “real” in a genuine charlatan or genuine ignorance, and this is “real”
there, indeed, one can grasp it by penetrating into the depths of Uspensky’s quest. Uspensky’s inspiration for the “old stuff” can be puzzling, but it also explains the essence of the “real” that the artist is looking for. This essence is in a person’s agreement with himself, in the internal balance and harmony of the whole being. “The passionate and fearless thirst for truth, which constitutes one of the main features of Uspensky,” writes N.K. Mikhailovsky, “was offended by that “split between the humanity of thoughts and the parasite of actions” or, in general, by that “discrepancy between thoughts and actions” that he observed in the so-called civilized society. He constantly rushed all over Russia and abroad in order to find rest for his eyes from these impressions of double-mindedness, double-belief, hypocrisy, conscious and unconscious lies that tormented his naked nerves. Sometimes he found this eagerly sought rest, and then there seemed to be no limits to his joy.” To this excellent clarification of what constitutes the “general background of Uspensky’s writings,” it seems to me that a small addition should be made. The main contradiction, which offended Uspensky’s soul thirsting for harmony, was formulated by himself as “a split in two between the humanity of thoughts and the parasite Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky. [The intelligentsia is split in two] by your actions,” is not exhausted with all its depth and accuracy by the contradiction of thoughts and actions alone, it goes much further and deeper into the interior of the intelligentsia’s soul, becoming more complicated and growing into an even more painful contradiction of thoughts and desires, and not just thoughts and actions, i.e. accepting a type of mental discord that does not go beyond the limits of the inner world. It can best be formulated as a contradiction between the ideas of duty and will, and the idea of duty is what I call “humanity of thoughts”, that high flight of noble thought, which often encounters a contradiction not only when it has already entered the sphere of action, embodied in actions, but even in the world of inner consciousness it comes into discord with immediate feeling, with inclination, in short, with will1, which has not yet turned into action, into active striving.
So, Uspensky craves not only the harmony of duty and behavior, as Mikhailovsky points out (in his terms only), but even more precisely - duty, will and behavior (deeds).
Among many artists, among their works one can often find those that are, as it were, a synthesis of their entire work, in which the main ideas that inspire the artist appear with particular clarity and outline 1 In the broadest sense, duty is the same will. (In our consciousness I distinguish only two directions: knowledge and will.) But here by will, - using this word in in the narrow sense, - I will name only immediate will, i.e. urge, impulse, attraction, inclination;
duty is also will, but at the same time also bondage; there is something in it, if not externally, then at least internally compulsory;
duty is not a direct desire, but, on the contrary, very mediated; it sometimes inevitably comes into conflict with inclination, with direct attraction, with nature. But this conflict may not exist, duty may become an inclination, an impulse of immediate feeling;
such moments of the merging of duty and will, strengthened by the merging of duty, will and behavior (or in slightly different terms: thoughts, feelings and actions), constitute that harmony, that mental balance that Uspensky was greedily looking for, and was looking for, of course , not just for a moment.
Two essays on Uspensky and Dostoevsky's sensuality;
Usually this is some kind of fairy tale, allegory or parable; the guiding principle of the work appears here in a pure, isolated, generalized form. For Garshin, for example, such an artistic generalization is the beautiful fairy tale “Attalia princeps”, for Chekhov – “The Man in a Case”, for Gorky – “Song of the Falcon”. In the works of Uspensky there is a wonderful synthesis of all of his, in most cases hastily written, analytical work. The broadest generalization of Uspensky should be considered the story “You Straightened”1, which at one time surprised many with the unexpectedness of its content;
Meanwhile, there was absolutely nothing to be surprised at.
The bright sheaf of rays collected in this work is reflected in every smallest particle of Uspensky’s work, constantly shining through through all his quick sketches, short notes, hasty sketches and pictures. Everywhere the reader, already familiar with the general meaning of Uspensky’s works, will be able to find at least a slightly flickering reflection of the central light;
everywhere, both in the small and in the large, Uspensky appears to the sensitive reader as a true humanist, yearning for the harmony of a complete human being; everywhere he looks with a tired gaze for a complete person, straightened to his full truly human stature. The Venus de Milo gives a sense of such perfection, which poor, tired, tormented by everyday confusion Tyapushkin sees in the Louvre;
She, this “stone riddle,” straightened his crumpled soul for a moment. This is what Tyapushkin discovered in the “stone riddle”.
“He (the creator of the Venus de Milo) needed both the people of his time, and all centuries, and all peoples, to eternally and indestructibly capture in the hearts and minds the enormous beauty of the human being, to acquaint a person - a man, a woman, a child, an old man - with a feeling of happiness to be human, to show us all and make us happy visible to all 1 See Gornfeld’s article about this work by Uspensky, “The Aesthetic of Uspensky,” in the collection “On a Glorious Post.”
2 Italics everywhere by Uspensky, where there are no reservations.
Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky. [The intelligentsia split in two] us with the opportunity to be beautiful - this is the huge goal that controlled his soul and guided his hand.
He took what was needed for him, both in male and female beauty, without thinking about gender, and perhaps even about age, and catching only the human in all this. From this diverse material, he created that true thing in man that makes up the meaning of all his work, that which now, this very minute, is not in anyone, in anything or anywhere, but which is at the same time in every human being. a creature that currently resembles a crumpled glove rather than a straightened one.
And the thought of when and how the human being will be straightened to the limits that the stone riddle promises, without resolving the question, nevertheless draws in your imagination endless prospects for human improvement, human future and gives birth to a living sorrow in your heart about the imperfection of modern man.
The artist has created for you an example of such a human being, which you, who consider yourself human and living in today’s society, absolutely cannot imagine being capable of taking the slightest part in the order of life to which you have lived. Your imagination refuses to imagine this human being in any of the current human positions without violating his beauty. But since it is unthinkable and impossible to disturb this beauty, crumple it, cripple it into the current human type, then your thought, grieving over the endless “vale” of the present, cannot help but be carried away by a dream into some infinitely bright future. And the desire to straighten, to free the crippled present person for this bright future, which does not even have certain outlines, joyfully arises in the soul” (I, 1139).
This long quotation probably did not bore the reader.
Here before us is the genuine moral ideal humanist - Uspensky. Now we should look back at the inner world of the unfortunate Tyapushkin, who for a moment was straightened out by the sweet Venus de Milo and who then, all his life, yearns for the “perfection” that inspired him, which the stone riddle in the Louvre allows one to smell. Tyapushkin’s crumpled, crumpled soul reflects all the complexity of the intelligentsia’s discord with itself;
the stone riddle in the Louvre and a series of Tyapushkin’s impressions, which prepared in his soul the penetration into the secret of this riddle, indicate a way out of this painful discord.
The life of Tyapushkin1, this “insignificant zemstvo creature,” as he calls himself, i.e. a rural teacher, now goes through “tedious school work, in a mass of insignificant, albeit daily, worries and torments inflicted on him by people’s life.” In the past, she represented “a series of inhospitable impressions, heavy heartfelt sensations, incessant torment, without light, without the slightest shadow of warmth, cold, exhausted.” In a word - the life of the majority of Uspensky’s intellectuals: hard-willing, hard-working, not laborious, when you do something, but inside something tirelessly stings and gnaws, stubbornly preventing you from taking a deep breath at the task, from surrendering to it entirely, without unnecessary doubts and self-torture. “I somehow instinctively, in my gut, if you like,” says one of Uspensky’s intellectuals, a certain Balashevsky master2, “I began to feel from the very first steps of my social activity that there was some kind of crack in it, something was rattling ...
It seems that you will do everything that is possible, you will give your salary, if a certain amount is not enough, well, for example, at least for school - no, it rattles! You feel that the thing you are doing already has a crack in itself, like an old pot.”
(232–233 pp. II volume) Something has cracked inside the intellectual soul, it is rattling, and it is impossible, there is nowhere to escape from this ever-gnawing, painful discord with oneself. From the very beginning, Tyapushkin appears to the reader not only in “Straightened Up,” but also in “Will or Not.”
2 "Sheep without a flock."
Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky. [The intelligentsia is split in two] you can’t escape yourself, and now the poisonous worm is further and further tearing apart the soul with the most terrible contradictions.
Duality, twitchiness, splintering, disconnection and some kind of dislocation accompany everywhere tired soul Uspensky's intellectuals, despite the differences in their positions and fortunes, regardless of the size and nature of their affairs. Something rattles, it hurts, gnawing, and in the end there is fatigue that does not correspond to the work done, some kind of burden, apathy, melancholy and setbacks, a deadly setback. There is not here at least a homeopathic dose of the necessary moral satisfaction, satisfaction with oneself, with one’s work, there is not at least a shadow of that moral satiety, without which it is unthinkable healthy life and activities;
the same debilitating hell of the soul, the same crackedness and inner rattling, the same corroded by the poisonous moth of one’s own contradictions, exhausted, tormented, crippled, and downright rotted the intellectual in “Slower than Water, Lower than the Grass.” The same motives, only strengthened by the contrast of their harmony with the people's truth, are heard in “Conversations with Friends” and in a whole series of essays “Peasants and Peasant Labor”1. Everywhere, Uspensky’s “split in two” intellectual bears all the above-mentioned features. The long series of images, paintings, portraits that Uspensky draws in different places of his works reveals to the reader the terrible tragedy of the intelligentsia’s soul, disfigured, devastated, relaxed and saddened by its internal contradictions and external uselessness or, to use a fashionable word now, “worthlessness.” "
In “Observations of a Lazy Man”, “going to the people” is depicted. Two intellectuals, split and dislocated, the “lazy” narrator himself and his childhood friend Pavlusha Khlebnikov, bored with tedious idleness, go to the “people”.
This “walking” begins and ends in the most curious way, and does not last very long: soon you will get bored 1 We will touch on them further, when we talk about Uspensky’s attitude towards the people.
Two essays about Uspensky and Dostoevsky were... Pavlusha, one of the most typical intellectuals of the crowd, such a crowd that in times of untimely times, like an unoccupied vessel, is empty in the absence of any content or is filled with the first thing that comes along, in times of rising public mood and revitalization of social life also turns out to be filled with a general “new” content, corresponding to the spirit of the time, adding nothing to it qualitatively, but en masse significantly increasing it quantitatively;
in a word, Pavlusha Khlebnikov is a victim of a social pattern, he, according to the observations of a lazy person, before his eyes “just as sweetly and easily became a liberal as before he became a sneak (also very cute), or carried out the will of the authorities, who commanded to tear out a comrade by the ear "(I, 446).
And this same Pavlusha, “sweetly and easily” imbued with “new ideas” and taking upon himself the honorable mission of “going to the people,” sets off with his childhood friend “Lazy” on an ideological country walk... “We intended to take a walk “not far,” writes Lazy, “for even at the beginning of the journey (it cannot be concealed) we secretly felt that there, among the people, there was probably nothing for us to do.” And indeed, the “walk” was a “short but very painful journey.” The result was, again, a murderous setback and melancholy...
In the story “She Died for the “Direction”” we have a cultural public figure, a person “remarkable, persistent, energetic and thorough.” “In a word,” the narrator explains, “he was the kind of person who, if he had already taken up a task, would do it in the best possible way, dig the issue to the root, and even strive to extract something from the root.” And this thoroughgoing man, having decided to act from above, does not go to the people, like Pavlusha Khlebnikov and others, but invents the most humane project and devotes all his remarkable strength, thorough thoughts and most energetic deeds to its implementation. After a long and difficult path, all sorts of efforts, tricks and struggles, a thorough person apparently achieves some results, although Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky. [The intelligentsia split in two] partial implementation of their good intentions...
But the concrete, living consequence of the implementation of his project is some kind of wild, cruel uselessness: the torment of the unfortunate old woman and her premature death, “without repentance and communion.” Thanks to those who are zealous for carrying out the project in life, thanks to the watchman Mymretsov, who always appeared with the utmost readiness to “drag and not let go,” the old woman actually dies “for the direction,” solely due to the “humanity of her thoughts.” “Did my friend think,” the narrator argues, “who was working on his essay, who achieved an abstract in the Duma, etc., that in the end nothing else would come of all this except a janitor, who would know nothing about these works, nor about the abstract, except that he, the janitor, who is already tired, tired to death of “answering?” - “Get up, get ready! - he cried over the old woman: “I suppose I’ll be responsible for you!” And so the dying old woman is “dragged” to the hospital, where she “without repentance or communion” dies “for the direction.”
We find an even more glaring contradiction between the “humanity of thoughts and the parasite of actions” in the essay “About the Walk.” An educated, “monitoring”, liberal excise official reveals the unpatented sale of drinks, he does this persecution during a “walk”, he does it jokingly, cheerfully. But there is no time for jokes and fun for those village inhabitants who “got into the protocol.” A soldier, cleverly lured by a humane official only in the role of a witness, exclaims with horror: “You have thrown me, your honor, into a ha-harsh boom!.. excuse me.”... The witness-soldier feels moral disgust and some kind of internal falsity in the trick of the liberal “your honor.” But even more amazed was the official’s random companion, the young man Ritor. He simply cannot understand this mysterious combination of humanity, education, the latest books of a leading magazine and, right next to it, the disgusting operation of persecuting a man who sells wine without a patent - an operation that makes a drunken soldier morally shudder.
Two essays about Uspensky and Dostoevsky: a liberal excise official in the essay “Walk”, a cultural figure in the story “She Died for the “Direction””, the narrator and Pavlusha Khlebnikov in “Observations of a Lazy Man” and a whole series of similar images of Uspensky (this also includes “Little guys”, especially “Sick Conscience”, “Sleeveless”, etc.) in the crudest sense are split over the war between the humanity of thoughts and the parasite of actions. High thoughts fit their absurd and even disgusting deeds, if I may put it this way, like a saddle to a cow. Here the naked, glaring contradiction of duty and business sharply hits the nerves, hits mainly the outside viewer, it is he who causes excruciating pain or moral disgust, while the carriers of the contradictions themselves sometimes remain in imperturbable calm, for example, the same intellectual of the excise department. These are, so to speak, outwardly divided intellectuals. Among other intellectuals of Uspensky, like the above-mentioned Balashevsky master, the author of the diary “Quiet than Water, Below the Grass” (this also includes “Not Risen,” the narrator of “Three Letters,” etc.), and in general among all those the collective face of which is Tyapushkin (“Straightened” and “Willy-nilly”), we observe an incomparably deeper and more complex mental contradiction, no longer between duty and deed only, but between duty and will, and moreover, one that is not revealed to an outsider, an outside eye, but, on the contrary, is painfully felt by the bearers of the contradiction themselves. They are oppressed by an internal discord between the loftiness of their thoughts and the baseness of their desires. The height of their thoughts, the greatness of the duty that calls them to serve him, in a word, the “humanity of their thoughts” every now and then comes into collision with immediate impulse, living attraction;
in their soul there is no unity, there is not even a faint shadow of that harmony of the human being, which is embodied in all its perfection in the Venus de Milo. When high thoughts and elevated moods rise, they now and then feel some kind of vague rattling inside themselves, the poisonous worm of doubts, incessantly, tossing and turning in their souls. Their good impulses and you are Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky. [The intelligentsia is split in two] soaring ideals cannot in any way merge with their nature, manifest themselves simply, freely and boldly, without disturbing the balance of the inner world. They lack that elemental immediacy of good desires, in which the high idea of duty, service to a cause, bringing benefit to one’s neighbor, in a word, great “sorrow not about one’s own grief” would enter the flesh and blood of their spiritual nature, would become their nature, merging with will in a harmonious combination, and would not enter into a debilitating discord with the spontaneity of feeling, would not turn will and duty into two warring camps. This is a group of internally divided intellectuals. To illustrate, I will cite the following confession by Tyapushkin, which perfectly characterizes the subtle web of contradictions in which the intellectual is shrouded due to the hourly clashes between the rationality of duty and the spontaneity of the will... “If “they” in some not human, but “special” way told me “ disappear for us,” I would immediately fulfill this request, as the greatest happiness and as such a thing that it is only possible for me to do, as a task to which I am led by all the conditions and influence of my life. But when I got to the village and saw this colossal “we”, exchanged for the figures of men, women, boys, I not only did not receive a stimulus that aroused the victim, but, on the contrary, I caught a cold and caught a cold to the coldest melancholy. These grains of sand of significant numbers, like people demanding from me human attention to their human needs and the human little details of their lives, irresistibly tired me, even repulsed me... The dirt tormented me, flashed in need and insulted stupidity... Sore leg The peasant, rotten from the bruise, was disgusted. Personal involvement, personal pity were unfamiliar to me, alien;
there was no reserve in my heart human feeling, human compassion, which I could distribute to all these grains of sand, millions of which, in the form of a figure occupying one tenth of an inch on a printed line, on the contrary, shocked me” (II, 499–500).
But these two groups of Uspensky’s intellectuals, both externally split and internally split, have this in common between them, that “the sadness is not about their own grief,” they all have, at least only in principle, is elevated to duty, the commandment “not about bread alone” is unshakable for them, even if it is only a rational truth. They are all united by the “humanity of thoughts” and distinguished from other people in the privileged society of non-intellectuals. The latter should include all the parasites openly; they are not even involved in the thoughts of the commandment “not about bread alone,” on the contrary, they rather represent precisely the living personification of the cry about bread alone.
From the inherent half-heartedness of contradictory service to either God or Mammon, they took upon themselves only the service of Mammon;
having thus abandoned the “split between the humanity of thoughts and the parasite of actions,” they confidently limited themselves to parasites alone. These are the “Bourgeois”, the merchant Tarakanov, in general all the newcomers of the “coupon system of life”; here we can completely bypass them, since they turn out to be beyond our task.
But both groups of divided intellectuals appear in Uspensky with a clearly negative sign.
All of them are flawed with an internal crack that mercilessly splits their mental balance, turning them into zero, into a pitiful insignificance, unnecessary, as they say, neither to themselves nor to people. Above them social significance the artist definitely and sharply puts a negative sign.
In addition, most of them eat themselves, die from internal decay, rotting in the fire of their own contradictions;
Such is the fate of Tyapushkin, this best and most sympathetic representative of the group of internally divided people. The pattern of the contradictions that decay Tyapushkin’s soul is distinguished by its particular sophistication and careful finishing of details. He goes out, and, probably, goes out completely in his “cold hut, frozen in all corners,” with painful longing contemplating in the beautiful distant light the reflection of that perfection that the Venus de Milo gives one to smell;
Tyapushkin will fall into cold melancholy, perhaps without even realizing what Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky expected at the moment. [Harmonic intelligentsia] raising the emotional mood of the “ovation” for the volost elder Poluptichkin.
So, Uspensky’s sharply negative verdict on the intelligentsia is apparently beyond doubt. It will seem even more undoubted if we compare it with folk truth, which is created by the mysterious spells of the “power of the earth” and before which all the insignificance, flabbiness and frailty of intellectual existence, all the amazing helplessness of extricating oneself from the soul-relaxing hell of the soul is revealed. contradictory. The inevitable “checkmate” of the intelligentsia then becomes, apparently, simply logical conclusion from the extolled perfection of popular truth.
But this is only “apparently”. Meanwhile, this “apparently” misled one of Uspensky’s venerable critics, Mr. M. Protopopov. The venerable critic, the starting point of whose works is a convinced apology for the intelligentsia against any encroachment on it, saw in the works of Uspensky an unconditional negation of the intelligentsia, its complete belittlement or even destruction before the truth of the people, sanctified, legitimized and crowned by the age-old “power of the earth.”
II. [Harmonic intelligentsia] I said, Uspensky denies the intelligentsia, “apparently,” because a negative attitude is clearly heard in him;
but it is very conditional.
Next to Tyapushkin, the Balashevsky master, Pavelsha Khlebnikov and other split and dislocated intellectuals, we find in Uspensky a whole series of images of a completely different type. In order to more accurately imagine the main, essential features of this type, let us dwell on those impressions of the dislocated Tyapushkin, which prepared in his crumpled, like a crumpled glove, crippled and mustache Two Essays on Uspensky and Dostoevsky's thawed soul, a soulful contemplation of that “model of a human being”, “an example of the future”, that “perfection that the Venus de Milo gives one to smell.” These visions, which Tyapushkin recalls several years after their experience, lying tired and broken in his cold hut, followed in this order: “The first thing that came to my mind,” Tyapushkin says with unabated delight, “a strange thing!.. was the most insignificant village painting. I don’t know why, I remembered how I once, driving past a hayfield on a hot summer day, looked at a village woman who was stirring up hay;
her whole figure, with her tucked-up skirt, bare legs, red warrior on the top of her head, with this rake in her hands, with which she was throwing dry hay from right to left, was so light, graceful, so she “lived” and did not work1, lived in complete harmony with nature, with the sun, the breeze, with this hay, with the entire landscape with which both her body and her soul were fused (as I thought), that I looked at her for a long, long time, thought and felt only one thing : “how good!..”” (I, 1125).
“The image of the woman flashed and disappeared, giving way to another memory and image: there was no sun, no light, no aroma of the fields, but something gray, dark, and against this background - the figure of a girl of a strict, almost monastic type. And I also saw this girl from the outside, but she also left a bright “joyful” impression on me, because that deep sadness - sadness about not her own grief, which was written on this face, on her every slightest movement, was so harmoniously merged with her personal, her own sadness, to such an extent these two sorrows, merging, made her alone, without giving the slightest opportunity to penetrate into her heart, into her soul, into her thought, even into her dream. something that could “not suit”, disrupt the harmony of self-sacrifice2, which she personifies 1 Uspensky’s italics. The original italics are not specified anywhere in the quotations; only mine is specified.
2 Italics are mine.
Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky. [The harmonic intelligentsia] said that with one glance at her, any “suffering” lost its frightening aspects, became a simple, easy, calming and, most importantly, living matter, which, instead of the words “how scary,” made one say: “how good.” , how glorious”... (I, 1125)... And then came the Venus de Milo!..
The reader in these bright impressions of Tyapushkin will find something directly opposite to the rattling crackedness of Tyapushkin’s soul, representing a complete contrast to his fragmentation, tornness, dislocation. There is not even a shadow of that languor, annoyance, that moral breakdown and tortured toil with which the inner world of Tyapushkin himself is full. Baba, in her, everyone knows, terrible work, “lived and did not work.” Here is not only complete harmony of her entire inner being, here is harmony “with nature, with the sun, with the wind and with this hay.” From our point of view, difficult work is done as freely, freely, easily and painlessly as the spring waters rush freely and freely, easily and cheerfully dragging behind them the terrible weight of ice, torn from the roots of trees, fallen coastal blocks and all sorts of coastal debris. But heavy ice, huge trees, boulders washed away from the shore, and even garbage make these waters even more beautiful, even more majestic. The spontaneous work of nature is doing its gigantic work here, but it is doing it so freely and freely, easily and cheerfully, that the result is an amazingly beautiful picture of the free play of the forces of nature. The same amazing harmony of the free manifestation of the immediate spiritual element is represented by the bright images that refreshed the tired Tyapushkin. The same free play of mental forces, the same integrity of the entire human being is manifested in the “figure of a girl of a strict, almost monastic type.” It vividly embodies the harmony of duty, will and deed. There is no toil, asceticism, or forced service to duty in it. On the contrary, she lives her life, and that deep “sadness about grief that is not her own”, which is traced on her face, “is harmoniously merged with her personal, her own sadness.” Serving her duty, she serves herself, her nature Two essays on Uspensky and Dostoevsky, there is not a shadow of compulsion in her, all of her is spontaneity, she is elemental, and in everything, even in deep sadness “not about her own grief,” she remains herself . She achieved the “harmony of self-sacrifice.”
Yes, in the image of a woman in the hayfield Tyapushkin sees not labor, but working life, in which the harder the work, the more fun;
in the “girl of a strict, almost monastic type” one sees not self-torturing asceticism, not tortured service to duty, but holy harmony, “harmony of self-sacrifice” and a stable, calm balance on “sorrow not about one’s own grief.”
These images, giving rest to Tyapushkin’s ailing soul, embody the main features of that type of intelligentsia, which determines and at the same time limits Uspensky’s negative verdict on the divided intellectuals.
The “features of a beloved face,” which are captured by Uspensky in the story “Straightened Up,” show clearly from what point of view, in the name of what this negative verdict is pronounced.
The impression of the “stone riddle” and the series of images that prepared this impression clearly outline the only desirable path to a way out of the discord that is corrupting the soul of the modern Russian intellectual. There is no doubt that the above-mentioned harmony, as Uspensky’s creative a priori, as the central focus that collects all the rays of his creativity, ultimately determines not only Uspensky’s judgment of the intelligentsia, but also the very artistic perspective of its reproduction... But Mr. Protopopov, who defends the reputation of the intelligentsia, presents Uspensky as the unconditional opponent of any intelligentsia, as it actually exists1. “After all, Uspensky,” writes Mr. Protopopov, “was not disillusioned with Balashev’s bars, he does not believe in the intelligentsia in general, not in the intelligentsia that exists only 1 In addition, as we will see later, there are also defenders of the intelligentsia of small affairs. ..
Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky. [Harmonic intelligentsia] to his creative imagination, but into the real intelligentsia of the current historical moment" (382, "Literary Critical Characteristics"). For Mr. Protopopov, only a group of divided intellectuals is real, while others, whose main features are captured in “Straightened Up,” he considers to exist only in Uspensky’s creative imagination.
Let us take a closer look at this group of “real” intellectuals of Uspensky, not split, but harmoniously whole, devoting themselves to serving their duty, like the elements, like a bird to the air or a fish to water...
In the story “A Good Meeting”, on a steamboat sailing on a hot July day along the Oka, a certain Vasily Petrovich, a bored passenger, an intellectual from among the scattered, accidentally meets with his former student, whom he once taught to read and write in a distant village, eager to “work for the benefit of fatherland." “Like every benefactor of my kind,” says Vasily Petrovich, “when I started this work, I proceeded from the idea that if a man is poor, destitute, then in a community with ignorance all these ailments lie on him as a double burden;
It’s better to replace ignorance with enlightenment, using for this the time that remains from threshing, paying arrears and similar daily peasant activities, without, however, disturbing their normal course” (I, 849). The classes in general did not go well, only one boy, Vasya Khomyakov, showed promise, whom now, 8-9 years later, the intellectual meets by chance on a ship as an adult youth. Despite Vasily Petrovich’s terrible desire to do “at least something” just for Vasya, if he can no longer please “generally for his little brother,” even Vasya ran away in the spring, having, in the end, learned absolutely nothing. And now, after 8-9 years, a meeting takes place between a failed student and a disappointed teacher.
“We were very happy with each other.
-Where have you been?
– Just now I was at my mother’s, saying goodbye... To Akim Petrovi Two essays about Uspensky and Dostoevsky, I’m going to the factory. You don’t know Mr. Pazukhin Akim Petrovich?
- No, I do not know.
- Well, I’m going to them... I have to be there for a long time... I want to do some good.
Vasya uttered this phrase completely seriously.
- To whom? – I asked.
- Of course, everyone! – Vasya said with the same sincere and youthful seriousness.
It’s been a long time since I saw such brave confidence and sincerity that permeated Vasya’s entire being, and his phrase:
“of course, everyone...” (850–851, I).
Everything about Vasya breathes integrity and spontaneity;
“I couldn’t help but believe that the words he uttered were just an inch away from the real deed in the name of these words, no matter how impractical the deed was.” Where did all this come from, the teacher thinks.
It turned out from Vasya’s stories that, having escaped from beneficial training, he went through a difficult school of life. He ran away from the village with the thief Yegorka, ended up in prison, and this thief Yegorka and his prison life did to him what the intellectual teacher teaching his “little brother” the alphabet never dreamed of doing;
The thief Yegorka and the careful life created from him this young man, breathing inner truth, simply, artlessly, but harmoniously embodied in his entire figure and in every phrase...
The yearning gaze of Vasily Petrovich, tired of the eternal restless fuss of the inner worm of contradictions and doubts, happily rests on the bright image of this young man.
Vasya has everything that a divided intellectual lacks, but, on the other hand, Vasya also has what is truly valuable in a divided intellectual. But what is undoubtedly valuable, good, sacred withers in the soul of an intellectual, completely devoid of spontaneity of experience and organic connection with his entire being, but in Vasya all this is simply, spontaneously present, like the air of the lungs, like the beating of the heart, given by itself and, having given itself, it entered deeply into the flesh and blood of his being;
it was easily brought to prison and absorbed from the thief Yegorka, and was in no way pestered by the humane well-wisher Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky. [Harmonic intelligentsia] Tva Vasily Petrovich. “In this prison, in these dark affairs, he seemed to be hiding only from violence against his conscience and did not betray it with such persistence that after his story one could regret the general structure of life, in which one must look for dark corners in order to not to be morally disfigured, but there was no way to doubt the sincerity of what Vasya now believed in” (854). Vasya is a real intellectual, morally undistorted, mediocre, whole;
he appeared with his simple truth by chance, like a force of nature, just like spring flowers bloom just like that, bloom where you don’t expect them at all... “When parting, he repeated again that he was ready to give his soul for an offended person and added energetically:
- And I’ll give it back! It's right! “I saw that this was really true and that he would give his life” (854).
Finishing his story, the split and dislocated intellectual narrator, bored and envious of Vasya, makes the following sad confession: “Vasya ran away from school, and they would have turned us back and put us in prison again, and finally “broken” this thought.
And how many later, after a broken childhood, after a soul-breaking school - how many of these turning points come later when choosing a career, work! How many thousands of times do we have to submit to foreign targets that appear suddenly, etc.” (ibid.).
Fractured, worn out by a wormhole of all sorts of contradictions, the soul of a split intellectual feels the pain of its own ulcers even more acutely when colliding with the “real,” as Uspensky understands it, intelligentsia. And although the story does not say directly, its general tone clearly shows that Vasily Petrovich is precisely one of the split, and Vasya is the very element of the intelligentsia.
But let the reader of Uspensky not think that it is typical for Vasya that he came from a popular background. No, a real, internally integral intelligentsia, remaining itself in all its manifestations, is not necessarily an intelligentsia from the people for Uspensky. True, we will see further that he has a real people’s intelligentsia according to two essays on Uspensky and Dostoevsky’s property, and in Uspensky’s attitude towards the people there is a proper explanation for this circumstance, but now it is important to note that among the real intellectuals there are quite a few people other classes, just such an intellectual appears in the story “Three Letters.” This work of Uspensky, more than any other, was written with the blood of the heart, a work of which there are few even among Uspensky’s rich creativity, but for our purpose it is especially important and characteristic.
Here we have two intellectuals: one, on whose behalf the story is told, is a typical representative of the split. Another NN, the author of three letters, on the contrary, is a bright representative of the real ones; he is, in essence, the hero of the story, since Hopeless (the story in the subtitle is called “From the Memoirs of the Hopeless”) was taken by the author, obviously, exclusively in terms of artistic perspective , then, so that his internal dislocation and external unfitness can be used to highlight the main character more sharply. At the very beginning of the story, Beznadezhny gives the following description of himself: “The writer of these memoirs did not live up to expectations for himself, and in the sense of a “doer” he cannot imagine anything at all... But fifteen years ago I had these expectations and, merging in general with ideas about the need for “activity” and, moreover, somewhere not here, in the vulgar and painfully stupid reality, but somewhere there, invisibly above it, forced me to look with great disdain at the petty human bullshit” (669 –670, I). Such a confession leaves no doubt as to which category of intellectuals Beznadezhny should be classified into, and the whole tone of the subsequent story convinces even more that before us is a completely crippled man, in whose soul there is a hell of self-torment and the complete bankruptcy of high ideals.
Now let us note a very characteristic feature characteristic of the Hopeless, and with him, the enormous mass of “splits.” This trait is the search for a gigantically huge matter and ignoring for the sake of such a big, distant matter, capable of, perhaps, benefiting Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky in its remoteness. [Harmonic intelligentsia] humanity - a direct living matter, tangibly useful, located before the eyes, although not God knows how big. For the sake of the pie in the sky, here a tit is released from his hands with majestic disdain, exactly what Ne Krasov captured in the image of Agarin in the poem “Sasha”:
Reads books and scours the world for gigantic things...
He doesn’t like what’s at hand, he destroys it in passing without intent...
This is what Uspensky’s hero says about himself: “I would willingly do favors to the entire human race, but only on the condition that they unquestioningly obey my commands, so that they don’t make a sound, don’t bargain with me, spare anything that I think it’s nonsense... The whole of Russian history has taught me not to place any value on an individual person and his petty human interests. In me, the same story brought up a lack of respect for myself with my “insignificant” interests, and a lack of not only respect, but even tolerance for the same in others: we are accustomed to merging into a dense mass of usually isolated meaningless atoms - only in some extraneous concern that did not come from us, in a kind of yoke, in a kind of war, famine, etc.
But as soon as such an overwhelming weight of events, surging from the outside, ceased to crush us, ceased to excite the activity of the mind and heart in us, as soon as we remained “on our own” - all interest in living in the world ceased, emptiness, melancholy, self-gnawing and impatient waiting again for some blow, some misfortune, heaviness, in order to feel that, overthrowing it, you live... People like me still have no morals, no development of their personality...” And further:
“Meanwhile, time is moving more and more towards the “human way of life”, it is increasingly required that the person be good, that the personality of the person taking up the work be good... Alas! .. there are so far not as many such individuals as would be required even on the most modest scale. Where they will come from, I don’t know;
but I know for sure that my personal imperfection (similar to the imperfection of many of my doubles) was the reason that we, having started for health, general health, ended up resting with our own in banks, railway boards and in all kinds of institutions that bring benefit... but I don’t know to whom?” (704–705, I).
Such is the Hopeless One. The complete opposite of him is his school friend, as well as a fellow resident in Moscow on Zhivoderka, NN, nicknamed “Foreigner”, which was given to him at school due to his origin from some Swiss. The foreigner, during his stay with Beznadezhny on Zhivoderka, is completely absorbed in seeking and giving lessons with which he supports himself, helps his mother and, in addition, supports Beznadezhny, who is completely devoted to clarifying “his new views and hopes,” and “for now” abiding in stately inaction. In his leisure time, of which he has a great abundance, Hopeless does not deprive himself of the pleasure of telling his new views to the “limited,” as he thought, the Foreigner, who is always pressed by the prosaic business of getting bread. “But I saw,” the narrator complains, “to my great chagrin, that my words did not change his behavior, nor his views, nor desires one bit... He listens, listens, it seems, attentively, then suddenly sighs and says : “Oh, lessons, lessons!”, it will definitely give you cold water"(670–671, I). Life on Zhivoderka is interrupted by the sudden departure of the Foreigner for a lesson somewhere. When they part, they exchange the usual promises to “write.” And, indeed, after some time, Hopeless receives from the Foreigner a “long, extremely long letter,” written in the smallest, letter-by-letter handwriting. The Foreigner wrote the same letters to his mother, in them he recounted all his drab everyday life, with all its prosaic, monotonous Gleb Ivanovich Uspensky. [Harmonic intelligentsia] loud rehash. In this specific manner of writing with all the details, details, particulars, finely and evenly, the very individuality of the Foreigner, his careful, lively attention to the living prose of every day, his, as Hopeless called this trait, pettiness, limitation, is reflected.
And so three “long, very long” letters were received from the Foreigner, in them the whole essence of the story unfolds, and together a wonderful image of the integral and strong moral personality of the Foreigner is completed.
It turned out that the preaching of the “new views” of the idle Bez reliable was far from idle, not without leaving a trace for the silent and prosaically preoccupied with his lessons, lessons and, apparently, only the lessons of the Foreigner. As the three letters are read, the inconspicuous figure of the Foreigner miraculously transforms, grows, and is adorned with unnoticed, previously hidden great potentials;
from a limited, petty, pitiful Foreigner, he is transformed into an image of the greatest moral beauty and integrity.
At the lesson, the Foreigner found himself in the ugliest family, presenting a terrible picture of the spiritual decay of all its members: father, mother and three children. Everything here, from small to large, is rotten, everything is spoiled, polluted, and treated with eternal corrupting parasites, and even outright robbery and debauchery. Before us is a decaying noble tree. “This family,” writes the Foreigner, “is some kind of mushroom that grew on the rotten and fatty soil of serfdom” (688, I). In such a whirlpool of moral impoverishment and physical degeneration, three little ones, who have not yet had time to bloom, decay and perish. Having found himself in the terrible stench of this rotting nest, the Foreigner instinctively wanted to run away, but then, entering his soul into the family tragedy, vividly imagining the inevitable death of the children in the absence of human intervention, he was unable to leave them to their fate. And grateful children, with the instinct of young souls guessing in the teacher their last hope and the only possible salvation, the two essays about Uspensky and Dostoevsky became attached to the Foreigner. He became their protector against beatings, brutality and gross violence from their parents. He stayed, he writes himself, “not because I fell in love with them, but it was simply clear to me that it was impossible to do this, that if I did this, I would leave with the consciousness of an evil deed in my soul” (691, I).
Soon the rude drunkard, savage and libertine father dies - he dies as he lived, terribly, stupidly and senselessly looking back at his predatory, carnivorous life as a parasite. What remains is a no less wild, no less depraved and carnivorous mother, a cured, stupid and rude woman;
there is spiritual hell in the house and, in addition, there is a lack of material resources: it turns out, in the language of the hero of “Ravage,” there is “nothing left to grab.”
Name: Research on the history of Russian thought: Yearbook for 2006-2007 (8)
Edited byM. A. Kolerova and N. S. Plotnikova
M.: MODEST KOLEROV, 2009. - 672 p.
ISBN 978-5-91150-032-0
PDF 24 MB
Quality: good - scannedpages + text layer
Language: Russian
The thematic block “Gustav Speth, GAKhN and the intellectual environment of the 1920s” was prepared as part of the research project “The Language of Things. Philosophy and cultural sciences in Russian-German intellectual relations of the 1920s.” The project is being implemented by the Research Center “Russian Philosophy and Intellectual History” of the Ruhr University (Bochum, Germany) with the support of the Volkswagen Foundation. The goal of the project is to study philosophical and methodological discussions about the status of the art sciences, as well as the processes of institutionalization of scientific art criticism in State Academy Artistic Sciences.
CONTENT
Gustav Shpet, GAKHN and the intellectual environment of the 1920s.
Victor Molchanov. From pure consciousness to a social thing. Semantic and conceptual aspects of the problem “I” by Gustav Shpet
I. Chubarov. The problem of subjectivity in the hermeneutic philosophy of G.G. Shpeta
Alexander Dmitriev. How was the “formal-philosophical school” created (or why did Moscow formalism not take place?)
N.K. Gavryushin. The concept of “experience” in the works of G.G. Shpet (preliminary notes)
Ekaterina Velshezova, Tatyana Shchedrina. Charles Bally and Gustav Speth in a Russian-European scientific conversation (an experience in reconstructing the “archive of the era”)
Gavryushin. Raynov and GAKHN. Addendum: T.I. Raynov and G.G. Shpet: correspondence about the “internal form of the word”
Galin Tikhonov. Gustav Shpet in the mirror of Georgy Florovsky (1922-1959)
Nadezhda Podzemskaya. “The return of art to the path of theoretical tradition” and “the science of art”: Kandinsky and the creation of the State Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Appendix: Abstracts to the report by V.V. Kandinsky “The Science of Art and INKHUK” (1920)
Nikolai Plotnikov. Criticism of the Russian mind. Notes on the new edition of “Essay on Russian Philosophy” by G.G. Shpeta
Articles
Nikolai Plotnikov. “Everything that is real is rational”: The discourse of personality in Russian intellectual history
Heiner Schwenke. Theory of knowledge as the basis of ontology. A New Look at the Philosophy of Gustav Teichmüller
Victor Molchanov. I am Form in the philosophy of ghostly consciousness of Vladimir Solovyov
E.A. Pribytkova. In search of the “ethical minimum”: G. Jellinek, E.F. Hartman, Vl. Soloviev
Publications and messages
M.A. Kolerov. Youthful diary of P.B. Struve (1884)
Heiner Schwenke. International philosopher: On the scientific archive of Gustav Teichmüller (1832-1888) in Basel
S. Bulgakov. [Rec.:] Book. Evgeny Trubetskoy. The Philosophy of Nietzsche (1904)
BUT. Lossky. Lipps and Geffding. Two reviews from the magazine “Book” (1906-1907)
Nina Dmitrieva. The image of a Russian neo-Kantian in letters (1905-1909). Enclosures: Letters from A.V. Kubitsky to B.A. Fohtu. Letters from B.A. Fochta to L.F. Maklakova-Nelidova. Letter from D.V. Viktorova to B.A. Fochtu
M.A. Kolerov. On the place of philosophy in “Russian Thought”: from the letters of A.A. Kiesewetter to P.B. Struve (1909-1910)
M.A. Kolerov. Department for V.F. Erna: letter to S.L. Frank to V.F. Ernu (1917)
L.F. Katsis. A.A. Meyer vs A.3. Steinberg (from comments on Russian-Jewish disputes of the 1920s)
D. Chizhevsky. On topics in the philosophy of history / Translation and commentary by V. Yantzen
G.D. Gurvich. Russian philosophy of the first quarter of the 20th century (1926) / Translation by I.I. Blauberg
Inscripts by S.N. Bulgakova (i8g6-1912), Yu.V. Klyuchnikova (1923), G.G. Shpet (1928), P.B. Struve (1911-1942), V.V. Zenkovsky (1955)
Inscripts by S.N. Durylina, V.N. Figner, I.A. Ilyina, N.K. Medtner, L.M. Lopatina, V.V. Vasnetsova, V.A. Kozhevnikova, B.L. Pasternak, M.V. Nesterov and others from the funds of the Memorial House Museum
S.N. Durylina in Bolshevo (1904-1955)
Criticism and bibliography
M.K.: New about S.L. Franke and S.N. Bulgakov in the magazine “Liberation” (1903-1905)
K. Farajev: Kollegen - Kommilitonen- Kampfer. Europaische Universitaten im Ersten Weltkrieg / Hg. von Trude Mauerer. Stuttgart, 2006
Roman Mnikh: The legacy of Dmitry Chizhevsky and the problems of the humanities in Ukraine: notes on the publication of the collection of philosophical works of D. Chizhevsky
I.V. Borisova: Briefly about the books: Ivan Kireevsky, Religious and Philosophical Society in St. Petersburg, Chizhevsky (2007)
N.K. Gavryushin: Personality. The language of philosophy in Russian-German dialogue / Ed. N.S. Plotnikov and A. Haardt with the participation of V.I. Molchanov. M., 2007
M.A. Kolerov: Empire and religion. To the 100th anniversary of the St. Petersburg religious and philosophical meetings of 1901-1903. Materials of the All-Russian Conference / Ed. A.V. Karpov, A.I. Tafintsev., 2oo6
M.A. Kolerov: Collection “Milestones” in the context of Russian culture / Rep. ed. A.A. Tahoe-Godi, E.A. Tahoe-Godi. M., 2007
