Konstantin Aksakov: biography, activities and interesting facts. “History has gone the wrong way”

The eldest son of Sergei Timofeevich and Olga Semyonovna, nee Zaplatina, b. March 29, 1817 in the village of Aksakov, Buguruslan district, Orenburg province; died on December 7, 1860. K. S. Aksakov grew up under the influence of an ardent, straightforward mother who passionately loved everything native and a good-natured, enthusiastic father. K. S. Aksakov’s mother was filled with the most heroic and patriotic aspirations, which she instilled in her sons from childhood.

Thus, he combined, according to his brother Ivan Sergeevich, “with the moral qualities of his mother, the aesthetic taste and love of his father’s literature.” At the age of four, K. S. Aksakov learned to read from his mother, and his first book to read was “The History of Troy.” He retained exceptional affection for his parents until the end of their lives. “Between childhood and adulthood,” says I.S., “for almost everyone there is a whole abyss.

He (i.e., K.S.), on the contrary, had no break with infancy in his soul and heart.

The mind has matured, enriched with knowledge, but in moral terms there has been no change: the same purity of soul and body, the same faith in people. This was greatly facilitated by the fact that until the last year of his life he lived with his father and mother and was never separated from them." K. S. Aksakov read a lot in childhood, and this reading included all the works of the then classical literature, starting with Kheraskov, Knyazhnin, Lomonosov.

Raised at home until he was 15 years old (he lived in the village until he was nine years old, and from 1826 he settled with his father in Moscow and lived there constantly for almost his entire life), he studied with Venelin Latin language, Dolgomostev’s Greek, Frolov’s geography.

K. S. Aksakov especially loved reading Russian history and in his games he, together with his brothers and sisters, depicted various episodes in their faces. From the age of 12, his literary talent was evident in him: in his dramatic and historical games he either inserted poems of his own composition, or, being carried away by reading chivalric novels and having established a squad of warriors known to the boys, he read to them stories of his composition about the adventures of the “squad of young people” who loved ancient Russian weapons." The enthusiastic boy, who remained this way throughout his life, filled with ardent love for Russia, the Russian people and Moscow, quickly grew up in the world of literature and art, surprising everyone with his talent.

In 1832, at the age of 15, he entered the literature department of Moscow University, which was then going through a significant time, being at the turn of a completely new era, a sharp change in the professoriate and student body.

Whole line young professors - Pavlov, Nadezhdin, Shevyrev, Pogodin - brought a new spirit to university teaching; on the other hand, circles began to form among students that were engaged in clarifying moral, philosophical, political and historical issues.

During K. S. Aksakov’s stay at the university (1832-1835), two circles were formed, which included: Stankevich, the poets Satin, Krasov and Klyushnikov, Ketcher, Belinsky, K. S. Aksakov himself and others - in a word, almost all members after some time of a united circle known in history latest literature under the name "Stankevich's mug". In the mid and late 30s, this circle, directly or indirectly, was joined by: Granovsky, Turgenev, Koltsov, Vasily Botkin, Katkov and others. In 1833-1840, K. S. Aksakov was influenced by Stankevich and Belinsky and indulged in the study German philosophy in general and Hegel in particular, which he talks about in detail in his "University Memoirs" (Day, 1862, Nos. 39-40). His passion for Hegel's teachings was reflected even in his master's thesis on Lomonosov, which appeared in 1846 After the death of Stankevich and before Belinsky left for St. Petersburg (in 1839), K. S. Aksakov became close to Khomyakov, Kireevsky, Samarin.

With Belinsky, who betrayed right-wing Hegelianism and began to preach opposite views, he exchanged several letters - and they ceased relations forever (Belinsky’s letters to K. S. Aksakov were published in Rus in 1881). In general, the life of K. S. Aksakov is not rich in external events, and after the break with Belinsky it passes rather monotonously until the death of the head of Slavophilism in 1860. Therefore further biography, and perhaps his entire biography, is mainly the history of his course literary development, the history of its scientists and literary works. Having settled in Moscow, K. S. Aksakov only went abroad in 1838, from where he returned five months later.

As noted above, he began his literary activity with poetry.

The first printed work was poetry read at a university ceremony in 1835 by an 18-year-old candidate who had just completed his course.

Following this, he took a fairly active part (sometimes under the pseudonym K. Evripidina) in those magazines in which Belinsky collaborated - "Telescope", "Molve" and "Moscow Observer". K. S. Aksakov posted here short reviews, as well as poems, mainly from Schiller and Goethe. Later, without giving up poetry, he began to publish poems in the Moscow Collection, Russian Conversation and Rumor. After his death, many of his poems were published in Den, Rus and Russian Archive. In the early thirties, K. S. Aksakov wrote a dramatic joke in verse, in 3 acts, with an epilogue: “Oleg near Constantinople!” (it was published in 1858). This joke was a parody of the so-called skeptical trend in Russian historiography, whose representative was prof. M. T. Kachenovsky.

Both this comedy and two other dramatic works by K. S. Aksakov - “The Liberation of Moscow in 1612”, a drama in 5 acts, which appeared in 1848 and was played only once in December 1850 at Leonidov’s benefit performance, and then removed from the repertoire, and the comedy "Prince Lupovitsky", written in 1851 and published in 1856 in the appendix to the "Russian Conversation", and in 1857 in Leipzig - have purposes not artistic, but didactic and are generally important for characterizing those or other views of the author.

The same can be said about his original poems, in which he is constantly a publicist.

In 1842, K. S. Aksakov entered the critical field with an article published in a separate brochure: “A few words about Gogol’s poem: Chichikov’s Adventures, or Dead Souls” and in “Moskvityanin” of the same year, in No. 9, he responded to the analysis of this brochure, made by Belinsky.

Then three critical articles K. S. Aksakov on literature, with the signature Imrek, appeared in the “Moscow Collection” of 1846: 1) about the collection of gr. Sollogub “Yesterday and Today”, 2) about the book by prof. Nikitenko "Experience in the history of Russian literature"; 3) “On the St. Petersburg collection” by Nekrasov, - and then, already in the fifties, several articles in “Russian Conversation” - “Review of Modern Literature”, 1857, Vol. I, “About the story of Mrs. Kokhanovskaya After dinner at a party,” 1858, book. 4, “On Kroneberg’s translation of the chronicle of Tacitus,” ibid., - and one big one in “Rumor” - “On the Works of Zhukovsky,” 1857, No. 11. In “Russian Conversation,” which began publishing in 1856, K. S. Aksakov was one of the most active employees, and in 1857 he edited the weekly newspaper "Molva", where he published many small articles.

In 1847, he defended his dissertation entitled: “Lomonosov in the history of Russian literature and the Russian language,” submitted for a master’s degree in Russian literature.

The most important and significant works of K. S. Aksakov, historical and philological, in which his views reached their full development, date back to the fifties.

These works were included in the unfinished complete collection of his works, of which the first volume, like others, also edited and with a preface by I. S. Aksakov, appeared in 1861, the second in 1875 and, finally, the third in 1880 The first volume consists of 27 articles on Russian history, most of which were not published during the author’s lifetime.

So, by the way, here for the first time appeared an article about “The Heroes of Prince Vladimir”, prepared for the “Moscow Collection” of 1853, which was resumed back in 1852 (when K. S. Aksakov’s article “On the ancient life of the Slavs in general and Russians in particular"). But this volume was banned by censorship in in full force, an order was given to “all the main participants - the Aksakov brothers, Prince Cherkassky, Khomyakov, Kireevsky - to publish their articles in no other way than by passing them through the Main Directorate of Censorship in St. Petersburg” and, in addition, all employees of the collection were placed under police supervision (see. "Russian Archive", 1878, No. 11, story by the editor of the "Collection" I. S. Aksakov).

Among the historical articles, reviews of volumes I, VI, VII and VIII of Solovyov’s “History of Russia”, “On the ancient life of the Slavs in general and Russians in particular”, “A brief historical outline of zemstvo councils”, “On the state of the peasants in ancient Russia", "Concerning the Belevskaya Vivliofika, published by N. A. Elagin" and others. In these articles, K. S. Aksakov developed his original views that the structure of the original Russian life was not tribal, but community-veche, that the Russian state was not formed by conquest , as in the West, but by a voluntary calling of power, and that the Russian people sharply separated the concept of land from the concept of the state, resorting to the latter only to preserve the first, that the Russian people walked the path of inner truth and therefore ancient Russian life, in moral sense, achieved high perfection; that, finally, the Russian people have a special, high and unparalleled position in world history as a bearer of Christian virtues. Volumes II and III are occupied by philological works, with the entire third devoted to “The Experience of Russian Grammar”; in volume II, special attention is paid to the critical analysis of “The Experience of Historical Grammar of the Russian Language” by F. I. Buslaev.

Scholarly criticism in the person of I. I. Sreznevsky ("Izv. Imp. Acad. Sciences", 1860, vol. 9, issue I) places the philological works of K. S. Aksakov lower than his historical works.

In conclusion, we should also name a number of journalistic articles published in “Russian Conversation” and in “Molva” during the author’s lifetime, and in “Rus” after his death.

In "Conversation" - "On the Russian View", 1856, book. I and II, and "Notes on folk story about the hawkmoth", 1859, book 6; in "Rumor" - regarding the article by V. Lamansky "On the dissemination of knowledge in Russia", 1857, No. 10, "Comments on Dahl's article on popular literacy", ibid. , No. 35, a series of editorials.

Of the posthumous articles, the note “On the Internal State of Russia”, published in “Rus”, 1881, Nos. 26-28, was especially remarkable, submitted in 1855 through Count Bludov to Emperor Alexander II, who had just ascended the throne. K. S. Aksakov died of consumption on the island of Zante (one of the seven Ionian islands), where he arrived accompanied by his brother, Ivan Sergeevich, in the summer of 1860. To characterize the moral personality of K. S. Aksakov, N. Bitsyn’s memories of him are especially important, appeared in the Russian Archive. “N. Bitsyn” is the pseudonym of Nikolai Mikhailovich Pavlov, the author of many historical and critical articles, an employee of “Rus”, now living on his estate in Kashira district; He placed his memories of Aksakov in No. 4, 1885, of the Russian Archive. “Essay on the family life of the Aksakovs” in the appendix to the first volume of letters from I. S. Aksakov. - Vengerov, “Critical-Biographical Dictionary”, vol. 5, 6 and 7; on page 201 of the fifth issue there is a bibliography of biographical and critical articles on various works.

To evaluate the entire activity of K. S. Aksakov, the following articles are important: N. Kostomarova - “On the importance of criticism.

Works of K. Aksakov on Russian history" ("Russian Slovo", 1861, No. 2, pp. 1-28), "Moscow Slovenia" ("Contemporary", 1862, Nos. 1 and 2), K N. Bestuzhev-Ryumina - "Slavophil teaching and its fate in Russian literature" ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1862, Nos. 1, 2 and 3), preface by I. S. Aksakov to three volumes of his brother's complete works. A. Pypina - “Characteristics of literature. opinions from 1820 to 1850", his own - "Konstantin Aksakov" ("Bulletin of Europe", 1884, Nos. 3 and 4), Op. F. Miller - "The Teaching of the Initial Slavophiles ("Russian Thought", 1880, No. 1). S. Trubachev. (Polovtsov) Aksakov, Konstantin Sergeevich (1817-1860) - famous Slavophile publicist, son of Sergei Timofeevich and brother of Ivan Sergeevich A. In the 30s, while still a student at Moscow University, A. joined Stankevich’s circle, about 1840 moved to the circle of Khomyakov and others. External life A. it all comes down to participation in circle disputes and literary activities, very diverse: A. worked in Russian. history and philology, and also wrote journalistic and critical articles, poems and dramas. A.'s socio-historical views are in close connection with the sentiments of that part of the corvée landowners of the 40-60s, who were interested in the reform of serfdom on capitalist principles, but at the same time were afraid of the results of the development of industrial capitalism and associated with it the intensification of the class struggle.

For A. Russia and Europe are two different worlds: Russian history is in no way similar to Western European history.

In Russian history, instead of class struggle, as in the West, A. sees a desire for “consent” and “Christian humility.” The Russian people as depicted by A. are not a state people, not a political one.

He grants full power to the government voluntarily recognized by him, and reserves for himself “freedom of spirit and life” and “the power of opinion.” This interpretation of history was prompted by the class instinct of the local nobility: trembling before a possible popular revolution, they sought to create the belief that the Russian. history is not characterized by revolutionary paths and that the landowners are guaranteed through the entire course of the historical process against attacks by the peasantry on autocratic power.

This also explains A.’s indignation at Hegel’s dialectics, the revolutionary significance of which he well understood.

The features of the “Russian spirit” are best expressed, in A.’s opinion, in the community created by the Russian people since time immemorial, which A. understands as “a union of people who renounce their egoism” - a union based on “ moral law"This admiration for the community expressed in hidden form the views of certain circles of landowners.

Landowners, mainly in central and eastern Russia, in the years preceding the reform of 1861, placed special hopes on the rural land community.

They hoped that after the legal liberation of the peasants, the community with its mutual guarantee could be easily and reliably used to ensure that the landowner received a surplus product from the liberated peasants.

The positive significance of the historical theory of A. lies in the fact that, while highlighting the independent activity of the land, it denied the primacy of the state in the historical process, which was attributed to state power by B. Chicherin and S. Soloviev.

A. made an attempt to apply his theory to political practice in his “Note on the Internal State of Russia,” which he submitted to Alexander II in 1855: he recommends that the Tsar maintain his autocracy completely inviolable and only from time to time convene a “Zemsky Sobor” to find out the opinion "earth". But this opinion should have only an advisory value and is not at all mandatory for the king. Usually the government can find out the opinion of the people from the press, which must be given relative freedom.

Under the conditions of an autocratic regime, the press - in A.'s scheme - was supposed to serve as a means for identifying the “needs of the people” (read: landowners and social groups adjacent to them) before the “Zemstvo Tsar”. His philological works are also full of the same ideas that permeate A.’s journalism: he tries, despite the facts, to prove the complete originality of Russians. language and folk poetry, and therefore his research has no scientific significance. A. is more curious as a literary critic, since he was long before the journalism of the 60s. proclaimed the purely service significance of art, which he completely subordinates to public interests.

Having a negative attitude towards the political struggle, A. did not intend, however, to abandon such a powerful instrument of power over the masses as art.

A.'s own poetic works do not show his artistic talent: his poetry is a rhymed presentation of journalistic themes common to his entire Slavophile worldview.

Lit.: Aksakov K.S., Complete. collection works, 3 vols., M., 1861, 1875, 1880; Vengerov, S. A., Leading fighter of Slavophilism.

Essays on Russian history. lit., St. Petersburg, 1907; Kostomarov, N. I., On the significance of the historical works of K. S. Aksakov in Russian. history, St. Petersburg, 1861; Pypin, A.P., Characteristics of literary opinions from the 20s to the 50s; Vengerov, S. A., Critical-biographical. Russian dictionary writers and scientists, vol. 1, St. Petersburg, 1889; Pokrovsky, M.N., Russian history in the most concise essay (additional essay “Who and how was Russian history written before the Marxists,” in 2nd and subsequent ed.). M. Klevensky.

Aksakov Konstantin Sergeevich- Slavophile philosopher, historian, writer, poet. From 1832 to 1835 he studied at the philological faculty of Moscow University. He was a member of N.V.’s circle. Stankevich. In 1847 he defended his master's thesis "Lomonosov in the history of Russian literature and the Russian language." He believed that Western Christianity had lost its “inner truth” because it subordinated life to coercion and legal norms. Only the Slavs preserved “true Christianity” and communal life, but the balance of Russian society was disrupted by Peter I. Orthodoxy and the communal system will lead to the elimination of class and national contradictions. He used Hegel's dialectics to substantiate the main provisions of Slavophilism, and criticized materialism for its atheistic conclusions. He turned to Alexander II with a “Note on the internal state of Russia,” in which he accused the government of despotism and suppression of freedom.

Kostya Aksakov was born on March 29, 1817 in the village of Aksakov, Buguruslan district, Orenburg province. He died on December 7, 1860 on the island of Zante.

The biography of Konstantin Aksakov is not rich in external facts, but the general structure of his personal life with early childhood to the grave reveals a lot about his worldview and attitudes towards the main issues of Russian life. The eldest son of Sergei Timofeevich not only grew up, but spent his entire life in a typical family environment. Undoubtedly, the influence of his father was significant, distinguished by his depth of feeling, warmth and vividness of imagination, his “Russian direction,” his optimistic attitude towards the life of the landowners, and his artistic and archaeological passion for old Moscow.

Deep affection for his father is the strongest feeling in Aksakov’s personal life: grief after the death of Sergei Timofeevich undermined his health and brought him to his grave 1.5 years later. From his mother, Olga Semyonovna, née Zaplatina, Konstantin inherited, perhaps, what distinguished him from the passive, more contemplative nature of his father, the fighting energy in defending his views: Olga Semyonovna was the daughter of a captive Turkish woman.

Until the age of 9, Kostya Aksakov grew up in the village of Aksakov-Bagrovo, then Nadezhdin-Parashin, which was the end of his personal communication with the peasantry, which left a number of gratifying and lively impressions for the rest of his life, which Aksakov liked to refer to in disputes with opponents of his direction.

Since 1826, Konstantin Aksakov has lived almost constantly in Moscow, far from meeting the real conditions of everyday struggle and the harsh features of everyday reality. An attempt to travel abroad in 1838 was spoiled by a lack of habit of living independently and taking care of one's own needs. Unable to bear the boredom of life's little things, he barely survived five months away from his father's house. These features significantly illuminate his individuality as an idealist theorist.

In 1832, fifteen-year-old Konstantin Aksakov entered the literature department of Moscow University and graduated as a candidate in 1835. His student years connected him with Stankevich's circle, the high idealistic mood of which deeply captured Aksakov. “Seeing,” he later wrote, “the constant intellectual interest in this society, hearing constant speeches about moral issues, once I met, I could not tear myself away from this circle and absolutely spent every evening there.”

Together with his friends, Konstantin Aksakov plunged into the study of German philosophy, in particular Hegel. But strong family tradition, which had become second nature, was not slow to put Aksakov in conflict with the reckless rationalism of the Russian Hegelians. The general view of Russian life and Russian literature that had developed in the circle, “mostly negative,” and the constant “attacks on Russia, excited by official praise for it,” amazed Konstantin and, according to his own testimony, caused him pain.

But this discord led to a break only later. While in the Stankevich circle the “negative” direction was expressed mainly in literary issues and was relegated to the background by idealistic “beautifulness”, while, then, the members of the circle experienced a period of “right” Hegelianism and “reconciliation with reality”, Konstantin Aksakov lived with them common life, which left a trace of spiritual personal sympathy for opponents with whom it was necessary to wage an irreconcilable and principled struggle full of mutual intolerance. This connection was broken after the death of Stankevich and Belinsky’s departure to St. Petersburg (1839), when Belinsky, having taken his passion for right-wing Hegelianism to the extremes of the “Borodin Anniversary,” experienced a sharp turn towards passionate criticism of Russian reality. At this time, Konstantin Aksakov became close to another circle of senior founders of Slavophilism: the Kireyevskys and Khomyakov. Theoretical basis K. Aksakov accepted their teachings ready-made; they perfectly corresponded to the moods and sympathies that his father’s home and personal character. The same traits, brought up in Aksakov by the influence of his father, determined the place he occupied in the circle of Slavophiles.

The artistic and archaeological fascination with ancient Russian life and the uniqueness of national life in general, the deep moral need for a positive, sympathetic attitude towards national life made Konstantin Aksakov a historian of the Slavophile school. The significance of Aksakov in the development of Slavophilism lies precisely in the fact that he, more than anyone else, put this teaching in close connection with the understanding and assessment of the specific features of Russian historical life. In all his literary activities, Konstantin Aksakov develops a view of Slavophile ideals as the real foundations of Russian life in its past and present, welcoming and preaching a positive attitude towards it both in science and in artistic creativity. The implementation of these ideals seemed to him a return to antiquity, still alive in the depths of the masses. And he understood this return figuratively, attaching, together with his father, great importance to appearance, which “makes the tone of life,” liberation from “Western fashion.”

Aksakov believed that the Russian people are superior to all other peoples precisely because universal principles and the “spirit of Christian humanity” are most developed in them. Western nations are suffering national exclusivity or its opposite - cosmopolitanism, i.e. denial of the national principle; both are wrong.

He said the following about the state: “Even before Christianity, ready to accept it, anticipating its great truths, our people formed within themselves the life of a community, which was later sanctified by the adoption of Christianity. for him (the people) the opportunity to live this social life. Not wanting to rule, our people want to live, of course, not in one animal sense, but in a human sense. Not seeking political freedom, they are looking for moral freedom, freedom of spirit, social freedom - folk life inside yourself."

"Outside the people, outside public life, there can only be a person (individo). Only a person can be an unlimited government, only a person frees the people from any interference in the government. Therefore, a sovereign, a monarch is necessary here. Only the power of a monarch is unlimited power. Only with unlimited power, the monarchical people can separate the state from themselves and rid themselves of any participation in the government, from any political significance, giving themselves a moral and social life and the desire for spiritual freedom. Such a monarchical government is what the Russian people have set for themselves. This view of the Russian person is the view of man free. Recognizing the state's unlimited power, he retains his complete independence of spirit, conscience, and thought."

The goal of the people is as follows: “Peter, they will say, exalted Russia. Indeed, he gave her a lot of external greatness, but he struck her inner integrity with corruption; he introduced into her life the seeds of destruction and enmity. And he accomplished all the external glorious deeds and his successors with the forces of that Russia, which grew and strengthened on ancient soil, on other principles. Until now, our soldiers are taken from the people, the Russian principles have not yet completely disappeared in the transformed Russian people, subject to foreign influence. So, the Petrine state is winning with the strength of pre-Petrine Russia; but these forces are weakening, for Petrine influence is growing among the people, despite the fact that the government began to talk about the Russian people and even demand it. But in order for a good word to turn into a good deed, you need to understand the spirit of Russia and stand on Russian principles rejected since the time of Peter.

The external greatness of Russia under the emperors is certainly brilliant, but external greatness is lasting when it flows from the internal. It is necessary that the source is not clogged and not depleted. - And what kind of external shine can reward for internal goodness, for internal harmony? What external fragile greatness and external unreliable strength can be compared with internal solid greatness, with internal reliable strength? An external force can exist while the internal, although undermined, has not disappeared Aksakov If the inside of the tree has completely decayed, then the outer bark, no matter how strong and thick, will not stand, and at the first wind the tree will collapse, to everyone’s amazement. Russia lasts for a long time because its internal, durable strength has not yet disappeared, constantly weakened and destroyed; because she hasn’t disappeared into it yet pre-Petrine Russia. So, inner greatness is what should be the first main goal of the people and, of course, the government. Current state Russia represents internal discord, covered by shameless lies. The government, and with it the upper classes, moved away from the people and became strangers to them. Both the people and the government now stand on different ways, on different principles. Not only is the opinion of the people not asked, but every private person afraid to speak his mind. The people have no power of attorney for the government; The government has no confidence in the people."

Aksakov’s social program: “There are certain internal ulcers in Russia that require special effort for healing. Such are the schisms serfdom, bribery. I do not offer my thoughts about this here, because this was not my goal when composing this note. I am pointing here to the very foundations of the internal state of Russia, to what constitutes main question and has the most important general action all over Russia. I'll just say that true relationship, in which the state will become to the land, that public opinion, which is given progress, reviving the entire organism of Russia, will have a healing effect on these ulcers, especially on bribery, for which the publicity of public opinion is so terrible. Moreover, public opinion can point out remedies against the evils of the people and the state, as well as against any evils. May the ancient union of the government with the people, the state with the land, be restored on the solid foundation of true indigenous Russian principles! The government has unlimited freedom to rule, which belongs exclusively to it; the people have complete freedom of life, both external and internal, which is protected by the government. To the government - the right of action and, therefore, of law; to the people - the right to opinion and, therefore, words Aksakov Here is the Russian civil system! Here is a single true civil structure!

Major works: Complete collection essays, "About modern man", "Early Slavophiles. A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs."

This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding Russian philosopher, playwright, linguist and poet. Konstantin Aksakov lived only 43 years.

He was a prominent figure in the Slavophil movement in Russia at the beginning - mid-19th century. His views, which included granting rights to the rural community, were progressive for his time, overshadowed by serfdom. From his grandfather, a Suvorov general, Konstantin inherited personal qualities: patriotism and ardor.

Childhood, youth

The Aksakov family descended from a Varangian who served to the Kyiv princes. Even in pre-Petrine Rus' there were nobles, “sovereign people.” On March 29, 1817, Konstantin was born in the village of Aksakovo, Orenburg province; his childhood years were associated with the estate of his father, Sergei Timofeevich, a writer and literary critic. From the pen of a parent came wonderful tales"Town in a snuffbox", " The Scarlet Flower" Konstantin had younger brothers Ivan and sister Vera, they were friends with each other.

The Aksakov family adhered to old Russian traditions in everyday life. Konstantin was brought up in the spirit of hospitality and a broad life. In 1826, the Aksakovs moved to Moscow.

Student years

Konstantin Aksakov received his secondary education at the Pogodina boarding house. Even as a teenager, his thirst for knowledge and literary talent manifested themselves. The young man was an idealist, an impractical and unmercantile person. At the age of fifteen he entered the literature department of Moscow University, the department of professors Pobedonostsev and Nadezhdin.

During his student years, the future publicist, together with Vissarion Belinsky, Ivan Turgenev, Vasily Bakunin, Vasily Botkin, participated in the circle of German philosophy of the writer Stankevich, then in the society of Slavophiles Samarin and Khomyakov. The atmosphere of these meetings was depicted in the novel “Rudin”. Young people were disgusted by the atmosphere of official pseudo-patriotism; they looked for simplicity and sincerity in philosophy. Myself from my student days to last days Aksakov called him a “Slavophile and a Hegelian.”

Konstantin Sergeevich's master's thesis was a study on the place of Lomonosov in Russian literature. The censorship committee did not accept it for a long time, forcing the student to make edits. From a young age, the aspiring critic began to have problems with official censorship. Aksakov's inquisitive analytical mind was highly appreciated, and he was offered an academic career in Kyiv. However, the young man had no intention of leaving Moscow.

Poetry

Konstantin Aksakov published his first poems in the magazines “Domestic Notes”, “Telescope”, “Moscow Observer”. Aksakov’s poetry cultivated the ideals of romanticism characteristic of Goethe; his contemporaries liked it due to its lightness of sound and differences from power-worshipping odes.

His readers remembered images of Russian nature, philosophical themes, and expressions of human feelings.

Half a century later, the poets Fet and Tyutchev will continue the theme of naturalistic poetry, the foundations of which were laid by Konstantin Aksakov. His poems - “Stream”, “Elegy”, “Thoughts”, “Thunderstorm”, “Winter is Coming” - are both sublime and simple. The poet knows how to write from the heart and about small homeland, and about love. In his poems one can feel the comfort of a country house and the charm of Russian nature. His poems “A.V.G.” and “Heavy on the Soul” are sincere and simple.

Later, P. I. Tchaikovsky wrote music for one of his modified poems. The result was one of the most popular children's songs in the 19th century.

Aksakov's prose

The novels and stories of Konstantin Aksakov are written in the spirit of romanticism and with undeniable talent. Working on them, the Slavophile turned either into a philosopher or into a lyricist. For example, in the story “Hawk Moth” he created a picture Last Judgment very much over the deceased worthy person, not a drunkard, but a hawkmoth.

The story “The Cloud” is interesting for its artistic concept. In it, we first meet the spiritual and dreamy youth Lotharius Grunenfeld, who spends time contemplating nature. Then he appears before the reader as a young man, no longer so sinless. Lothar had forgotten how to see the good in people; indifference affected his feelings. But when a girl met in his life who fell in love with him, everything superficial seemed to be washed away by the bright memories of childhood about spiritualized nature, about the high clear sky with clouds.

Writing plays

In the 40s, Konstantin Aksakov created several works for the theater. Konstantin Sergeevich wrote dramatic works under the pseudonym Evripidin, among them “Prince Lupovitsky”, “Liberation of Moscow”, “Mail Coach”.

In the drama “Liberation of Moscow,” Konstantin Sergeevich showed the main role of the people in the liberation of the capital from the Polish conquerors. This performance was banned immediately after its premiere at the Maly Theater. However, Aksakov was a mediocre playwright, his plays were speculative, their ideological content prevailed over artistry. They were not particularly popular with the public.

Literary criticism

Field literary criticism turned out to be more successful for Aksakov. Konstantin Sergeevich wrote about what worried his contemporaries - the educated people of Russia. He published a brochure based on N.V. Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls,” where he wrote about the epic nature of the work, about the veracity of its depiction of the landowner psychotypes Nozdryov, Manilov, and Sobakevich. However, Aksakov considers the most important thing in Nikolai Vasilyevich’s poem to be “Russianness,” “the spirit and image of a great, powerful space.” He also mentions the amazing artistic power and the metaphorical nature of Gogol’s image of the eternal Russian song, which, without stopping, forever flies over a huge power, heard now in one place, now in another.

Aksakov in the magazine “Moskovityanin” debated Nikolai Vasilyevich on the same work. His counterpart considered the weakness of the work “Gogol’s attempts to appear as a national prophet,” and called the lyricism of the poem inappropriate. Konstantin Sergeevich, for whom the people's idea was always the first and most important, could not remain silent in such a situation.

Historical journalism

In 1847-1852. From his pen, reviews of Professor S. M. Solovyov’s “History of Russia” were published. They feel a reverent attitude towards the fate of the Motherland as a living memory, a messenger of antiquity, a teacher of life. Aksakov’s journalistic work comments on “History” so deeply that they were studied at the same time in gymnasiums. However, if with his article the hero of our story popularizes Professor Solovyov, then in poetic form he is already making fun of him in a friendly manner:

Ideologist of the Slavophil movement

At the end of the 40s, the Moscow house of the Aksakovs was known as a literary salon, which was visited by Turgenev, Gogol, Pogodin, Belinsky, Zagoskin.

At the age of 38, Konstantin Sergeevich Aksakov wrote a memoir, “Memoirs of Students,” as well as “On the Internal State of Russia.” In these works, the critic presented his views on the social and governmental structure of the Motherland. He believed that the primary social community for Russia is the peasant community. The Slavophile political platform was based on the concepts of “land” and “state”, with the help of which a special historical path Russia.

Aksakov saw antagonism between the state royal power and the zemstvo (social) principle. Konstantin Aksakov defined the imperial power only as the function of “protecting people’s life” and protection. According to Konstantin Sergeevich, essential requisites Russian society there must be sovereign rights of the people: press, speech, opinion. Moreover, they cannot be limited or regulated by the state.

“History has gone the wrong way”

The views of Slavophiles on the history of Russia expressed the opinion of its tragic break by Emperor Peter I, who artificially elevated the state above society. It was in this unnatural status of an idol power that Konstantin Aksakov saw the future plagues of Russian society: bribery, serfdom, church schism.

Aksakov outlined his views in a letter to Alexander II, who subsequently issued a decree on the abolition of serfdom and thereby earned the epithet “Liberator.”

Criticism of Western democracy

The works of Konstantin Aksakov, in particular the article “Voice from Moscow” of 1848, deny the value of the revolutionary experience of Europe for Russia. He criticized the experience of Western democracies for the “deification of government” and excessive politicization of public life. The fundamental interest of Russian society, according to Aksakov, lay in the field of spiritual and religious.

Another of his works - “On the Russian View” - dots all the I’s in the “national - humanistic” problem. The publicist substantiates the right of cultural and social sovereignty of the Russian people, who have the right not to copy Western democracy. It is noteworthy that the philosopher and writer put his pro-Russian position into practice. He, a resident of the capital, wore a beard and dressed in a zipun and a yarmulke (a peasant winter hat).

last years of life

It would seem that life was good. Aksakov Konstantin Sergeevich enjoyed authority in scientific, political and literary circles. His biography testifies to many like-minded people. The Aksakov House is still a fashionable Moscow literary salon. It includes Leo Tolstoy, Taras Shevchenko, Ivan Turgenev...

Everything collapsed in one day. In 1859, Aksakov’s father, Sergei Timofeevich, died. The son suffered the loss extremely hard, being mentally attached to his parent. Having naturally good health, he simply became emaciated, weakened and fell ill with tuberculosis. A year and a half after the death of his father, Konstantin Sergeevich Aksakov died while undergoing treatment on the Mediterranean island of Zant.

He was buried in the cemetery of the Simonovsky Monastery, next to his father’s grave. In the 20th century, the Aksakovs were reburied at the Novodevichy cemetery.

Conclusion

Konstantin Aksakov went down in history as a convinced Slavophile. His biography (brief in our presentation, but so rich in reality) contains information about many eccentricities. He rejected the Western in his everyday life, and at the same time wore peasant attire, which in the 19th century had almost gone out of use. His friends made fun of him, but they understood: this was very important for Konstantin Sergeevich. His reasoning and views were characterized by communal morality. He advocated the return of incorruptible moral values destroyed by the imperial power to the public life of Russia.

At the same time, the philosopher and writer was unhypocritical, principled and honest. The Hegelian and Slavophile Aksakov did not recognize either imperial or pro-Western ideology. People, and even his opponents, respected and appreciated him. He did not write epoch-making works, like Leo Tolstoy, Nikolai Gogol, Ivan Turgenev, but he was a faithful and reliable friend to all of them. Konstantin Aksakov, sensitively and deeply understood, was a famous linguist, one of the most prominent specialists in the field

The meaning of AKSAKOV KONSTANTIN SERGEEVICH in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia

AKSAKOV KONSTANTIN SERGEEVICH

Aksakov, Konstantin Sergeevich, one of largest representatives "Slavophile" direction. Born on March 29, 1817 in the village of Aksakov, Buguruslan district, Orenburg province, died on December 7, 1860 on the island of Zante. A.'s biography is not rich in external facts, but the general structure of his personal life from early childhood to the grave reveals a lot about his worldview and attitudes towards the main issues of Russian life. The eldest son of Sergei Timofeevich not only grew up, but spent his entire life in a typical family environment. Undoubtedly, the influence of his father was significant, distinguished by his depth of feeling, warmth and vividness of imagination, his “Russian direction,” his optimistic attitude towards the life of the landowners, and his artistic and archaeological passion for old Moscow. Deep affection for his father is the strongest feeling in A.’s personal life: grief after the death of Sergei Timofeevich undermined his health and brought him to his grave 1 1/2 years later. From his mother, Olga Semyonovna, nee Zaplatina, A. inherited, perhaps, which distinguished him from the passive, more contemplative nature of his father, the fighting energy in defending his views: Olga Semyonovna was the daughter of a captive Turkish woman. Until the age of 9, A. grew up in the village of Aksakov-Bagrovo, then Nadezhdin-Parashin, which was the end of his personal communication with the peasantry, which left a number of gratifying and lively impressions for the rest of his life, which A. liked to refer to in disputes with opponents of his direction. Since 1826, A. has lived almost constantly in Moscow, far from encounters with the real conditions of everyday struggle and the harsh features of everyday reality. An attempt to travel abroad in 1838 was spoiled by a lack of habit of living independently and taking care of one's own needs. Unable to bear the boredom of the little things in life, A. barely survived five months away from his father’s house. These features significantly illuminate his individuality as an idealist theorist. In 1832, fifteen-year-old A. entered the literature department of Moscow University and graduated from the course as a candidate in 1835. His student years connected him with the Stankevich circle, the high idealistic mood of which deeply captured A. “Seeing,” he later wrote, “the constant intellectual interest in this society, hearing constant speeches about moral issues, once I met, I could not tear myself away from this circle and absolutely spent every evening there." Together with his friends, A. plunged into the study of German philosophy, in particular Hegel. But the strong family tradition, which had become second nature, was not slow to put A. in conflict with the reckless rationalism of the Russian Hegelians. The general view of Russian life and Russian literature that had developed in the circle, “mostly negative,” and the constant “attacks on Russia, aroused by official praise for it,” amazed A. and, according to his own testimony, caused him pain. But this discord led to a break only later. While in the Stankevichevsky circle the “negative” direction was expressed mainly in literary issues and was relegated to the background by idealistic “beautifulness”, while, then, the members of the circle experienced a period of “right” Hegelianism and “reconciliation with reality,” A. lived a common life with them, which left a trace of spiritual personal sympathy for opponents with whom we had to wage an irreconcilable and principled struggle full of mutual intolerance. This connection was broken after the death of Stankevich and Belinsky’s departure to St. Petersburg (1839), when Belinsky, having taken his passion for right-wing Hegelianism to the extremes of the “Borodin Anniversary,” experienced a sharp turn towards passionate criticism of Russian reality. At this time A. became close to another circle - the senior founders of Slavophilism: the Kireyevskys and Khomyakov. A. accepted the theoretical foundations of their teaching ready-made; it perfectly corresponded to the moods and sympathies that his father’s home and personal character nurtured in him. The same traits, brought up in A. by the influence of his father, determined the place he occupied in the circle of Slavophiles. The artistic and archaeological fascination with ancient Russian life and the uniqueness of national life in general, the deep moral need for a positive, sympathetic attitude towards national life made A. a historian of the Slavophile school. The significance of A. in the development of Slavophilism lies precisely in the fact that he, more than anyone else, put this teaching in close connection with the understanding and assessment of the specific features of Russian historical life. In all his literary activities, A. develops a view of Slavophile ideals as the real foundations of Russian life in its past and present, welcoming and preaching a positive attitude towards it both in science and in artistic creativity. The implementation of these ideals seemed to him a return to antiquity, still alive in the depths of the masses. And he understood this return figuratively, attaching, together with his father, great importance to appearance, which “makes up the tone of life,” liberation from “Western fashion.” A. grows a beard, walks around in a blouse and a murmolka. The ban on this clothing, the order to shave off the beard - leads the Aksakovs to despair: “the end of hope for turning to the Russian direction! " - A.'s literary activity is very diverse in form: poetry, comedies, philological studies, literary critical and historical articles. The poems that A. wrote throughout his life are not poetry. These are didactic poems that develop one or another idea Long before the 1860s, A. argued that “the social element... is an essential element of our literature,” especially in such as his generation was experiencing, “eras of quest, research, laborious eras of comprehension and decision.” general issues". And his poems are a call and a sermon. In 1843, “Return” was written, with the call: “it’s time to go home,” to Moscow Russia. The poem “Peter” expresses a reproach to the converter for violence against Russian life and the belief that the Russian people will be reborn in his originality “with his ancient Moscow - and life will take a free course." These are all of A.’s poems: for the study of his views this material is no less important than his articles. A complete collection of them, as well as a complete collection of A.’s works in general, does not exist Such are the dramatic works of A.: “Liberation of Moscow in 1812”, “Prince Lukovitsky”; devoid of literary merits, they clearly express the tendencies of A. The essence of the first is in the speeches of the representative of the zemshchina Prokopiy Lyapunov, expressing A.’s views on the importance of the people, the land - against the boyars; the essence of the second is in the idealization of the views and life of the peasantry, as opposed to the insignificance of the landowner society. - Among A.’s philological works, the dissertation for the master’s degree in Russian literature stands out (1846; debate - in 1847): "Lomonosov in the history of Russian literature and the Russian language." This work is a tribute to the views of the Hegelian period; in it we find justification for the Petrine reform as “a decisive liberation from an exclusive nationality, a decisive transition to another, higher sphere"from antiquity, "already devoid of life inside." The rest of A.'s philological works set the task of an "original view" of the Russian language, freeing it from being subsumed "under the forms and rules of foreign grammar." - A.'s literary critical articles begin with small reviews in "Telescope", "Rumor" and "Moscow Observer" of the late 1830s. His established views are expressed in later articles: "A few words about Gogol's poem: The Adventures of Chichikov or Dead Souls"(department, M., 1842), which caused controversy between A. and Belinsky (A.'s answer in "Moskvityanin" 1842, ¦ 9); in reviews signed "Imyarek" in "Moscow Writer and Scientific Collection", 1846 year; in "Russian Conversation" for 1857 ("Review of Contemporary Literature") and 1858 ("About the story of Mrs. Kokhanovskaya: "After dinner at a party"); in "Rumor" for 1857. In criticism, the main idea of A. is the condemnation of “imitation”, the demand for “independence in mental and life.” And his criterion leads to a preference between Kokhanovskaya and Turgenev, because Turgenev “does not look directly at an object and a person, but observes and copies,” while Kokhanovskaya does not analyze, but gives “a healthy breath of whole life.” A. writes to Kokhanovskaya that she is “the first Russian artist who took not a negative, but a positive attitude towards Russian life,” and not artificially, like Grigorovich, but freely and wholeheartedly. Therefore, for A. Kokhanovskaya’s story, together with “Family Chronicle” by S.T. Aksakov, “begin to be themselves new era in literature." The same criterion is the root of the duality of A.'s relationship with Gogol: they expected him to reveal an artistic and positive attitude towards Russian life, but he remained " greatest writer Russians who had not finished their word, which was already rushing into a new area." - The most important area of A.’s literary heritage historical works: a number of articles and notes. Regarding "History of Russia" S.M. A. Solovyov expressed the idea that “at the present time, given the state of historical science, the history of Russia is impossible”; he reproached the author for the fact that “he builds Russian history very easily and quickly, while it is not yet known when the time will come for it”; For now, it’s time for “research, research, preparatory processing.” A. did not expect, however, the accumulation of materials and monographs and also “built Russian history” - not in systematic work, but in a holistic view of the main features of Russian historical development. Denying the possibility of a coherent presentation of Russian history, he put forward a number of broad generalizations that flowed from a ready-made doctrine, illustrated by historical references. He contrasted the theory of tribal life with the theory of communal life in the articles: “Was a tribal or social phenomenon an outcast?” (“Moskovskie Vedomosti”, 1850, ¦ 97) and “On the ancient life of the Slavs in general and the Russians in particular” (“Moscow Collection”, vol. I, 1852), with the conclusion that “the community was always... . the basis of Russian social order", and that "the Russian land is from the very beginning the least patriarchal, the most family-oriented and the most public (namely communal) land." Denying any role of violence in the formation of both ancient princely and Moscow state power, A. explains the "voluntary recognition of power" by the fact that that the Russian people, “having separated from themselves the government of the state ... left themselves a public life and instructed the state to give them the opportunity to live this social life"(1855 note "On the internal state of Russia"). The dualism of the land and the state, their opposition, strongly rooted in the consciousness of Russian society of the Nicholas times, seems to A. to be an essential feature of both political life and the Russian worldview: "the state has never deceived us people themselves... Our people did not want to put on state power, but gave this power to the sovereign chosen by them and appointed for that purpose, wanting to stick to their inner, vital principles." This feature is a consequence of the Russian people’s preference for the path of “inner truth” and its disdain for the "external truth" established by compulsory law. A. represents the ideals of the communal system of all life and the ways of "internal truth" as the primordial foundations of national Russian life, fundamentally opposed to the foundations of the historical life of Western Europe, which built its life on violence, coercion, individualism and " external truth" of the formal law, which covered the lie of internal relations. High moral value “Russian” principles makes the Russian people the bearer of universal human ideals, God’s chosen people: “Russian history can be read like the lives of saints,” since, “at least according to the aspiration of their lives,” the Russian people have always preserved the “Christian-human” spirit. Peter the Great forcibly violated Russia's loyalty to the high national principles of its life and the correct development of these principles. But only the upper strata of Russian society were transformed by Peter; the people remained “on the root”, in it “Russia remained in its original form.” And this upper layer has nothing to bring to the masses. A. imagines them as powerful in spirit and life, bearers of “that common humanity that the great Slavic and specifically Russian nature will reveal” to the whole world. The sharp opposition of the historically powerless noble intelligentsia to the people in the teaching of the Slavophiles and, especially, A., undoubtedly had its influence, like the doctrine of the community, on the development of Herzen’s populist views, and through him - on later populism. All of A.’s activities, no matter what forms it takes, boil down to the development and promotion of certain views on the essence of Russian national life, to a call to return to its suppressed beginnings. What is most necessary for the triumph of these principles, A. outlined in the note “On the internal state of Russia,” submitted through Count Bludov to Emperor Alexander II in 1855: “The government has imposed moral and vital oppression on Russia; it must remove this oppression”; it must return to the basic principles of the Russian civil system, "namely: to the government - unlimited state power, to the people - complete moral freedom, freedom of life and spirit; to the government - the right of action and, therefore, the law; to the people - the right of opinion and, therefore, speech ". Freedom of speech - “oral, written and printed always and constantly” - A. considered the highest and sacred good for the country. It is important and necessary for the government to know popular opinion and, for this purpose, to convene elected representatives from all classes and from all parts of Russia to zemstvo councils. But the sovereign may or may not accept the council’s opinion. The people should not interfere in government affairs: otherwise they “betray their path of inner spiritual freedom and truth and will certainly become morally corrupt.” This is A.’s political ideal - the result of his spiritual work. - See: S.A. Vengerov, “Critical-biographical dictionary of Russian writers and scientists,” vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1889; his, “Essays on the history of Russian literature” (1907); Kostomarov, “On the significance of the historical works of K. Aksakov on Russian history", St. Petersburg, 1861; Pypin, "Characteristics of literary opinions from the 20s - 50s"; "History of Russian ethnography", vol. II; Koyalovich, "History of Russian self-consciousness"; Milyukov, "Sergei Timofeevich Aksakov "(in the collection of articles "From the history of the Russian intelligentsia"); N.N. Platonova, "Kokhanovskaya", St. Petersburg, 1909. A. Presnyakov.