And with hamsters a short biography. Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov. His life and writings. The philosophy of the national revival of A.S. Khomyakov
31. General characteristics and main ideas of Slavophilism (Fr. Khomyakov, I. Kireevsky).
Slavophilism as a current of social thought appeared in the early 1840s. Its ideologists were writers and philosophers A.S. Khomyakov, brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, Yu.F. Samarin and others.
The efforts of the Slavophiles were aimed at developing a Christian worldview based on the teachings of the fathers of the Eastern Church and Orthodoxy in the original form that the Russian people gave it. They over-idealized Russia's political past and the Russian national character. The Slavophils highly valued the original features of Russian culture and argued that Russian political and social life has developed and will continue to develop along its own path, different from the path of the Western peoples. In their opinion, Russia is called upon to revitalize Western Europe with the spirit of Orthodoxy and Russian social ideals, as well as to help Europe resolve its internal and external political problems in accordance with Christian principles.
Philosophical views of Khomyakov A.S.
Among ideological sources of Khomyakov's Slavophilism, Orthodoxy stands out most fully, within which the idea of the religious and messianic role of the Russian people was formulated. The thinker at the beginning of his activity was under the significant influence of German philosophy, especially the philosophy of Schelling. The theological ideas, for example, of the French traditionalists (de Maistre, Chateaubriand, and others) also had a certain influence on him.
Formally not adhering to any of the philosophical schools, he especially strongly criticized materialism, describing it as "the decline of the philosophical spirit." The starting point in his philosophical analysis was the position that “the world appears to the mind as a substance in space and as the power of its time».
Comparing two ways of comprehending the world: scientific (“by reasoning”) and artistic (“mysterious clairvoyance”), he prefers the second.
Combining Orthodoxy and philosophy, A.S. Khomyakov came to the conclusion that true knowledge is inaccessible to a separate mind, torn off from faith and the church. Such knowledge is defective and incomplete. Only "living knowledge" based on Faith and Love can reveal the truth. A.S. Khomyakov was a consistent opponent of rationalism. The basis of his theory of knowledge is the principle of "conciliarity ". Sobornost is a special kind of collectivism. This is church collectivism. As a spiritual unity, the interest of A.S. Khomyakov to the community as a social community. The thinker defended the spiritual freedom of the individual, which should not be encroached upon by the state, his ideal is "a republic in the field of the spirit." Later Slavophilism evolved towards nationalism and political conservatism.
The first main feature of Khomyakov's philosophical work is that he proceeded from church consciousness when building a philosophical system.
Anthropology appears in Khomyakov as intermediate between theology and philosophy. From the doctrine of the Church Khomyakov deduces the doctrine of personality, which resolutely rejects the so-called individualism.. “An individual personality,” writes Khomyakov, “is a complete impotence and internal irreconcilable discord.” Only in a living and morally healthy connection with the social whole does a person acquire his strength; for Khomyakov, a person, in order to reveal himself in fullness and strength, must be connected with the Church. Khomyakov criticized the one-sided nature of Western culture. He is a religious philosopher and theologian. Combining Orthodoxy and philosophy, A.S. Khomyakov came to the conclusion that true knowledge is inaccessible to a separate mind, torn off from faith and the church. Such knowledge is defective and incomplete. Only "living knowledge" based on Faith and Love can reveal the truth. A.S. Khomyakov was a consistent opponent of rationalism. The basis of his theory of knowledge is the principle of "sobornost". Sobornost is a special kind of collectivism. This is church collectivism. As a spiritual unity, the interest of A.S. Khomyakov to the community as a social community. The thinker defended the spiritual freedom of the individual, which should not be encroached upon by the state, his ideal is "a republic in the field of the spirit." Later Slavophilism evolved towards nationalism and political conservatism.
Philosophy of Kireevsky I.V.
Kireevsky received a good education at home under the guidance of the romantic poet Zhukovsky.
Kireevsky is a champion of Slavophilism and a representative of its philosophy. In the departure from religious principles and the loss of spiritual integrity, he saw the source of the crisis of the European Enlightenment. He considered the task of original Russian philosophy to be the processing of the advanced philosophy of the West in the spirit of the teachings of Eastern patristics.. The works of Kireevsky were first published in 1861 in 2 volumes.
The dominant place in Kireevsky's work is occupied by the idea of the integrity of spiritual life. Exactly "holistic thinking" allows the individual and society to avoid the false choice between ignorance, which leads to "deviation of the mind and heart from true beliefs," and logical thinking, which can distract a person from everything important in the world. The second danger for modern man, if he does not achieve the integrity of consciousness, is especially relevant, Kireevsky believed, because the cult of corporeality and the cult of material production, being justified in rationalist philosophy, leads to the spiritual enslavement of man. Only a change in "basic beliefs", "a change in the spirit and direction of philosophy" can fundamentally change the situation.
He was a true philosopher and never in any way hampered the work of the mind, but the concept of the mind as an organ of cognition was entirely determined by his in-depth understanding that developed in Christianity. Kireevsky in his religious life really lived not only with religious thought, but also with religious feeling; his whole personality, his whole spiritual world were permeated with rays of religious consciousness. The opposition of genuinely Christian enlightenment and rationalism is indeed the axis around which Kireevsky's thought work revolves.. But this is not a confrontation between "faith" and "reason" - namely, two systems of education. He sought spiritual and ideological integrity, without separating the philosophical consciousness from the theological (but he strongly distinguished between revelation and human thinking). This idea of integrity was not only an ideal for him, but he also saw in it the basis for the constructions of the mind. It was in this plan that Kireevsky raised the question of the relationship between faith and reason - only their inner unity was for him the key to the whole and all-encompassing truth. In Kireevsky, this teaching is connected with patristic anthropology. Kireevsky puts the distinction between "external" and "internal" man as the basis of the whole construction - this is the primordial Christian anthropological dualism. From the "natural" mind, one must generally "ascend" to the spiritual mind.
Aleksey Khomyakov, whose biography and work are the subject of this review, was the largest representative of the Slavophile trend in science and philosophy. His literary heritage marks a whole stage in the development of socio-political thought. His poetic works are distinguished by the depth of thought and philosophical understanding of the development paths of our country in comparison with Western European states.
Briefly about the biography
Alexei Khomyakov was born in Moscow in 1804, into a hereditary noble family. He was educated at home, passed the exam for a candidate of mathematical sciences at Moscow University. Subsequently, the future philosopher and publicist entered the military service, was in the army in Astrakhan, then transferred to the capital. After some time, he left the service and took up journalism. He traveled, studied painting and literature. In the first half of the 19th century, the thinker became the ideologist of the emergence of the Slavophile movement in social and political thought. He was married to the sister of the poet Yazykov. Alexey Khomyakov fell ill while treating peasants during an epidemic, and he died from this. His son was the chairman of the III State Duma.
Era Features
The literary activity of the scientist proceeded in an atmosphere of revival of socio-political thought. It was a time when among the educated circles of society there were lively disputes about the ways of Russia's development, its comparison with the history of Western European countries. In the 19th century, there was an interest not only in the past, but also in the present political position of the state in the international arena. Indeed, at that time our country took an active part in European affairs, mastering Western Europe. Naturally, under such conditions, the intelligentsia arose an interest in determining the national, original path of development of our country. Many tried to comprehend the past of the country in the context of its new. These were the prerequisites that determined the views of the scientist.
Philosophy
Aleksey Khomyakov created his own unique system of philosophical views, which, in essence, has not lost its significance to this day. His articles and works are still being actively studied at historical faculties, and even at school, students are introduced to his thoughts on the features of the historical path of Russia's development.
The thinker's system of ideas on this topic is indeed original. However, first it should be noted what were his views on the world-historical process in general. His unfinished work Notes on World History is devoted to this. Aleksey Khomyakov believed that it was based on the principle of revealing folk principles. Each people, in his opinion, is the bearer of a certain beginning, which is revealed in the course of its historical development. In ancient times, according to the philosopher, there was a struggle between two orders: freedom and necessity. At first, European countries developed along the path of freedom, but in the 18th and 19th centuries they deviated from this direction due to revolutionary upheavals.
About Russia
Khomyakov Aleksey Stepanovich approached the analysis of the history of Russia from the same general philosophical position. In his opinion, the people's beginning of our country is the community. He understood this social institution not so much as a social organism, but as an ethical community of people connected by moral collectivism, a sense of inner freedom and truth. The thinker put moral content into this concept, believing that it was the community that became the material expression of the conciliarity inherent in the Russian people. Khomyakov Aleksey Stepanovich believed that the path of development of Russia differs from that of Western Europe. At the same time, he assigned the main importance to the Orthodox religion, which determines the history of our country, while the West moved away from this dogma.
On the Beginning of States
He saw another difference in the ways in which political systems were formed in society. In the Western European states the conquest of territories took place, while in our country the dynasty was established by calling. The author attached fundamental importance to the last circumstance. Khomiakov Alexei Stepanovich, whose philosophy laid the foundation for the Slavophile trend, believed that this fact largely determined the peaceful development of Russia. However, he did not believe that ancient Russian history was devoid of any contradictions.
Discussion
In this regard, he disagreed with another well-known and prominent representative of Slavophilism, I. Kireevsky. The latter, in one of his articles, wrote that pre-Petrine Russia was devoid of any social contradictions. Khomyakov Aleksey Stepanovich, whose books at that time determined the development of the Slavophile movement, objected to him in his work "Regarding Kireevsky's article "On the Enlightenment of Europe"". The author believed that even in ancient Russia, a contradiction arose between the zemstvo, communal, regional world and the princely, state principle, which was personified by the squad. These parties did not reach a final consensus, in the end the state principle triumphed, however, collectivism was preserved and manifested itself in the convocation of Zemsky Sobors, the significance of which, in the author's opinion, was that they expressed the will of the whole earth. The researcher believed that it was this institution, as well as the community, that would subsequently determine the development of Russia.
Literary creativity
In addition to philosophical and historiosophical research, Khomyakov was also engaged in artistic creativity. He owns the poetic works "Ermak", "Dmitry the Pretender". Of particular note are his poems of philosophical content. In them, the author clearly expressed his thoughts on the ways of development of Russia and the Western European states. He expressed the idea of a special, nationally original way of development of our country. Therefore, his poetic works are distinguished by a patriotic orientation. Many of them have a religious theme (for example, the poem "Night"). While praising Russia, he also noted shortcomings in its socio-political structure (the poem "On Russia"). In his lyrical works, there is also a motive for comparing the development paths of Russia and the West (“Dream”). The poems of Alexei Khomyakov allow us to better understand his historiosophical
The meaning of creativity
The role of this philosopher in the social and political life of Russia in the 19th century is enormous. It was he who became the founder of the Slavophile movement in our country. His article "On the Old and the New" laid the foundation for the reflections of a number of thinkers on the features of the development of history. Following him, many philosophers turned to the development of the theme of the national characteristics of Russia (the Aksakov brothers, Pogodin and others). Khomyakov's contribution to historiosophical thought is enormous. He raised the problem of the peculiarities of Russia's historical path to a philosophical level. Before, none of the scientists made such broad generalizations, although the author cannot be called a historian in the full sense, since he was interested in general concepts and generalizations, and not in specific material. Nevertheless, his findings and conclusions are very interesting for understanding the socio-political thought of the time under consideration.
On the day of memory (September 23 / October 6) of the great Russian Orthodox thinker, theologian, historian, poet, publicist, critic, founder of "classical Slavophilism" Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804-1860), we republish essay historian, publicist, teacher Valery Nikolaevich Lyaskovskiy (1858-1938).
This is the first monographic essay about A.S. Khomyakov.
V.N. Lyaskovskii graduated from the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of the Moscow University (1880), then studied at the Faculty of Philology. "Almost a boy" he met I.S. Aksakov, in the summer of 1876 helped him sort out the correspondence of the Slavic Committee, and was in warm relations with A.F. Aksakova (her letters to him are preserved in the archives), visited Aksakov's "Fridays", collaborated in the newspaper I.S. Aksakov "Rus".
From 1882 he served in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since 1884 he moved to his small Oryol estate "Dmitrovskoe-Istomino". In the neighborhood was the estate of Kireevka (Kireevskaya Slobidka), brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky (who died in 1856), where the widow of Ivan Vasilyevich, Natalya Petrovna (born Arbenev), lived. In 1898 V.N. Lyaskovsky bought Kireevka, preserved and sorted out the Kireevsky archive and wrote the first biographies about the founders of Slavophilism (Aleksey Stepanovich Khomyakov. His life and works // Russian archive. - 1896. - Book 3. - P. 337-510; Otd. ed. - M., 1897; Brothers Kireevsky. Their Life and Works. - St. Petersburg, 1899. - 99 p.).
After the revolution, V.N. Lyaskovsky lived in Orel, wrote his memoirs. Arrested (1937), died in custody.
Publication (abridged) especially for (according to the first separate edition: Lyaskovskiy V.N. A.S. Khomyakov. His life and writings. - M .: Univer. type., 1897.-VIII, 176, IIpp.) was prepared by Professor A. D. Kaplin. The author's page footnotes have been replaced with footnotes.
The division of the text in the Internet edition into 3 parts - by the compiler (while the author's division is preserved unchanged).
PREFACE.
Difficulty in the historical evaluation of a mental figure. - The need for a historical perspective in such an assessment. - Feature of Khomyakov's activity. - The attitude towards him and towards his supporters of the two ruling public parties. - The need for a correct assessment of Slavophilism. - The task of the proposed work. - His plan. - Purpose of the author.
The assessment of a historical figure is all the easier for contemporaries and posterity, the more sharply the circle of his activity is outlined and the more accessible the area of its understanding of the majority. The legislator and commander will be understood before the artist and thinker; because the work of the latter, although it may be deeper and more fruitful, is not so directly reflected in the external life of the people, does not immediately affect its daily course. The higher and more spiritual the work, the wider its grasp, the less it gives ready-made conclusions for immediate application, the more often the worker remains unnoticed and unappreciated. The labor of thought and spirit, the struggle of doctrine and words are not amenable to that easy, superficial perception, which is immediately accessible to everyone. Often a person has time to descend into the grave before they understand him; and often a truthful and impartial assessment does not soon come over his grave. And just as one who stands right next to a high tower sees only the stones of its foundation, and he needs to move into the distance in order to see its true size and beauty: so in the realm of the spirit we often do not understand the significance of a historical person, because we stand to him still too close. We need to move away from it in the course of time, it needs to move away for us into historical distance, so that we can understand it correctly.
Such was the man whose life and labors are depicted in the following. And this is not why we say this, starting a story about him, that by such an unfounded judgment we think in advance to elevate him in the opinion of the reader: such a device is only appropriate in a funeral oration, and not in a historical biography; Yes, such artificial methods of exaltation do not go to this person. Our goal is different: we would like to find out as far as possible the reason for the appearance of our work, its origin and purpose.
Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov lived a long time (fifty-six years) and in the second half of his life took such a prominent part in the intellectual life of his time, which even the opponents of his views never denied. But not only did he never enter the field of practical activity, but in his scientific and printed works he mainly touched on issues of the nature of the spiritual, eternal, only occasionally touching on current everyday affairs. Therefore, it is natural that his activity was not sufficiently appreciated during his lifetime and slowly finds appreciation after death. But this is not enough. This would explain such a late appearance of the first experience of his biography, and not only he, but, unfortunately, many other major Russian figures are in this position. There is another reason that slows down the impartial assessment of Khomyakov, a reason that worked in relation to him more than to anyone else.
Khomyakov and a few people close to him in terms of convictions (some of his peers, some of his students) were called Slavophiles by their literary opponents. This name, given partly in mockery, established itself behind them. People who are little familiar with the matter thought and still think that, according to the nickname, the whole essence of Slavophilism is in sympathy with foreign Slavs, in pan-Slavism; the more informed considered and still consider the separation of the Russian people (nationalism) as the main dogma of the Slavophiles; only a comparatively few who have read the writings of Khomyakov and others know that among the Slavophils, and especially among Khomyakov, the preaching of popular self-consciousness was the result of a whole set of religious convictions and historical views.
During the lifetime of the old Slavophiles (Kireevsky, Khomyakov, Samarin, Aksakov), they were opposed by Westernizers. Now, half a century after the controversy between these two schools of thought, we see again in our learned literary and social world two dominant trends, usually called liberal and conservative. It is customary to consider the representatives of the first to be the successors of the Westerners, the defenders of the second - the heirs of the Slavophiles. We will not dwell on the question of the succession of the Western liberal trend; on this point, both sides are fairly in agreement. The present view of Slavophilism appears quite differently! Over the course of several decades, many leaders of the so-called conservative trend found it convenient to date their views to the views of the Slavophiles, or rather, to use the Slavophil terminology. Such a striving was so strong that their opponents, the present-day liberals, began to look at Slavophilism with the same eyes with which they look at contemporary journalistic conservatism. On the other hand, the conservatives themselves never ceased somewhat to shun the Slavophiles, whose weapons they often used, secretly considering them also liberals, only of a different sort, almost even more dangerous... Thus, true Slavophilism was and remains equally distrustful. and suspicion in both, so to speak, officially recognized literary and public parties. This situation seems at first glance strange, but meanwhile its explanation is very simple. The point is that both of these so-called parties of ours, the liberals and the conservatives, are essentially Westerners to the same extent, that is, people who transfer Western European concepts of conservatism and liberalism to Russian soil. Therefore, they cannot relate differently to Slavophilism, which, of course, does not fit either of the two current standards; for its essence lies not in this or that political doctrine, but in the recognition of the Russian people, as the spokesman for the whole Orthodox-Slavic world, of their original principles, different from the principles of the West and often even opposite to them. Therefore, conservatives and liberals, although they are at enmity, understand each other; Neither one nor the other has ever fully understood the Slavophils, since they were judged by purely external signs, and not by the basic principles of their views, which they could not or did not want to discern. It is easy to verify this, if only by the fact that on some social issues the Slavophiles were ranked among the conservative camp, on others - in the liberal camp. Let such an attribution be purely external, accidental, inconsistent with the meaning of the activity of individual Slavophiles in this or that matter: it still happened, and the crowd does not judge anything except by appearance. And such a misunderstanding lasted not a year, not two, but for fifty whole years.
But every misunderstanding will eventually come to an end. The time has come to determine the place of Slavophilism in the history of the development of the Russian Enlightenment and, having summed up the legacy it left, to compare this legacy with what is now sometimes passed off as Slavophilic teaching or what is condemned as such. Attempts at such critical work are beginning to appear in the literature of both camps.
The compiler of the proposed article is far from thinking of giving an exact and definitive answer to such a broadly posed question: he only gives his own experience of solving it in a known way and within certain limits. This article is not a history of Slavophilism or an exposition of the Slavophil doctrine: it is a biography of Khomyakov and an exposition of his writings. The characteristics and presentation of the views of people close to Khomyakov are included in it only insofar as the connection with them serves to clarify his personality and teachings. In accordance with its task, the article is divided into two parts: the first tells the life of Khomyakov, the second sets out his teachings. In conclusion, the author sets out his personal views on the significance of Khomyakov and his case. The purpose of this division is as follows. No opinion is secured against errors, much less the opinion of a student (for the biographer does not even think of hiding such an attitude towards the thinker whose teaching he expounds). Therefore, he does not dare to call his study criticism. But even an opinion that is true in itself can arouse a dispute; and since the main goal of our work is representation, and not interpretation, we would like to put this very image out of the dispute, without mixing our personal opinions with it. Otherwise: we want to portray Khomyakov as he is, and not as he may seem to us. Of course, no researcher can completely renounce his own personality; but he must do it to the best of his ability. That is why we have separated, as far as possible, the objective part of our work from the subjective.
Offering a story about Khomyakov's life and an exposition of his writings, we then, on the basis of both, present our view of him, like any other, leaving the reader to verify this view or to form his own. Someone from the Western camp once said to the author:
“The real Khomyakov has been lost, there are now Khomyakov Aksakovsky, Samarinsky, Yuryevsky, Koshelevsky. Which of them is closer to the original, we do not know, and therefore we do not undertake to judge the genuine. This remark, of course, is a lot of exaggeration, but there is also some truth. The purpose of this work is to restore, if possible, the image of the original Khomyakov.
This goal is not polemical. The impossibility in places to completely avoid the polemical tone was very difficult for the author, and he made every effort to reduce the element of personal dispute in his work. The dispute of opposite directions of thought leads to the clarification of the truth; a dispute of personal vanities and accounts only obscures it. A calmly and firmly expressed opinion should not be taken as a challenge. One challenge is desirable in the name of truth: a challenge to the clarification of everything unclear, to the friendly, joint work of thought and word.
Part one.
Life of A. S. Khomyakov.
Origin, childhood and early youth.
In the middle of the 18th century, the landowner Kirill Ivanovich Khomyakov lived near Tula. Having buried his wife and only daughter, in his old age he remained a lonely owner of a larger fortune: in addition to the village of Boucharova with villages in the Tula district, Kirill Ivanovich also had estates in the Ryazan province and a house in St. Petersburg. All this ancestral wealth was to go after him, no one knows where; and now the old man began to think about whom to reward them with. He did not want his estates to come out of the Khomyakov family; I did not want to leave my peasants in the power of a bad person. And Kirill Ivanovich gathered a secular gathering in Boucharovo and gave the peasants their will - to choose for themselves the landowner they want, if only he was from the Khomyakov family, and whom the world chooses, he promised to refuse all the villages on his own. And so the peasants sent walkers to near and far places, which Kirill Ivanovich pointed out to them - to look for a worthy Khomyakov. When the walkers returned, a meeting again gathered, and by a general council they chose a cousin-nephew, their master, a young guard sergeant Fyodor Stepanovich Khomyakov, a very poor man. Kirill Ivanovich invited him to his place and, getting to know him better, he saw that the worldly choice was right, that his chosen heir was a kind and reasonable person. Then the old man bequeathed to him the whole estate and soon died, quite calm that his peasants remained in faithful hands. So a modest young landowner became the owner of a larger fortune. Soon the rumor about his thriftiness and about the order in which he brought his estates spread throughout the province. They began to tell that in the pantries he kept whole chests with silver and gold. When in 1787 Empress Catherine passed through Tula and advised the nobility to open a bank, the nobles answered her: “We don’t need a bank, mother; we have Fedor Stepanovich Khomyakov. He lends us money, takes the ruined estates into his temporary possession, arranges them and then returns them back.
Such was the Boucharovsky owner, beloved by the peasants.
The fortune saved and increased by Fyodor Stepanovich went to his only son Alexander, who was married to Nastasya Ivanovna Griboyedova. The son did not resemble his father. Rampant, unbridled in his hobbies, having no need to embarrass himself in anything whatsoever, he devoted himself entirely to the passion for feasting and hunting. Every autumn, around September 1, he left Boucharovo and spent a whole month in the field, ending the campaign with his Smolensk estate Lipitsy, which he received as a dowry for his wife. The consequence of such a life was that his son Stepan inherited disorderly affairs and debts.
Stepan Alexandrovich Khomyakov was a very kind, educated man who took an active part in the literary and intellectual life of his time, but not only not businesslike, but also disorderly by nature, in addition a passionate player. After retiring as a lieutenant of the guard, he married Marya Alekseevna Kireevskaya, a poor and middle-aged girl, but still a very beautiful girl. Living in Moscow, he lost more than a million in the English Club, which completely confused his already bad deeds. Then Marya Alekseevna herself took up the household and, thanks to her rare perseverance, managed to pay her husband's debts. In order to save her children's fortune, she, with the consent of Stepan Alexandrovich, transferred all the estates to her name.
Since then, husband and wife have lived apart, seeing each other occasionally: Marya Alekseevna with her children in Boucharovo and Moscow, and Stepan Aleksandrovich in Lipitsy. When he fell ill and, after several nervous shocks, fell into childhood, Marya Alekseevna took him to her place and carefully looked after him. In general, she was a wonderful woman, who combined a sensitive heart with the inflexibility of her convictions and will, which reached the point of severity and was sometimes expressed in very harsh actions. Here is what her son, who knew her best of all, wrote about her many years later: “She was a good and noble example of an age that has not yet been fully appreciated in all its originality, the age of Catherine. All (the best, of course) representatives of this time are somehow similar to Suvorov soldiers. Something in them testified to the strength of unwearied, unrepressed and self-confident. There was some kind of habit of wide horizons of thought, rare in people of later times. Mother had moral breadth and strength of spiritual convictions, which, of course, did not quite belong to that age; but she had his distinctive features, faith in Russia and love for her. For her, the common cause was always her private affair. She was sick, and angry, and rejoiced for Russia much more than for herself and her loved ones.
Stepan Alexandrovich and Marya Alexandrovna lived in Moscow on Ordynka, in the parish of George on Vspolye. Here, on May 1, 1804, their second son Alexei was born. In addition to him, there were two more children: two years older son Fedor and daughter Anna. Later, the Khomyakovs moved to their house on Petrovka, opposite the Kuznetsky Most, and sometimes spent the summer in Lipitsy, but mostly in Boucharovo. From here, during the invasion of Napoleon, Stepan Alexandrovich and his family went to his Ryazan estate, the village of Krugloye, Donkovsky district, where they lived in the winter of 1812-13, in the neighborhood of their close friend Praskovya Mikhailovna Tolstaya, the daughter of Kutuzov, from whom they could have accurate information about the course of hostilities. In memory of the successful deliverance from the enemy, Marya Alekseevna made a vow to build a church in Round; this vow was subsequently fulfilled by her son.
Moving to Donkov and staying there were the first major events in the life of eight-year-old Alexei. Although he, with his infantile mind, could not yet grasp the whole great meaning of the time he was experiencing, but, developed beyond his years, he should already have sensed it, and the ground for such a sense in his soul was ready. Khomyakov's children did not grow up like most of the children of the then prosperous nobility: instead of being alienated from Russian life and, most of all, from Russian antiquity, they could see living traces of it and fresh traditions at every step. The Boucharovsky house was full of these old things. Historical memories ascended in him not only to the time of Peter the Great, but also crossed a deep ditch dug by this time in the memory of Russian society. The boy knew that his ancestor Pyotr Semyonovich Khomyakov was Alexei Mikhailovich's favorite falconer, and could see the letters of the quietest tsar to him, preserved in their house. He knew and probably heard from eyewitnesses the wonderful story about how his great-grandfather, like another, popular choice, was elected by the people and called from afar to rule over Boucharov, and, of course, the idea of the rural world, of the importance of a worldly sentence, could not help but to take shape in his head more definitely and stricter than that of any other of his peers. That closeness to the people, which he used to feel in himself from childhood, was maintained and strengthened by the strongest of ties - the tie of faith and church communion. In the house of Khomyakov, under the direct influence of Marya Alekseevna, life went on in a purely Orthodox spirit, with strict observance of all fasts, rituals and customs of the church, which again was not often found in the then upper word of Russian society, saturated with all sorts of Western teachings: and freemasonry, and deism and atheism, everything, but not the Orthodox faith. Spending most of his childhood life among the Moscow shrines, the boy could not help but feel the real old Russian spirit, and when he heard from his Ryazan refuge that Moscow, which he had loved so much since he could remember himself, was sacrificed for the salvation of Russia, could the child Khomyakov, if not with his mind, then with a living understanding of his heart, fail to comprehend what was going on around him?
So all those concepts that he was destined, having matured, to express in a strict sequence of scientific research and to unite with a mighty wave of creative thought into one harmonious doctrine, all of them already stood in living images above his cradle. Under the influence of the exceptional conditions of place and time, the future thinker was born, and the wide freedom of Boucharov and especially Lipits, with closeness to nature, with the famous grandfather's and father's hunting, brought up the poet. Meanwhile, careful attention was paid to teaching, and above all to languages, and not only to French, but also to German, English and Latin. The latter was taught by the brothers Khomyakov, who lived with them, abbot Voiѵin. Once little Alexei came across a papal bull in some book. He found a typo in it and asked the abbot how he considered infallible a pope who made spelling mistakes, for which he was punished. This case suggests that theological questions were touched upon in conversations between the learned abbot and his pupil, and that these conversations served as the first impetus that directed the mind of the future theologian to the difference of confessions. As for the direct task entrusted to the abbot - teaching Latin, he performed it conscientiously, and the boy thoroughly mastered this language. He knew the Greek language poorly at the beginning and established himself in it only later, and also got acquainted with Sanskrit. Khomyakov knew the new languages perfectly.
At the beginning of 1815, the whole family of Stepan Alexandrovich left Lipitsy for St. Petersburg, because the Moscow house had burned down. On the way, the boy saw everywhere popular prints of George Cherny, and the image of the Serbian hero and stories about him crashed into his ardent imagination. At the same time, he and his brother dreamed that they were going to fight Napoleon. Therefore, when they heard about the Battle of Waterloo, Fyodor Khomyakov asked his brother: “Who are we going to fight now?” - "I will rebel the Slavs," answered the eleven-year-old Alexei. Petersburg seemed to them some kind of pagan city, and they expected that they would be forced to change their faith; but they firmly resolved to endure all sorts of torments, and not to accept someone else's law. It is impossible not to pay attention to all these small features in the life of a child: they largely explain the subsequent direction of his thoughts.
The Khomyakovs lived in St. Petersburg for about two years. There they were taught Russian literature by the dramatic writer Andrei Andreevich Zhandr, a friend of Griboyedov. The views of the latter, at that time new and completely independent, reached them in this way and, of course, did not remain without consequences. Reading Chatsky's monologues and remembering the dominant trend in society that these monologues denounce, we involuntarily see a certain connection between the protest expressed in Woe from Wit and the later Moscow trend, which Khomyakov was herald; and if we add to this that Griboyedov treated with some doubt the transformations of Peter the Great, then this connection will be even closer.
After St. Petersburg, the Khomyakovs lived in Moscow for three years in the winter, while both brothers completed their studies, studying together with Dmitry and Alexei Venevitinov under the guidance of Andrei Gavrilovich Glagolev, Doctor of Philosophy, who sewed in their house. Pavel Stepanovich Shchepkin, a university professor and friend of ST Aksakov, taught them mathematics, and Stepan Alexandrovich's rich library provided them with reading.
Between the brothers Venevitinov and Khomyakov, the closest friendship was established for life. How successful the study was, can be judged by the fact that the fifteen-year-old Alexei Khomyakov translated Tacitov's "Germany", and that this translation was published two years later in the "Proceedings of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature." The choice of subject indicates in part the direction of the translator's tastes. A similar trend can be noticed in his first poetic experiments. He began, apparently, here too with translations from Virginius and Horace. The latter's ode "Pareus deorum cultor et infrequens", in which divine omnipotence is glorified, he translated twice, in two different meters.
The first independent works of Khomyakov are no different from the ordinary poems of other contemporary poets. In the fable "Council of Beasts" there is a hint at the question of the difference between religions, but the young poet has not yet come to any definite conclusion. Around this time, Khomyakov began to write the tragedy Idomeneo, which he brought only to the second act. A little later, he passed the examination at Moscow University for the degree of Candidate of Mathematical Sciences.
At the same time, the struggle for independence was going on in Greece. Even in St. Petersburg, the Khomyakovs had connections with Count Kapodistria, while in Moscow they often had an agent, Filellenov Arbé, who had previously been the tutor of Fyodor and Alexei. the stories of Arbé inflamed his younger pupil, and he decided to run away to fight for the Greeks and raise the Slavs. With the help of Arbe, he obtained a false passport for himself, bought a boot knife, and collected fifty rubles in money, he left the house late in the evening, in a padded overcoat. But he did not manage to deceive the vigilance of his uncle Artemy, who had been watching him for a long time. After waiting for Alexei Stepanovich's return until midnight and not waiting for him, the old man sent for the master to the English Club. Stepan Alexandrovich immediately arrived home and, having obtained the truth from his eldest son, sent out a pursuit in all directions. Outside the Serpukhov outpost, the fugitive was overtaken and brought home. His father did not punish him, and only the older brother received a severe reprimand for not stopping the younger; they tried to give a safer direction to the militant inclinations of the young candidate, soon assigning him to military service, to the cuirassier regiment commanded by Dmitry Erofeevich Osten-Saken. A year later, young Khomyakov moved from there to the Horse Guards. The memory of the failed flight to Greece remains the "Message to the Venevitinovs", in which the poet dreams of glorious deeds, of the war for the faith and the liberation of Hellas. The unfinished poem "Vadim" dates back to the same time, glorifying the semi-historical hero of Novgorod so many times sung by the poets of that time.
The first friends of Alexei Stepanovich's youth, besides his brother Fyodor and the Venevitinovs, were his cousin, Marya Alekseevna's nephew, Vasily Stepanov. Kireevsky, Alexander Alekseevich Mukhanov, and then the comrades of the Venevitinovs in the Moscow Main Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky and Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev. Brilliant, highly gifted and serious beyond his years, Dmitry Venevitinov, who promised to be in the forefront of the mental figures of his time, was the focus of this friendly circle, made up of the best representatives of the then educated Moscow youth. All of them were zealous followers of German philosophy and supporters of Western enlightenment; but Khomyakov did not yield to them his strictly Orthodox and Russian way of thinking. In this regard, he immediately became friends with Kireevsky's younger brother, Pyotr Vasilyevich, whom he met a little later and whom he fell in love with passionately. The extraordinary purity of the soul of P. V. Kireevsky and his unshakable devotion to the original development of the Russian people could not fail to attract Khomyakov, who called him "the great sorrower for the Russian land."
Soon Alexei Stepanovich had to face completely different teachings and test himself in a different field of dispute.
Service in Petersburg. - Meetings with the Decembrists. - Trip abroad. - The tragedy "Ermak". - Return to Russia.
The resettlement of Khomyakov to Petersburg coincided with the height of the fermentation of minds, which led to the event of December 14, 1825. But the convictions and social ideals of the young cornet of the guard, which he had taken from home and from a multilateral education, established by the work of an early strengthened mind, were so definite that he immediately found himself among those theoretical and practical contradictions, from which many of his peers were unable to get out. Meeting with the Decembrists at his relatives Mukhanovs, he entered into heated arguments with them, arguing that of all revolutions the most unjust is the military revolution. Once, until late at night, he argued with Ryleyev, proving to him that the troops, armed by the people for their protection, do not have the right to dispose of the fate of the people at their own discretion. He assured Prince AI Odoevsky that he, Odoevsky, was not a liberal at all, but only preferred the tyranny of an armed minority to autocracy. But such views were too far from what was thought and said around to find an echo or sympathy; and even the twenty-year-old youth who expressed them still had to go through a lot and change his mind before coming out with a firmer and more definite sermon of the people. Passions, and diverse life aspirations, and doubts about the strength and meaning of his vocation were still seething in him. This vague struggle of a self-determining strong mind resulted in the poem “Desire for Peace“, written by him in 1824 in St. Petersburg, his first work of independent artistic significance. Among the irregularities of the style and youthful prolixities in this poem, the future Khomyakov is sometimes heard; so we present it in full.
Pour, pour boiling wine into a glass!
Like a quiet stream of water of oblivion,
My soul's cruel torment
It will quench for a while.
Let's go where joy breathes
Where a stormy whirlwind of fun is noisy,
Where is the voice of the soul, where the voice of passions is silent,
Where they do not live, but spend life and youth.
Among the fun games, at the joyful table,
For a moment drunk with false happiness,
I'm accustomed to dreams insignificant,
I will reconcile myself with fate with wine.
I will pacify the murmuring of the heart,
I do not order my thoughts to fly,
To the quiet heavenly radiance
I do not command my eyes to look.
This blue vault, studded with stars,
And the quiet silent night shadow,
And in the morning gates the day is born,
And the king of lights, hovering over the waters -
They are traitors! They, deceiving the eye,
Reawaken all the dreams of the imagination;
And a timid heart, asking oblivion,
Read in them a fiery reproach.
Leave me, gloomy enemy of rest,
To the high, to the beautiful love!
You've been thinking too long
Young worried about the blood.
Leave me! Magic words
You poured sweet poison into my chest
And following bright dreams
Mena was carried away from the world.
Satisfied with light and fate,
I could life's paths
Drag towards the fatal goal
With an unawakened soul.
I could share joy with the crowd,
I could pick earthly roses
I could shed earthly tears
And trust happiness in life ...
But you came. With a smile of contempt
You looked at the mortal race,
For their desires, pleasures,
For their impotent labors.
You delight me, treacherous friend,
Revealed a new world away
And the path is high, radiant
Over the vague twilight of the earth.
There is everything beautiful that the heart admired.
There everything is high, what my spirit fed on,
In the crowns of immortality was
And in the trail beckoned.
And you called. you sang sweetly
About unforgettable old times,
Crowns and glory promised
Promised me immortality.
And I believed. Charmed
Magic sound of your words,
I despised Bacchus the ruddy gift
And a cup of earthly joys.
But what? Say: for all the joys,
Which I am forever deprived
For a calm life, carefree sleep of the soul,
What awards have you given?
Dreams are vague, inspired by longing,
Your words, vows and lies
And thirst for happiness, and painful wounds
In a chest torn apart by fate.
Sorry....
But no! My spirit is on fire
Living, unquenchable fire,
And the forehead never shines
Peaceful beam of fun.
No no! I can't chain the blind goddess
A humble slave, drag with a smile.
Should the eagle forget its flight?
Give him wide deserts again,
His rocks, his dense forest!
He longs for battle and freedom,
He craves storms and bad weather
And the infinity of heaven.
Alas, vain dreams!
Take from me the fruitless heat of the heart,
My dreams, hopes, memories
And passion for glory, and chants a gift,
And feelings of lofty aspirations.
Take everything!
But just give me peace
The carelessness of former dreams of oblivion
And the silence of the soul, lost by me.
The real struggle was ahead, and now it was necessary to gather strength, put in order the thoughts swarming in my head; it was necessary for a while to get away from the hustle and bustle of the capital, to relax and think again. Probably for these reasons, hoping to see a lot and learn a lot, and to be with his brother, who served at the embassy in Paris, Khomyakov asked his parents for permission to retire and take a trip abroad. Stepan Alexandrovitch, always more pliable, immediately agreed to this; but Marya Alekseevna at first rebelled against her son's idea, and only the insistence of Fyodor Stepanovich, her mother's favorite, persuaded her to give her consent. Here is what Fyodor Stepanovich wrote to her on February 2, 1825 from Paris to Würzburg, where Marya Alekseevna was at that time for the treatment of her daughter. "J" ai reçu une lettre de mon père du 17 December; sa santé paraissait un peu rétablie. Il m "annonce avoir permis à mon frère de quitter le service. Pour moi je pense qu "Alexis ne peut faire mieux que de profiter de cette permission et de partir pour l"étranger. La perte d "un au de service n" est rien du tout dans les circonstances actuelles: il faut penser à l "avenir, et tous les jours je me raffermis dans la conviction, qu" avec le caractère de mon frère, un voyage à l "étranger lui est absolument indispensable en ce moment. Ce sera d" ailleurs le meilleur moyen pour rétablir sa santé; et quant aux dépenses, ellesne s "élèveront pas au quart de ce que lui aurait coûté la remonte. Je désirerais fortpour moi, et encore plus pour lui, qu" il vînt passer six à sept mois ici. Il vegète a Petersbourg. L "indolence, l" apathie de son caractère y rend inutile l "activité de son esprit; à Paris tout l" exciterait. Je vous écrirai incessamment sur ce même sujet, mais plus au long, et j "espère alors vous convaincre entièrement" .
Having received the consent of his mother, Khomyakov immediately retired and went abroad, where he spent about a year and a half, from the beginning of 1825 to the end of 1826. He no longer found his brother in Paris, since Fyodor Stepanovich was meanwhile transferred to serve in St. Petersburg.
In Paris, Khomyakov studied painting at the academy. Once, when no money was sent to him for a long time, he took an order for an altarpiece for a Catholic church, but he did not like this work so much that he immediately abandoned it as soon as he received money from home. In general, even in Paris, he retained his Orthodox mood and observed church rites so strictly that during the whole of Great Lent he managed not to be offended even once.
At this time, he wrote his tragedy “Ermak”, about which Pushkin gave the following review: “Ermak is a lyrical work of ardent youthful inspiration, it is not a dramatic work. Everything in it is alien to our morals and spirit, everything, even the most charming charm of poetry.
The external form, so to speak, the everyday shell of tragedy is very far from everyday historical reality; but behind this appearance, although it is not yet quite clear, one can already hear the popular, social and human ideals of the author. Having gone down in history as an independent dramatic work, "Yermak" is important for us in connection with the subsequent development of Khomyakov's thought. It was staged in St. Petersburg in 1829 and printed three years later. During Khomyakov's trip abroad, his small poems began to appear in magazines.
From Paris, after graduating from Yermak and having seen enough of the famous tragedian Talma, Alexei Stepanovich went to Switzerland, from there to northern Italy and through the lands of the Western Slavs returned to Russia. From this first trip abroad, he left a draft manuscript of a short article on architecture, in which, regarding the description of the Milan Cathedral, he asks himself the question of the origin of this art and comes to the conclusion that the original source of architecture was religion, and that the beginning of it should not be sought. among the imitative Romans, but among the peoples of the East, in Egypt and in India. Thus, already in this early period of his life, Khomyakov's eyes turned to the ancient East. The poem "Isola bella" is inspired by the memory of northern Italy.
Alexei Stepanovich, returning from abroad at the end of 1826, first of all stopped in Lipitsy to visit his father, who was always very tender towards him and was especially worried about his literary successes. From there he went to Bocharovo with the intention of helping his mother in housekeeping. But it was not easy to get along with Marya Alekseevna, and Alexei Stepanovich was then still too young to be able to be a submissive son in all the little things of life, in which he succeeded completely later. Their joint household did not go well, and after two months Khomyakov left for St. Petersburg to live with his brother. Here, the first heavy grief in his life awaited him: in March 1827, Dmitry Venevitinov died in a few days. Khomyakov lost in him a beloved friend, and Russia, perhaps, one of its strongest poets. A small book of poems published after his death is full of sparks of such fire, which burn the youthful works of only a very few chosen ones.
The trouble did not come alone: in the same year, Alexei Stepanovich buried another dearly beloved comrade: his cousin Vasily Kireevsky. This double grief, as well as two years spent in foreign lands, with constant studies in art, did not remain without a trace in the mood of the young poet. His poems of 1827 - 1828 sound incomparably greater depth of artistic intent and maturity of thought. Such, for example, is the poem "Youth".
Heaven give me hands
Mighty Titan!
I will seize nature
In fiery embraces;
I embrace nature
To a trembling heart
And she desire
Hearts will respond
Young love.
Everything in her breathes with passion,
Everything boils and shines
And nothing sleeps
Cold slumber.
On the ground are burning
Terrible wolves;
Rivers flow with noise
To the depths of the ocean;
And in the azure dispute
The waves crash violently
Stormy game.
Both land and sea
bright dreams,
Joy, hope,
glory and beauty
They give a mortal.
Stars in the blue sky
Chasing the stars
And in streams of light
Secret calling.
And centuries pass
And centuries will be born:
eternal struggle,
Flaming life.
Heaven give me hands
Mighty Titan!
I want nature
Like a passionate lover
Happy to hug.
In the poem "The Poet" is for the first time the power of verse, which distinguishes the later works of Khomyakov:
He raised his calm gaze to the sky,
And God's anthem in the soul arose,
The creation of a dead language.
At this time, Alexei Stepanovich painted a lot in the Hermitage and often visited the Mukhanovs, E. A. Karamzina and Prince V. F. Odoevsky. A. I. Koshelev tells about one evening at the latter’s: “We spent the evening at Prince Odoevsky’s, the three of us argued about the finiteness and infinity of the world, and imperceptibly our conversation lasted until three in the morning. Then the owner of the house reminded that it was already late, and that it was better to continue the dispute with him the next day. We got up, started to go down the stairs, continuing the argument; sat on the droshky, and yet they did not interrupt him. I took Khomyakov to his apartment; he got down, I remained in the droshky, and the argument went on as usual. Suddenly, a German woman who lived above the gate at which we stopped opens a window in her window and says quite loudly: “Mein Gott und Herr, was ist denn das?” (My God, Lord, what is it?) We burst out laughing, and that ended our argument.
Secondary service. - War of 1828 - 1829 - Moscow. - Arguing with friends. - Traces of Khomyakov's mood in his poems.
When the war with the Turks began, Fyodor Stepanovich Khomyakov was appointed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be under Paskevich in the Caucasus (where he died in the same 1828). Leaving Petersburg, he suggested that his brother also enter the diplomatic service with the army in the field. Aleksey Stepanovich at first agreed, but then changed his mind and again entered the military service, in the Belarusian Hussar Prince of Orange Regiment. At the beginning of May, he was already on the Danube, accompanied by his old uncle Artemy, who had once prevented him from escaping to Greece. Throughout the war, Khomyakov was an adjutant to General Prince Madatov, participated in many affairs and showed brilliant courage. Aleksey Stepanovich retained a grateful memory of Madatov and subsequently took an active part in compiling the biography of the prince, published by the officers who served under his command. From that time, the following letter from Khomyakov to his mother near Shumla has been preserved: “I received your letter and I see with surprise that the letters I wrote to you and the father from Russia, namely from Kyiv, on blue paper, for lack of white, with enclosed two little songs composed on the road (disappeared). I also wrote to you at the first station across the Danube, but I gave the letter to the post office near Silistria. I went there with the main apartment, then separated from it, joined the division and the prince, who received me very well, witnessed the glorious deed on May 30, where the vizier was so cruelly defeated by our commander in chief, and then the protagonist in the case of 31- where the division performed miracles, brutally beat the Turks, drove them to Shumla, took redoubts (a thing unheard of for cavalry) and banners and cannons abyss. I was on the attack, but although I swung a couple of times, I did not dare to cut down the fugitives, which I am now very glad about. After that I drove up to the redoubt to inspect it closer. Here, under me, my white horse was wounded, which I regret very much. The bullet went through both legs; however, there is hope that she will recover. Before that, she had already received a wound in the front shoulder blade with a saber, but this wound was completely empty. For that I was introduced to Vladimir, but due to various circumstances, not dependent on Prince Madatov, I received only s. Anna with a bow; however, and it is very possible to be satisfied. Deftly, I came here, just in time for the cases, one of which severely punished the pride of the Turks, and the other consoled our division for all the grief and labors of last year. However, I am cheerful, healthy and very pleased with Pashka.
In the camp near Bazardzhik on July 3, Khomyakov wrote the poem "Dream". The next year 1829 includes the poems "Sonnet", "Farewell to Adrianople" and "Blade". And so inspiration did not often visit him amidst the anxieties of military life; but for this, all three of the poems mentioned are distinguished by their strength and completeness of form.
As soon as hostilities ceased, Alexei Stepanovich took a leave of absence and came to Moscow, where that winter he was often seen at the balls of the Noble Assembly. However, he did not dance, although, according to eyewitnesses, the adjutant uniform suited him very well, and the ladies often chose him for the mazurka. At this time, he had to be a protagonist in a family celebration. A few years before, Marya Alekseevna brought from the Caucasus, where she went to the waters, a Circassian boy Lukman. He was brought up in her house and, when he grew up, was baptized on February 4, 1830 with the name Demetrius. His successor was Alexei Stepanovich. This young man, Dmitri Stepanovich Kadzokov, soon entered Moscow University and, coming to Bocharovo for summer vacations, enjoyed the constant friendship of his godfather, who gave him a significant part of his time.
At the conclusion of the Adrianople peace, Khomyakov retired and spent the summer in Boucharovo, reading constantly and a lot, doing housework and hunting, and in the winter he lived in Moscow.
That was the time when Russian educated society was going through one of its most significant transitional eras. Until recently, December 14, 1825, with its consequences, had just passed, and the direction of state policy was completely determined. In the field of literature, Pushkin reached the pinnacle of his fame, and Gogol had not yet appeared. German philosophy dominated the minds of Russian scientific youth. We have seen that Khomyakov previously belonged to that close circle of young philosophers whose center was the late DV Venevitinov; he returned to it even now, but he returned no longer as the ardent and unsteady young man he left Moscow seven years ago, but as a mature and independent thinker. Among the Schellingists, Hegelians and selfless adherents of Western enlightenment, his word was heard about the need for the original development of the Russian people, about the study of antiquity and a return to its precepts, about Orthodoxy as the basis of the Russian folk character, about the significance of the Slavic tribe in history and about the future world calling of Russia. It was a new word, hitherto unheard of. It sounded strange and wild to the vast majority of the then educated society, who called the Russian peasant a barbarian and identified the Orthodox faith with vegetable oil. And Alexei Stepanovich's closest listeners and friends held completely different views at that time. Only Pyotr Kireevsky adjoined Khomyakov; but he was not born to be a preacher by the cast of his mind and character, modest and shy. More gifted, his older brother was still far from the Orthodox-Russian way of thinking, which he later turned to. In 1832, he began publishing the European magazine, which was soon banned. Khomyakov published his poems in it. The place of constant gatherings of all this circle was the house of the Kireevsky's mother, Avdotya Petrovna, after Elagina's second husband.
There, at the Red Gate, those endless disputes began, which later, gradually escalating, led to a sharp separation of the two directions of Russian thought. But then these two currents were not yet fully defined; and the leader of the people's direction himself had to go through a lot more and gather around him new, young forces.
Meanwhile, remember that he was not yet thirty years old. His lively, impressionable nature was constantly carried away first in one direction, then in the other, and the more striking is the steady development of his convictions. In the poems of this time, such mood changes can be traced. Either an inner voice reproaches him for a momentary forgetfulness of his vocation (“Thoughts”), then self-doubt creeps into his soul (“Two Hours”):
But there is an hour of suffering for the poet,
When it rises in the darkness of the night
All luxury wondrous creatures
Before a thoughtful soul;
When it gathers in his chest
A whole world of images and dreams
And this new world is torn to life,
Strives for sounds, asks for words.
But there are no sounds in the poet's mouth,
The fettered tongue is silent,
And a ray of divine light
I didn't get into his vision.
Here he groans frenzied:
Phoebus the stingy does not heed him,
And the newborn world perishes
In the chest, powerless and dumb.
Then the recent battle images rise before him, and he is again eager for war ("Request"). But all these fleeting thoughts are dominated by one bright and stern mood of a believing soul, conscious of its imperfection:
I raise my eyes to the sky with a prayer,
I shed hot tears on sin.
I look into my heart: there is God's seal -
My sin was covered by the grace of the Creator (“From Saadi”).
In such a mood, the poem “For the Coming Sleep” was written, the end of which is, as it were, a prophecy:
Creator of the universe
Hear the pleading midnight voice!
When you have determined
My final hour will come
Send me an omen in my heart!
Then with a humble head,
Without cowardly grumbling,
I bow before the will of the saint.
To my humble abode
Let the destroying angel come
Like a guest I have long been waiting for!
My eye will measure the giant,
The chest will not tremble with fear,
And the spirit from the valley fog
Soar with a bold flight.
Finally, in Khomyakov's poetry, his all-Slavic ideas begin to have a more definite effect. Such is the “Ode”: from it one can see his view of our relations with the Poles, against whom he did not go to serve in 1830.
Offspring of fiery curses
May he be betrayed whose voice
Against the Slavs to the Slavic brothers
Swords handed in a criminal hour!
May battles be cursed
tribesmen discord,
And passed on to generations
Enmity senseless disgrace;
Let the legends be damned
Centuries of vanished deceit,
And a tale of vengeance and suffering -
Guilt of incurable wounds!
And the gaze of the poet is inspired
Already sees a new age of miracles:
He sees - proudly over the universe,
To the vault of blue skies
Slavic hordes take off
Broad, bold wing,
But the mighty head is bowed
Before the elder, the Northern Eagle.
Their union is firm, thunderbolts are burning,
Their law has dominion over the earth,
And future accordions strings
They sing harmony and peace.
The same thought, the same poetic image in the poem "The Eagle", which for the first time gained Khomyakov great fame among the Slavs:
You set your nest high
Slavs midnight eagle,
You spread your wings wide
You have gone far into the sky.
Fly! But in the mountain sea of light,
Where is the strength of the breathing chest
Warmed by rampant liberty,
Don't forget about younger brothers.
On the steppe of the midday edge,
Look to the far West:
There are many of them where the wrath of the Danube is,
Where the Alps are wrapped in a cloud,
In the gorges of the mountains, in the dark Carpathians,
In the Balkan wilds and forests,
In the networks of the treacherous Teutons,
In steel Tatar chains.
And the chained brothers are waiting,
When your call is heard,
When you are wings like hugs
Stretch over their weak head,
Oh remember them, midnight eagle,
Send them your ringing greetings,
Yes, they will be consoled in the slave night
Your freedom is a bright light!
Feed them with food the spiritual garden,
Feed on the hope of better days
And a treasure trove of consanguineous hearts
Warm with hot love.
Their hour will come: the wings will get stronger,
Young claws grow up
The eagles will scream - and the chain of violence
They will peck with an iron beak.
In June 1833, Alexei Stepanovich left Boucharovo for the Crimea, but was soon summoned from there to take his sick uncle Stepan Alekseevich Kireevsky to Moscow. In July of the following year, 1834, Khomyakov's father in Lipitsy suffered a nervous shock, after which Stepan Alexandrovich fell into childhood. He lived for two more years, died in April 1836 and was buried in Boucharovo.
Meanwhile, in the personal life of Alexei Stepanovich, a new period has begun, in order to clarify which we must touch on some aspects of his upbringing and character that we have not yet touched upon.
Her relationship with A. S. Griboyedov is not exactly known.
These words represent an almost literal translation of an English proverb; "The public business of England is the private business of every Englishman". Here, as elsewhere, Khomyakov's sympathy with English folk thought showed itself.
Translation. I received a letter from the priest dated December 17th. His health appears to have improved somewhat. He informs me that he has allowed his brother to retire. As for me, I think that Alexey will do the best if he takes advantage of this permission and goes abroad. The loss of one year of service does not mean anything under the present circumstances: one must think about the future; and every day I am more and more convinced that, given the nature of my brother, a trip abroad is now absolutely necessary for him. In addition, it will be the best way to improve his health. As for the costs, they will not even make up a fourth of the repair costs. I would very much wish for myself, and still more for him, that he come here for six or seven months. He lives in Petersburg. From the carelessness and apathy of his character, the activity of his mind is wasted, and in Paris everything would excite him. I will soon write to you about this, but in more detail, and then I hope to convince you completely.
Pushkin praises Khomyakov's lyrical poems in the preface to Journey to Arzrum.
The word is missing from the letter.
Read the biography of the philosopher thinker: facts of life, main ideas and teachings
ALEXEY STEPANOVICH KHOMYAKOV
(1804-1860)
Religious philosopher, writer, poet, publicist, one of the founders of Slavophilism. Orientation towards Eastern patristics was combined in Khomyakov with elements of philosophical romanticism. He spoke from liberal positions for the abolition of serfdom, the death penalty, freedom of speech, the press, etc. He was the author of the poetic tragedy "Ermak" (1832) and "Dmitry the Pretender" (1833).
The leader of the Slavophiles, AS Khomyakov, should rightly be recognized as one of the greatest Russian thinkers. A multifaceted man, philosopher, theologian, historian, publicist and poet, Khomyakov is a prominent figure in the 1840s. In the perception of contemporaries, Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov appeared to be at least a strange person.
In the famous literary salons of Moscow in the 1840-1850s, according to the memoirs of I. S. Turgenev, he "played the leading role, the role of Rudin." M. P. Pogodin was delighted: “What an extraordinary mind, what liveliness, an abundance in the thoughts that he had in his head, it seems to be an inexhaustible source, bubbling, in any case, right and left. How much information, the most diverse, combined with extraordinary gift of the word flowing from his lips in a living stream. What did he not know?
To some ill-wishers, this brilliant erudition seemed superficial and shallow. The historian S. M. Solovyov, for example, considered Khomyakov "self-taught" and "amateur." Such assessments were not completely unfounded. Khomyakov is indeed "self-taught", having received a home education. And indeed an "amateur", who showed himself unusually bright.
Even in his early youth, Khomyakov declared himself as a poet and playwright, won the recognition of connoisseurs and confidently took the place of a major poet of the "second rank" in the minds of his contemporaries. He had the talent of an artist (and even went to Paris to improve his painting), but left behind only a few excellent watercolors and drawings. The circle of Khomyakov's scientific interests strikes, first of all, with its unusual versatility, even "dispersion".
Philosopher and theologian, who gained fame in the West for his French pamphlets on Russian ecclesiastical wisdom. Historian and historiosophist, author of the voluminous Semiramis, unfinished and unpublished during the author's lifetime. A sociologist and jurist, who managed to publish the sharpest political articles in the censored press in the most remote Nikolaev time. An economist who developed practical plans for the destruction of serfdom back in the 1840s and later actively influenced the preparation of the peasant reform. Aesthetician and critic - literary, musical, artistic. A polyglot linguist who knew many ancient and new European languages, and was not unsuccessfully engaged in comparative philology.
True, all these interests of Khomyakov were concentrated almost exclusively at the level of salon "disputes", where his undoubted leadership caused hidden irritation.
"Khomyakov is a short, round-shouldered, black man, with long black shaggy hair, with a gypsy physiognomy, with brilliant talents, self-taught, able to speak without a pause from morning to evening and in a dispute not shy of any subterfuge" (S. M. Solovyov ).
Khomyakov's articles, which occasionally appeared in magazines and collections, discouraged the reading public by the extraordinary diversity and seeming inconsistency of the reported information on various branches of knowledge, and even more by the tone of playful jokes, behind which you can not tell where the author is serious and where he is mocking. And the very extraordinary energy, the enthusiasm of Khomyakov's nature created additional shades of his reputation as a "frivolous" person.
For example, he was fond of technology, he invented a steam engine "with a special pressure" (and even received a patent for it in England), and during the Crimean War - a special long-range gun and ingenious artillery shells. He practiced medicine and did a lot in the field of practical homeopathy. A practical landowner, he discovered new recipes for distilling and sugar making, looked for minerals in the Tula province, and developed "ways to improve winter roads by rolling." A passionate hunter, a wonderful rider, a brilliant shooter, he was perhaps the first in Russia to take up the theoretical problems of sports - for the first time using this English word in Russian. (article "Sport, hunting", 1845).
It is obviously unfair to explain this versatility only by dilettantism, especially since for Khomyakov it was a matter of principle. The diversity of human interests was for him the way to create the ideal of a harmonious universal creative nature. He wrote a lot about the troubles and hardships of modern Russia, about the social ulcers of his time, and in the eyes of those in power he was considered almost a revolutionary, whose articles were banned from publication, and his poems became the property of "free" poetry. ("Russia", 1854).
In the perception of some contemporaries, Khomyakov appeared as a "brother of dialectics", a man of fluid, constantly changing views. In the eyes of others, he turned out to be an unusually stable person, who accepted for himself the "generic", Orthodox world outlook as the only possible one. He was "a freethinker, suspected by the police of disbelief in God and lack of patriotism" - and at the same time was "ridiculed by journalists for national exceptionalism and religious fanaticism."
Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov was born on May 1, 1804 in Moscow on Ordynka, in the parish of Egory, in Vspolye. But his childhood passed in the "noble nest" in Bogucharov, Tula province. Traditions about bygone times, about the love of the quietest sovereign for the sokolnik Pyotr Khomyakov, have been preserved here. Undoubtedly, the teenager was influenced by the story of how Kirill Ivanovich Khomyakov, dying childless, suggested that the peasants themselves choose an heir from the Khomyakov family. The peasants, having collected the necessary information about relatives from the Khomyakov family, chose their great-grandfather Alexei Stepanovich and approved him as an inheritance.
Is it not from this tradition that the idea of the importance of worldly judgment and community spirit originates?
Young Alexey Khomyakov also liked to remember that in 1787 Empress Catherine passed through Tula and advised the nobility to open a bank.
“We don’t need a bank, mother,” the nobles answered, “we have Fyodor Stepanovich Khomyakov. He lends us money, takes the ruined estates into his temporary possession, arranges them and then returns them back.”
The image of the great-grandfather served Alexei Stepanovich as an example to follow in his own economic activities. Unfortunately, Khomyakov's grandfather and father did not inherit the prudence and housekeeping of their ancestor. Stepan Aleksandrovich Khomyakov was a kind, educated, but disorderly man, and, moreover, a passionate gambler. Khomyakov's mother, Maria Alekseevna, nee Kireevskaya, had a strong character. When her husband lost more than a million rubles at cards in a Moscow English club, she took over the management of the estates and returned all the family wealth.
To commemorate the liberation of Russia from Napoleon in 1812, she built a church with her own savings. It was a manifestation of her patriotism. Khomyakov said that it was to his mother that he owed his unwavering loyalty to the Orthodox Church and faith in the Russian national spirit.
Even as a boy, Khomyakov was deeply religious. At the age of seven he was brought to St. Petersburg. He found this city pagan and decided to be a martyr in it for the Orthodox faith. Almost at the same time, Khomyakov took Latin lessons from the French abbot Boivin. Finding a typo in a papal bull, he asked his teacher: "How can you believe in the infallibility of the pope?"
Khomyakov was a passionate supporter of the liberation of the Slavs and did not cease to dream of their revolt against the Turks. At the age of seventeen, he fled from his home to take part in the struggle of the Greeks for independence, but was detained in the vicinity of Moscow.
Khomyakov studied at Moscow University, graduated from its physical and mathematical department in 1822. From 1823 to 1825 he served in a cavalry regiment. Here is what his commander said after Khomyakov’s death: “... his education was amazingly excellent. What an exalted direction his poetry had! He was not fond of the direction of the century to sensual poetry. schools. He jumped over obstacles to the height of a man. He fought excellently on espadrons. He possessed willpower not as a young man, but as a husband tempted by experience. Strictly fulfilled all the posts of the Orthodox Church, and on holidays and Sundays he attended all Divine services. "
According to the definition of P. A. Florensky, he was "chaste in expressing his inner life, and even to the point of secrecy, all whole, and proud of his integrity, not allowing himself to reflect on himself"
On July 5, 1836, Khomyakov married the sister of the poet N. M. Yazykov, Ekaterina Mikhailovna. This marriage turned out to be a happy one. The Khomyakov family was numerous - five daughters and four sons.
The primordial rural-landowner freedom, independence - from the authorities, from literary work, from current politics - all this gave a special direction to his search for an ideal life for a person in general and for a Russian person in particular. The search for inner freedom led Khomyakov to a doctrine that later received the inaccurate name of Slavophilism.
The fact of the birth of the Slavophile ideology N. A. Berdyaev considered as a phenomenon of national significance.
“Slavophilism is the first attempt at our self-consciousness, our first independent ideology. Russian existence has continued for a millennium, but Russian self-consciousness begins only from the time when Ivan Kireevsky and Alexei Khomyakov boldly raised the question of what Russia is, what is its essence, her vocation and place in the world."
In Berdyaev's book "A. S. Khomyakov" (1912) this thesis is developed in detail, and the members of the Slavophile circle are represented by the "first Russian Europeans" who, having gone through the school of European philosophizing, "having been ill" with Schellingism and Hegelianism, tried to create the foundations of an independent, properly Russian philosophy.
And it all started with the fact that in the winter of 1839 Khomyakov wrote and read in one of the Moscow salons an article "On the old and the new." In it, for the first time, the original question of the relationship between "old" and "new" in the life of Russian society, of the possibility of combining "law" and "custom" in it, was singled out. At the same time, the composition of the article is deliberately paradoxical. The thesis "Old Russian was an inexhaustible treasure of all truth and all goodness" is immediately refuted by a whole set of negative factors of pre-Petrine life. The antithesis "Nothing good and fruitful existed in the former life of Russia" is also refuted, and by no fewer positive factors. Synthesis, a picture of "the original beauty of society, combining the patriarchal nature of regional life with the deep meaning of the state, representing a moral and Christian face" - becomes an occasion for posing new, and also difficult, problems ...
Khomyakov's article was a challenge, a kind of glove that had to be lifted. The challenge was accepted by Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky: in his response article he proposed a different formulation of the problem.
It is not a matter of what is better, "old" or "new", we "willy-nilly must assume something third, which must arise from the mutual struggle of the warring principles." And how in this "third" to correlate the "triumph of rationalism" (a consequence of Western influence) and the "inner spiritual mind" of Russia? The "destruction of life" occurred precisely because of the inconsistency of these principles. But at the same time, to return the "Russian element" by force - "it would be funny if it weren't harmful." But forgetting it also leads to the fact that there is a constant and rapid "extermination of the remaining forms" ...
Already in this initial dispute, in a "curtailed" form, the fundamental ideas of Russian Slavophilism were contained - the assertion of a special path for the historical development of Russia; the search for its special mission in relation to the West and the East, attention to the common people - the custodian of the primordial beginnings of Russian life, interest in the past and present of "consanguineous" Slavic peoples, etc.
The circle that soon formed around the two founders was very small, but strong and stable: its unity was based on family ties, similar upbringing and education (all prominent Slavophiles in their youth were associated with Moscow and its university), the correspondence of the main ones born in cruel disputes of belief. I. Kireevsky dealt primarily with philosophy and aesthetics; K. Aksakov and D. Valuev - Russian history and literature, Yu. Samarin - domestic politics and the peasant question, A. Koshelev - economics and finance, P. Kireevsky - folklore. Khomyakov, even in this circle, was distinguished by a special universality of interests and occupations - he mainly devoted his activity to the development of the historiosophical and religious concept of Slavophilism.
In the 1820s, a controversy unfolded about the "History of the Russian State" by Karamzin, which covered almost all circles of the creative intelligentsia of Russia, and one of the main questions it raised was the question of the position of the historian in his attitude to the past, the admissibility of "artistic ", "passionate" approach to history. In the second half of the 1830s, Khomyakov set himself a task of this type. The material for the search was world history. Khomyakov understood the complexity of the task - and this determined two fundamental settings of his work: the setting for incompleteness (“I will never finish it”, “During my life I don’t think to print it ...”) and for visible unprofessionalism, “unnecessary”. The latter were even emphasized by the "everyday" title of the entire extensive work, which was given by Gogol, having accidentally read the name of Semiramis in Khomyakov's notes, Gogol loudly announced "Alexei Stepanovich is writing Semiramis!"
The apparent dilettantism of the study, it would seem, is beyond doubt. "Semiramide", which was written with some interruptions for about 20 years and amounted to three volumes, completely retained the style and features of "home" conversations in the Slavophil circle, there are no quotations, there are almost no indications of sources (and as such Khomyakov kept in mind hundreds of historical, philosophical and theological writings), some facts are stated inaccurately, some comparisons (especially etymological ones) are clearly superficial and accidental. However, Khomyakov's "amateur" position does not stem from a lack of information or from an inability to work professionally.
In a number of theses, Khomyakov declares that the mainstream historical science is not able to determine the internal, real causes of the movement of history - therefore, this must be done by an amateur in a free search for theses and their evidence and in a form "disconnected from purely scientific nature." In parallel with the actual historiosophical version of "Semiramide", its journalistic version is being created - a series of articles "in no one read" Moskvityanin "Letter to St. Petersburg about the exhibition" (1843), "Letter to St. Petersburg about the railway" (1844), "Opinion of foreigners about Russia" (1845), "The opinion of Russians about foreigners" (1846), "On the possibility of a Russian art school" (1847), "England" (1848), "About Humboldt" (1848) and some others.
Khomyakov explained their actual journalistic goal in one of his letters.
“I wanted, I had to express the cherished thought that I had carried in myself from childhood itself and which for a long time seemed strange and wild even to my close friends. This thought is that no matter how much each of us loves Russia, we all, like society, its constant enemies because we are foreigners, because we are the masters of serf compatriots, because we fool the people and at the same time deprive ourselves of the possibility of true enlightenment. Outwardly, Khomyakov's historiosophical constructions seem simple.
Of the three possible "divisions of mankind" ("according to tribes", "according to states" and "according to faiths"), the last one is the most significant, but in order to understand the faith of the people in all its aspects, it is necessary to study the primary stage of the "tribe" concentrating the "physiology" of a given people. Analyzing the initial movements of the tribes, Khomyakov comes to the conclusion: "Each nation had its own exceptional passion, that is, it was single-elemental. Considering the" exceptional passion "of the ancient peoples, Khomyakov identifies two antinomic elements that determined the appearance of the original existence of people on Earth" conquering peoples "and" agricultural peoples.
In its further development, this antinomy was complicated by many variants, but Khomyakov thinks of the development of world history as a kind of realization of the dramatic conflict of two opposing spiritual "principles." The symbol of faith in the elements of "Iranism" is a deity in the form of a freely creative personality. "Kushitstvo" contrasts this symbol of freedom with the element of necessity. Accordingly to this antithetical pair (freedom - necessity) in the "Cushite" religions (the most striking of them are the pantheistic religions of Buddhism, Shaivism, etc.), the main symbol is the Snake (associated with fertility, earth and water, female or male productive force, time, wisdom, etc.).
"Iranian" mythology is hostile to the Serpent. Hercules defeats Hydra, Apollo defeats Python, Vishnu defeats the Dragon. If there is an admixture of "Kushitism" in "Iranism", the latter will certainly win. Spiritual freedom must be absolute, but any concession to necessity leads to the death of spiritual freedom.
Khomyakov illustrates this process by examining the history of Ancient Greece and Rome, the history of the victory of "Kushitism" among the originally "Iranian" peoples of the European North. The emergence of Christianity was a heroic attempt to oppose the world "Cushiteism", which in Christian countries passed "into the logic of philosophical schools." And Hegelianism, denied by Khomyakov, became a kind of triumph of "Kushitism" in the nineteenth century.
N. Berdyaev called the antinomy "Iranism" - "Kushitism" "Khomyakov's most remarkable idea, closest to genius." Arguing about Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc., Khomyakov started from "faith" as a polysemantic phenomenon. The philosopher's positive program is based on the search for ways to recreate spirituality while realizing the original "essence" of each nation, which can only be determined by understanding the laws and factors of the original folk faith. "Nihilism" as well as "fetishism" lead to a moral impasse, the way out of which (both within the elements of "Iranism" and in "Kushitism") lies in the awareness of the common historical paths of further unified movement forward.
Thus, progress turns out to be impossible without a "returning look back" - this is another of Khomyakov's "paradoxes". Khomyakov was familiar and friendly with many prominent people of his era, including Pushkin and Gogol, Lermontov and Venevitinov, Aksakov and Odoevsky, Chaadaev and Granovsky, Shevyrev and Pogodin, Belinsky and Herzen, Samarin and Yazykov, Bartenev and Hilferding.
In his youth, he argued with Ryleyev, proving to the leader of the Decembrists the injustice of the "military revolution" he was plotting and accusing him of striving for the "tyranny of the armed minority." In his mature years, he argued a lot with the Westerners and Hegelians, one of whom, Herzen, who did not agree with his opponent, wrote, however, on December 21, 1842: “I was glad about this dispute. such a fighter is worth every study."
In the 1850s, Khomyakov became a kind of symbol of the philosophical thought of "conservative Moscow", unshakable, unshakable and invariably opposed to the government, to the revolutionaries trying to overthrow him by force, to the liberals striving for the "golden mean". In his declining years, Khomyakov was no longer captivated by the glory of the poet. He wanted to be more than just a thinker and a scientist, and positively considered himself omniscient. There was no issue on which he did not speak. He seemed to be swallowing books. His friends said that one night was enough for him to master the most thoughtful essay. Endowed by nature with mighty health, he died almost "in Bazarov's way."
In September 1860, Alexei Stepanovich went to his Ryazan estates, where, in particular, he treated peasants for cholera. He became infected himself - and on the evening of September 23 he fell asleep in his village Ivanovskoye. He was buried on a gray autumn day, in the Danilov Monastery, by five or six relatives and friends, and two comrades of his youth.
He left a number of journalistic articles on a variety of problems, several French theological pamphlets and many manuscripts, partially disassembled and published by his students. Russian thought began to master the legacy of Khomyakov many years after his death - and only towards the end of the 19th century, when his main works were published, albeit in relative completeness, when the storms of the "sixties" revolutionism subsided and Russian religious philosophy began to take shape, did the the real scale of this figure of a Moscow debater, who flaunted in Europeanized salons in a zipun and a murmolka. But even here, in later reflection, there were paradoxes.
* * *
You read the biography of the philosopher, the facts of his life and the main ideas of his philosophy. This biographical article can be used as a report (abstract, essay or abstract)
If you are interested in the biographies and teachings of other (Russian and foreign) philosophers, then read (contents on the left) and you will find a biography of any great philosopher (thinker, sage).
Basically, our site (blog, collection of texts) is dedicated to the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (his ideas, works and life), but in philosophy everything is connected and it is impossible to understand one philosopher without reading at all those thinkers who lived and philosophized before him...
... Representatives of German classical philosophy - Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Feuerbach - realize for the first time that man does not live in the world of nature, but in the world of culture. The 19th century is the century of revolutionary philosophers. Thinkers appeared who not only studied and explained the world, but also wished to change it. For example, Karl Marx. In the same century, European irrationalists appeared - Arthur Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bergson ... Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are representatives of nihilism (the philosophy of negation) ... In the 20th century, existentialism - Heidegger, Jaspers, Sartre can be distinguished among philosophical teachings. .. The starting point of existentialism is the philosophy of Kierkegaard...
Russian philosophy (according to Berdyaev) begins with the philosophical letters of Chaadaev. The first Russian philosopher known in the West is Vladimir Solovyov. Lev Shestov was close to existentialism. The most widely read Russian philosopher in the West is Nikolai Berdyaev.
Thanks for reading!
......................................
Copyright:
Today, it is especially necessary for us to understand the essence of Khomyakov's ideas so that our Motherland - Russia, finally realizes its path, the outlines of which are still vague and unclear, the contours of which are given to us by the work of A.S. Khomyakov. This is the main objective of this article.
Until now, his complete academic collected works have not been published, his house in Sobachy Lane was destroyed in the 60s, the estates in the Russian outback have not been restored (in particular, Khomyakov's house in his beloved Bogucharov).
A.S. Khomyakov was born on May 1 (13), 1804 in Moscow into an old noble family. In 1822, he passed the exam at Moscow University for the degree of candidate of mathematical sciences, then entered the military service. Khomyakov was familiar with the participants in the Decembrist movement and did not fully share their ideas and views. In 1829, he resigned (he was wounded in the arm during the Russo-Persian War of 1828), coming to grips with literary and social activities. He devoted a lot of effort to introducing innovations in agriculture, was engaged in practical medicine, invented a rotary engine (patented in England), a long-range gun, a number of machines and other devices. Married E.M. Linguistic (the poet's sister), had 9 children (7 of them survived). The memoirs of contemporaries depict Khomyakov as a hospitable host, sympathetic friend, tireless interlocutor who influenced many of his contemporaries: Yu.F. Samarina, K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, A.S. Pushkin, N.V. Gogol and others. Khomyakov made a decisive contribution to the development of the Slavophile doctrine, its theological and philosophical foundations.
Among the ideological sources of Khomyakov's Slavophilism, Orthodoxy stands out most fully, within which the idea of the religious and messianic role of the Russian people was formulated. The thinker at the beginning of his activity was under the significant influence of German philosophy, especially the philosophy of Schelling. The theological ideas, for example, of the French traditionalists (de Maistre, Chateaubriand, and others) also had a certain influence on him.
Formally not adhering to any of the philosophical schools, he especially strongly criticized materialism, characterizing it as "the decline of the philosophical spirit." It also did not accept fully defined forms of idealism. The starting point in his philosophical analysis was the position that "the world appears to the mind as a substance in space and as the power of its time."
Khomyakov considered the main drawback of contemporary philosophy to be its understanding of cognition "without reality as an abstraction", in which rationalism is manifested, exaggeration of the meaning of abstract cognition. Comparing two ways of comprehending the world: scientific ("by arguments") and artistic ("mysterious clairvoyance"), he gives preference to the second.
Such intuitive insights, in general, are characteristic of the religious tradition, consisting in opposition to Western rationalism and systemicity. The conclusion that follows from this is that religion can be understood "by looking at the life of the people, at its full historical development."
In general, Khomyakov admitted that Western civilization was far ahead of Russian in many respects. He did not deny Western civilization as such, had no "intention to write satire on the West." He denied only the blind and uncritical copying of European values, the fruits of enlightenment and social institutions, as well as extreme nationalism, the ideology of isolation from other countries.
In general, according to the fair statement of A.S. Khomyakov, it is necessary to borrow the achievements of European enlightenment, but those that will organically fall on Russian soil. At the same time, the foundation of positive development is reliance on original principles, national values, national traditions.
The study of positive original spiritual principles, their role in the development of Russia, is perhaps the main theme of Khomyakov's thoughts. In contrast to the current Russophobes - liberals, who see in Russia's past only "the spirit of crime", "the anarchy of the Russian spirit over the process of historical changes", and "a pointless living of historical life." Just, from Khomyakov's point of view, it is precisely Russia's past that "holds incalculable benefits." It is in Russian antiquity that the formation of positive original spiritual principles takes place. The latter shaped "the very way of life, thought and inner life of the people," notes Khomyakov. Concretizing his statement, he singles out the following results of the manifestation of original principles: "The creation of the Russian land itself ... the establishment of a worldly community and" family "as" the purest foundation of a public building.
And the heartfelt words of Alexei Stepanovich about the Motherland, the Fatherland are very relevant, clarifying true patriotism, which has been talked about so much lately: "The fatherland is not in geography. This is not the land on which we live and were born and which is outlined in green or yellow paint. Fatherland is also not a conditional thing. It is not the land to which I am assigned, not even the one that I use and which gave me such and such rights and such and such privileges from childhood. This is the country and the people that created the country, with which my whole life, my whole spiritual existence, the whole integrity of my human activity has grown together. bled and did not dry up,” Khomyakov writes in his work “The Opinion of Russians about Foreigners”.
In the same work, he writes the following, reading it today, you think that it is as if it were written today: “People, cut off from the life of the people and, therefore, from true enlightenment, deprived of any past, poor in science, not recognizing those great spiritual principles, which the life of Russia hides in itself and which time and history must bring out, have no reasonable right to self-praise and pride in front of the world from which they drew their intellectual life, however incomplete, albeit meager.
Then he sums up: “Slavish imitators in life, eternal schoolchildren in thought, they, in their pride based on the material greatness of Russia, resemble only the pride of a schoolboy - a young lady in front of a poor teacher. Their words are exposed as lies all their lives. But this is servility to foreign peoples is clearly not only for the Russian people, but for foreign observers. They see our break with the past life and speak about it often, Russians with grave reproach, and foreigners with mocking compassion.
In his Notes on World History, Khomyakov divides religions into two main groups: Kushite and Iranian. The first is built on the principles of necessity, dooming people to thoughtless submission, turning them into mere executors of someone else's will, while the second is a religion of freedom that addresses the inner world of a person, requiring him to make a conscious choice between good and evil. Its essence was most fully expressed in Christianity.
The most adequate way to express the unity based on freedom and love can, in his opinion, only catholicity, which plays, as it were, the role of an intermediary between the divine and earthly worlds. Sobornost in Khomyakov opposes both individualism, which destroys human solidarity, and collectivism, which levels the individual. Representing "unity in the multitude", it protects the human community and at the same time preserves the unique features of the individual.
In the social sphere, conciliar principles, according to Khomyakov, were most fully embodied in a community that harmoniously combined personal and public interests. It is necessary, he believed, to make the communal principle comprehensive and for this purpose to create communities in industry, to make the communal structure of society the basis of the state life of the country, which will make it possible in the future to eliminate "the abomination of administration in Russia."
Orthodoxy and community, according to Khomyakov and other Slavophiles, give rise to the originality of Russian history. Russia, unlike the West, develops organically, because the Western states are based on “conquest”, they are artificial creations, while the Russian land “is not built, but has grown”, when, as in the West, the spirit of individualism dominates, Russia was built on conciliar principles. And Western civilization puts the “material element”, the pursuit of material well-being, at the forefront, and in Russian society the main role is played primarily by spiritual values. True, in Khomyakov's view, Peter I "disrupted the natural course of Russian history" with his reforms. As a result of his numerous transformations, the upper layers assimilate the European way of life, they break with the people, who remained true to the "root principles of Russia."
Another important topic is Khomyakov's attitude to Western religions in general, and especially during the period of revolutions in Europe in 1848-49. While abroad, Tyutchev closely followed the philosophical, literary and cultural events that took place in Russia. And in particular, the doctrine of the Slavophiles that arose in the 30s, one of the leaders of which was A.S. Khomyakov. And in this regard, Tyutchev himself must also be recognized as one of the representatives of the Slavophile doctrine. Moreover, Khomyakov sympathetically quoted Tyutchev's political articles, among which were "Russia and the Revolution" and "The Papacy and the Roman Question." Subsequently, the name of the poet was often used by thinkers of the Slavophile circle.
Tyutchev, like Khomyakov, believed in the exclusive mission of the Russian people, Christian and moral in essence. In one place, in line with Alexei Stepanovich's reflections, he noted that the monarchy, as an organic form of statehood, is internally connected with the fate of great-power Russia. Just like Khomyakov, Tyutchev believed that universalism was inherent in Christianity itself and that it was justified by the highest sanction of the Christian consciousness and the Orthodox Church.
In addition, Tyutchev and Khomyakov, having fully accepted the monarchical idea as such, did not identify it with the St. Petersburg period of autocracy. In this form of monarchy, they rightly saw the same spiritual damage that frightened them both in the revolution.
And in the revolution itself, they were frightened not by the real program of the awakened democracy, but by the spiritual essence of the movement. What was terrible was not so much the program of the awakened democracy, but the spiritual essence of the movement. It was not so much the republican era itself that was ugly, but the real loss of Christian consciousness and the death of Christian culture.
Khomyakov himself, and Tyutchev agreed with him, agreed that Russia still had a mission to lay the foundations of a new pan-European enlightenment based on genuine Christian principles, preserved in the bosom of Orthodoxy. Only Orthodoxy, in their opinion, is inherent in the free power of the spirit, striving for creativity, and it is devoid of the submissive necessity that is characteristic of Western European society with its rationalism and the dominance of material interests over spiritual ones, which ultimately led to disunity, individualism, fragmentation spirit into its constituent elements.
But, at the same time, the previous achievements of Western culture were so great that both Russian thinkers (both Tyutchev and Khomyakov) could not but recognize their universal significance.
Khomyakov's attitude to Western religions, and in particular to the papacy, largely echoes the attitude of F.I. Tyutchev, who at that time wrote the article "The Papacy and the Roman Question". Tyutchev's article itself created a stir in the West and in Russia. A.S. Khomyakov in a letter to A.N. Popova asked to convey to the poet that "she is an excellent thing," but "the foreign public is not up to the task." And he was annoyed that Tyutchev did not have time to "express the idea in all its breadth", mixing "the causes of the disease with its external signs." Lorancey showed particular intransigence towards Tyutchev, who, in addition to numerous articles, also published an extensive pamphlet "The Papacy. Answer to Tyutchev." This pamphlet, published in 1852, reached Khomyakov and jarred him with the accusations that the author "hung on the Orthodox Church."
In 1853, in defense of Tyutchev, he wrote the work "A few words of an Orthodox Christian about Western religions ...". The Russian thinker was hiding under the pseudonym "Ignatius".
Western Europe, he argued, “developed not under the influence of Christianity, but under the influence of Latinism, i.e. Christianity, one-sidedly understood as the law of external unity. This character of Western development is determined by the influence of the culture of Rome on it. distorted Western Christianity, bringing it closer to paganism.In addition, from the point of view of Khomyakov, the future of Russia and the West predetermined their history: "Western people have to eliminate everything that was bad, and create everything good in themselves."
For Russia itself, as Khomyakov noted, has many desirable advantages over the West. The beginning of history "does not bear the stain of conquests" and "the blood of enmity", and grandfathers "did not bequeath to their grandchildren the legends of hatred of vengeance." The Russian Church also never lost the purity of its inner life and preached to its children the lessons of injustice and violence.
Another important issue is the attitude of Tyutchev and Khomyakov towards Napoleon. In a sketch for the treatise "Russia and the West", Tyutchev says about Napoleon: "This is a centaur, half a revolution - half ...", but in his gut he gravitated towards the Revolution: he "carried all of it in himself."
Continuing to reflect on Napoleon and the revolution, Tyutchev notes: “His attempt to revive Charlemagne was not only an anachronism, like that of Louis XIV, Charles V, his predecessors, but was blatant nonsense. last all the works of Charlemagne".
In parallel with Tyutchev, A.S. Khomyakov. He is occupied not with a concrete Napoleon in a collision with a concrete people, but with the activity of general historical laws, manifested in his "imperfect" conquest of the world. In this regard, one can compare the "Napoleonic" cycle of A.S. Khomyakov with Tyutchev's cycle "Napoleon" (written later).
The recollection of Napoleon by both thinkers pushes both to the idea that the very strength of the proud genius was lamenting not for the material might of Russia, but for the moral strength of the Russian people, their humility and faith. Finally, both of them turn their gaze to the awakened East. And Khomyakov's "He who" is the very voice of history, which has created its own force, which is by no means manifested "in a general uprising". Napoleon, like any bloody "he" - is the embodiment of earthly material power.
In general, the views of Tyutchev and Khomyakov on a number of issues of the relationship between the West and Russia were similar, with some differences, mainly of a domestic nature. If for Tyutchev the "Orthodox empire" was important, then for Khomyakov the "community" is more important. In addition, if Tyutchev paid more attention to foreign and domestic policy, then Khomyakov was mainly engaged in arranging his house, estate, economy, proclaiming the utopia of returning to the old way of life.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russia was especially acutely experiencing the strengthening of revolutionary and destructive ideas, the events of world wars and revolutions, which washed away the traditional and patriarchal foundations of Russian civilization. For philosophers and publicists who think in the national spirit, the words of V.F. Ern, closely taken from A.S. Khomyakov, that "time itself is Slavophile" and that it is sinful and shameful at such a difficult moment of historical cataclysms not to be a patriot of one's own country.
Moreover, Ern in his work "The Struggle for the Logos" notes the following, criticizing the position of the young S.L. Frank and criticizing and hating V.S. Solovyov to the Slavophils, expressed by him in the 80s of the XIX century: "I would ask S. Frank to indicate at least one work in Russian or a foreign language, where the philosophical concepts of the Slavophiles (A.S. Khomyakov and I.V. Kireevsky) were The thoughts of I. Kireevsky and A. Khomyakov about cognition as an integral process in which all sides of the spirit synthetically participate are not only criticized, but even not accepted by critics of the Slavophiles. And then he already evaluates the criticism of V. Solovyov with the Slavophiles has a special character "and in a note to this thesis he notes the following:" So, V. Solovyov, in his "National Question" did not set himself the task of deciding whether Slavophile views are bad or good (especially philosophical), but simply crushed the ribs of "Katkov and K." At the same time, in the Critique of Abstract Principles, in his doctrine of the tripartite nature of any act of cognition, V. Solovyov develops essentially the same thoughts that were outlined with sufficient clarity by I.V. Kireevsky and A.S. Khomyakov." Summing up, in the conclusion of the conversation about the Slavophiles, he notes the following: "Only those who are satisfied with the criticism of Messrs. Milyukov".
At the same time, he noted that Khomyakov "greedily swallowed the logic" of Hegel and at the same time philosophized deeply in Russian.
He supported the teachings of the Slavophiles and A.S. Khomyakova, V.V. Rozanov. Especially clearly Vasily Vasilyevich supported this doctrine during the First World War. In an article written in 1904, dedicated to the memory of A.S. Khomyakov, Rozanov complains that the Russian philosopher "alas, is still not embraced by the people's love in a broad sense. (...). Only his words about Europe: "the land of holy miracles" - have almost become a proverb in the living circulation of the new Russian language: what a mockery of history, considering that in all his writings he strove to challenge this vivid aphorism.Now that 44 years have passed since his death, his ideas do not represent high and integral knowledge.They are like the crumbling tower of St. Mark in Venice "There was a beautiful building, a wonderful plan, from which a lot of rubble remained. But there is this rubble, but the building was there, but there are many people who keep reverent memories of it."
Used Books:
1) History of Russian philosophy. Textbook for high schools. \ Ed. M.A. Olive. - M.: 2001.
2) Russian philosophy. Dictionary. - M.: 1995.
3) New philosophical encyclopedia. T. 1-4. - M.: 2000-2001.
4) Russian worldview. Dictionary. - M.: 2003.
5) Russian patriotism. Dictionary. - M.: 2002.
6) Russian literature. Dictionary. - M.: 2004.
7) V.V. Zenkovsky. History of Russian Philosophy. T.1-2. - R.: 1991.
8) V.V. Zenkovsky. Russian thinkers and Europe. - M.: 1997.
9) A.S. Khomyakov. Works in 2 volumes. - M.: 1994.
10) A.S. Khomyakov. Selected articles and letters. - M: 2004.
11) V.I. Cold. A.S. Khomyakov and modernity: the origin and perspective of cathedral phenomenology. - M.: 2004.
12) V.I. Koshelev. A.S. Khomyakov: biography in documents, reasoning and searches. - M.: 2000.
13) A.S. Khomyakov. Poems. - M.: 2005.
14) N.A. Berdyaev. A.S. Khomyakov. - M.: 2005.
http://www.pravaya.ru/ludi/450/7849