“Utilitarianism and plebeianism are the foundations of the transformation. Lyubomudrov Ioann Grigorievich - Murom - history - catalog of articles - unconditional love Complete collection of works

“LOW WISDOM”

“LOW WISDOM”

“LIUBOMUDRY” - participants in the literary and philosophical circle “Society of Philosophy”, formed in. 1823 in Moscow. It included V. F. Odoevsky (chairman), D. V. Venevitinov, I. V. Kireevsky, A. I. Koshelev, N. M. Rozhalin, V. P. Titov. They gathered secretly. After the Decembrist uprising in 1825, Odoevsky burned the charter and protocols, announced the dissolution of the society, but still some wise men united around the “Moscow Bulletin” of M.P. Pogodin. In 1827, the main members of the circle, Venevitinov and Odoevsky, moved to St. Petersburg, and in 1830, with the closure of the Moskovsky Vestnik, the Lyubomudrov ceased its activities.

The printed organ of the society was the almanac “Mnemosyne”, published by Odoevsky and V.K. Kuchelbecker; four issues were published in 1824-25. The almanac reflected the main directions of the philosophical views of the wise men on nature, man and society. This is, firstly, French enlightenment philosophy and classical aesthetics, which were opposed to German idealistic and romantic. Secondly, the popularization of German idealistic philosophy and ch. O. Schelling's philosophy, the development of which was associated with the prospects for the enlightenment of Russia in general and the development of Russian philosophical culture in particular. In terms of fulfilling this task, “Mnemosyne” published natural philosophical studies by Russian Schellingians I. I. Davydov and M. G. Pavlov, who did not formally belong to the society. Thirdly, the creation of an original philosophy in Russia. The ideological leaders of the wise men, Odoevsky and Venevitinov, whose interest was focused on the philosophy of spirit, raised problems of philosophy, history and aesthetics. Finally, the theoretical foundations of the aesthetics of romanticism developed by the wise men, which emphasized the independence of aesthetics as a science based on philosophy, ideologically close to the Jena school, were directly related to Schellingian aesthetics. The idealistic romantic aesthetics of the wise men later formed the basis of the principle of “art for art’s sake.”

Lit.: Koshelev A.I. Notes (1812-1883). M., 1991; Sakulin P.I. From the history of Russian idealism. Prince V.F. Odoevsky. Thinker. Writer, vol. 1, part 1. M., 1913; Mann Yu. V. Russian philosophical aesthetics. M., 1969; Kamensky 3. A. Moscow circle of wise men. M., 1980.

I. F. Khudushina

New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001 .

See what “LUBOMUDRY” is in other dictionaries:

- “LYUBOMUDRY”, members of the “Society of Lyubomudry” - a philosophical literary circle of Moscow intellectuals (“archive youths”, in the words of A.S. Pushkin), which was formed in 1823 and existed until December 1825. The main participants of the circle are Prince. IN … Encyclopedic Dictionary

Participants of the philosophical literary circle in Moscow Society of Philosophy (1823 25): V.F. Odoevsky, D.V. Venevitinov, I.V. Kireevsky, A.I. Koshelev, S.P. Shevyrev and others. We studied the works of B. Spinoza, I. Kant, I.G. Fichte, L. Oken and especially F.W... Modern encyclopedia

Participants of the philosophical literary circle in Moscow Society of Philosophy (1823 25): V. F. Odoevsky, D. V. Venevitinov, I. V. Kireevsky, A. I. Koshelev, S. P. Shevyrev and others. Studied the works of B. Spinoza , I. Kant, I. G. Fichte, L. Oken and especially F ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Participants lit. Philosopher circle “Society of Philosophy”, which existed in Moscow in 1823 25. It included V. F. Odoevsky, D. V. Venevitinov, I. V. Kireevsky, N. M. Rozhalin, A. I. Koshelev, V. P. Titov, S. P. Shevyrev, N. A. Melgunov and others... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Moscow participants lit. Philosopher mug Society of Philosophy, main. in 1823. Main. composition - pupils of Moscow. University and Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, young officials Moscow. Archive Board of Foreigners affairs (hence the archived youths). Members of the organization included: V.F.... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

“Lubomudry”- “Lubomudry”, participants in the philosophical literary circle in Moscow “Society of Lyubomudry” (1823 25): V.F. Odoevsky, D.V. Venevitinov, I.V. Kireevsky, A.I. Koshelev, S.P. Shevyrev and others. We studied the works of B. Spinoza, I. Kant, I.G. Fichte, L. Okena... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

Members of the “Society of Philosophy”, which existed in Moscow in 1823 25. Gathered in a circle. They were primarily interested in philosophy. The “Lubomudry” rejected the French enlightenment cosmopolitan philosophy, preferring to it the philosophy of the Germans... ...Russian history

Members of the Society of Philosophy, which arose in Moscow in 1823 (it dissolved itself after the Decembrist uprising on December 14, 1825). Participants: D.V. Venevitinov, V.F. Odoevsky, N.M. Rozhalin, A.I. Koshelev, I.V. Kireevsky and others. L. experienced a certain impact... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

Participants of the first philosophical literary circle in Moscow, called the “Society of Philosophy” (182325). The circle founded included V.F. Odoevsky, I.V. Kireevsky, A.I. Koshelev, S.P. Shevyrev and others; many of them were pupils. U... ... Moscow (encyclopedia)

- (“Lyubomudry”) participants in the literary philosophical circle “Society of Lyubomudry”, which existed in Moscow in 1823 25. It included V. F. Odoevsky, D. V. Venevitinov, I. V. Kireevsky, N. M. Rozhalin, A . I. Koshelev (See Koshelev), V. P.... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Books

• Russian philosophical thought of the first half of the 19th century (CDpc), the 19th century opens a new stage in Russian philosophy, which is characterized by its complexity, the emergence of various philosophical trends associated with both idealism and materialism,... Category:

), priest, martyr

In March of the same year, he was appointed a priest in the village of Latskoye, Mologsky district, Yaroslavl province, and a teacher of the law at a three-year zemstvo school. In the crowded trading village there were two churches: the Ascension and the Cemetery Church of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God.

Father Nikolai launched active spiritual and educational work: in the city he created the first library-reading room for peasants in the district (St. John of Kronstadt donated 100 rubles for the library); being an absolute teetotaler, in sermons and public readings he waged a tireless fight against drunkenness; created an exemplary gardening and apiary. He ordered several horse-drawn agricultural machines from America, which were also used by peasants. On the tithes of church land allocated to his family, Father Nikolai started an exemplary farm, planted an apple orchard and an apiary. He often advised peasants on land fertility issues and supplied them with high-grade grain seeds. Father Nicholas was a supporter of permanent state salaries for parish priests, considering it humiliating and immoral to receive money from poor peasants for church services.

In 1898, Father Nikolai became seriously ill with typhus. His wife, Sofya Petrovna, being pregnant, went to St. Petersburg and asked for prayerful help from Fr. John of Kronstadt. After praying, Father John told her: “The husband will recover, and the child will be born healthy.” Soon Father Nikolai recovered, and his son lived in good health for 93 years.

In the city, power in the village of Latsky was seized by the “Reds”, and Father Nikolai, at the insistence of the children, asked for a transfer to another parish. The administrator of the diocese, Archimandrite Iakovos, blessed him to remain in place, saying: “If they kill you, you will receive a martyr’s crown from the Lord.”.

On November 2, on Dimitrievskaya Parents' Saturday, he served liturgy and requiem. After this he was arrested. The commissar and two soldiers who came for Father Nicholas to the church shot him in the garden, not far from his own house, and hastened to join the others who were engaged in robbery at that time. The local authorities forbade the funeral service for Father Nicholas in the church, and he was buried at night, under the light of torches and the quiet singing of “Holy God.” The funeral service for Father Nicholas, after the urgent request of the mother, was performed by three familiar priests only in the spring of the next year.

Priest Nikolai Lyubomudrov was canonized as the holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in August of the year for church-wide veneration.

Awards

• pectoral cross (1912, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his birth and the 25th anniversary of pastoral service in the Latskov parish. Parishioners petitioned for the award and raised money to purchase a golden pectoral cross)
• Order of St. Anne, III degree (1912, at the request of Zemstvo Council for educational activities)

Literature

• Confessor of Orthodoxy Father Nikolai Lyubomudrov // St. Petersburg Diocesan Gazette. 1991. N 1-2. P.32-35.
• St. German calendar. Publishing house of the Russian branch of the Valaam Society of America. Moscow, 1995. P.75.
• New martyrs and confessors of the Yaroslavl diocese. Part 3. Clergy and laity//Ed. Archpriest Nikolai Likhomanov. Romanov-Borisoglebsk (Tutaev) Orthodox Brotherhood of the Holy Princes Boris and Gleb, 2000. P.53-62.

Materials used

• PSTGU DB "New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th Century"

Alexey LYUBOMUDROV

Alexey Markovich Lyubomudrov was born in 1958 in the town of Kotelnich, Kirov Region. Graduated from Leningrad State University. Doctor of Philological Sciences.
Leading employee of the Institute of Literature and Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Pushkin House). Published in the magazines “Moscow”, “Literary Study”, “Literature at School”, “Veche”, “Font”, “Roman Magazine XXI Century”, “All-Russian Council”, etc. Author of the books “Signs of God from Holy Icons” , “Eternal in the present”, etc.
Member of the Russian Writers' Union. Lives in St. Petersburg.

“Utilitarianism and plebeianism are the foundations of the transformation”

Article by B. Zaitsev “Our language” in the context of spelling reform

FOR THE 100TH ANNIVERSARYSPELLING REFORM

In the creative heritage of B.K. Zaitsev, a sophisticated lyricist, singer of “calmness,” “solitude,” and “silence” (the titles of his stories), is rarely encountered with sharp journalism on the topic of the day. A bright, passionate, emotionally charged word first came out of his mouth when he spoke out in defense of national culture, for the “blooming complexity” of his native speech. The article “Our Language” was published in the weekly “Narodopravo” on December 7, 1917 (No. 17) and has not been published since its appearance in this rare publication. A hundred years later we publish this text, so consonant current disputes about the cultural heritage of Russia.
The journal “People's Law” was edited by Zaitsev’s friend, the writer G.I. Chulkov, published from June 1917 to February 1918. On its pages were published articles by Moscow scientists, philosophers, writers (including A. Tolstoy, G. Chulkov, Vl. Khodasevich, A. Remizov, Vyach. Ivanov), the consequences of the revolution, issues of state and cultural construction of the new Russia were discussed.
Zaitsev’s speech in defense of traditional spelling was the first after the Bolsheviks came to power. However, Soviet decrees on the transition to the new spelling had not yet been issued. It is worth recalling that the reform was being prepared long before the revolution: it was discussed in the Spelling Commission, created in 1904 at the Academy of Sciences and including prominent linguists - it was they who prepared the project to simplify spelling. From the very beginning of the project discussion Russian society divided: the reform was supported by philologists and school teachers, but was sharply rejected by writers and critics: they viewed traditional spelling as a national treasure. In Imperial Russia, the reform was suspended, but the Provisional Government immediately took up its implementation: on May 11, 1917, the “Resolution of the meeting at the Academy of Sciences chaired by Academician A.A. Shakhmatov on the issue of simplifying Russian spelling" (it listed all the changes). Following this, circulars from the Minister of Public Education A.A. Manuylov dated May 17 and June 22 ordered the trustees of educational districts to transfer schools to the new letter. Here the protests no longer helped (for example, M. Shaginyan in the summer of 1917 expressed fears that the reform “would manage to confuse a lot and damage a lot... in the matter of public education”).
The Bolshevik government considered breaking the old spelling a priority: already on December 23, 1917, People's Commissar of Education A.V. Lunacharsky issued a decree ordering all government publications to use the new spelling. However, the innovation did not take root, periodicals continued to be published in the old spelling, and on October 10, 1918, another decree of the Council of People's Commissars was issued - “On the introduction of a new spelling”, which finally consolidated the reform. The use of traditional spelling was considered as aiding the counter-revolution and was punishable by huge fines. The prohibited typesetting letters “yat” and “er” were forcibly removed from printing houses. Thus, the old Russian spelling was literally uprooted from the cultural life of the people.
Thus, Zaitsev argues with the points of “simplification of Russian spelling” adopted by the Provisional Government, two weeks before their official confirmation by the Soviet government. The main criterion with which Zaitsev approaches the assessment of the reform is aesthetic: by distorting the appearance of the language of great Russian literature, it introduces the “vile Volapyuk1” into society. The features of the reform are utilitarianism and plebeianism, to which scientists and teachers turned out to be involved with their “accounting” approach to words. The opinion of people of art, artists of words was ignored. The writer refers to the experience of France, where a similar spelling reform project proposed by philologists was blocked by writers and the general public. In Russia, affairs are run by soulless officials - a traditional problem of Russian culture.
Zaitsev is concerned about the inevitable decline in the level of education, especially school education, in which trends towards “reduction and simplification” are obvious. These thoughts strikingly resonate with today’s debates concerning the subjects of the Russian language and Russian literature. He foresees that the reform will lead to the mental and cultural degradation of the people.
The weekly “Narodopravo” has more than once paid attention to the issues of preserving the Russian word. Art critic D.E. Arkin published an article “The Fate of Language” (1917. No. 8), where he discussed the tragic split between the language of the intelligentsia and the language of the people, saw in the impoverishment of speech a sign of general spiritual impoverishment (“the decline of language is closely connected with the decline of national consciousness”) and set the task “purification of speech” - possible only “through the purification of our own soul.” In the same issue as the material by B. Zaitsev (December 17), an article by the artist N.V. was published. Dosekin “Compulsory illiteracy”, the themes of which echo the theses of B. Zaitsev. Noting the “general lack of sympathy for the reform,” the author writes that only “artisans of teaching” advocate it. They forgot about “the organic hierarchy of values, the violation of which always leads to the fall of culture.” Society should not allow ministers to “mutilate the national property” for the sake of semi-literate Russia.
Boris Zaitsev's article ends with a call to the Russian intelligentsia not to limit itself to behind-the-scenes gossip, but to decisively speak out in defense of traditions. However, under the conditions of the ensuing dictatorship, public protest became increasingly problematic. Vyach responded. Ivanov, who wrote for the famous collection of articles about the Russian revolution “From the Depths” (1918) his notes with exactly the same title - “Our Language” (obviously, consciously focusing on B. Zaitsev). Objecting to “arbitrary innovations,” the symbolist poet speaks of the spiritual meaning of reform. He sees in it an artificial secularization of the language, an intention to oust Church Slavonic elements from it. But this text did not reach readers soon: the collection’s circulation was withdrawn from circulation.
Others left unflattering judgments about the reform in their diaries, such as Alexander Blok or Ivan Bunin, who wrote on April 24, 1918: “By order of Archangel Michael himself, I will never accept Bolshevik spelling. If only for one reason: the human hand has never written anything similar to what is now written according to this spelling” (“Cursed Days”); Bunin later called him “fence.” Later, the political, historical, cultural and spiritual meaning of the reform was deeply analyzed in the works of Ivan Ilyin, Archbishop Averky (Taushev).
Thus, B. Zaitsev’s article became perhaps the only apology for the old spelling published by a Russian writer in Russia during the Soviet period and reaching the reader.
Boris Zaitsev himself remained faithful to his previous letter throughout his long creative career, which ended in 1972. Publications of the Russian diaspora for the most part switched to the new spelling only in the post-war years, although some press outlets retain it to this day.
Today it is obvious that the rejection of traditional spelling was part of a forced change in the cultural code of the Russian people. The decline of written and oral speech, vulnerability to English-language expansion and jargon are direct consequences of this breakdown. Modern philologists believe: “The rejection of the old spelling under the pretext that it was too difficult and cumbersome... led to the alienation of the native speaker from the very appearance of classical literary texts, religious literature, to alienation from spirituality” (Kaverina V.V., Leshchenko E.V. The letter “yat” as an ideologeme of Russian discourse on turn of XIX-XX centuries // Issues of cognitive linguistics. 2008. No. 3). The value of the old spelling is recognized by many today. Of course, we are not talking about a complete return to the old letter, but the task of restoring the previous spelling in Russian is quite realistic. classical literature, return it to its original appearance. The first attempts in this direction are already being made.
Over the hundred years that have passed since B. Zaitsev’s publication, her thoughts have not lost their relevance. Let us be supported and inspired by the voice of a classic - one of those “for whom the word is life and air.”

Boris Zaitsev

OUR LANGUAGE

A girl I know, Masha, a diligent worker, returned from school and said: “What’s wrong with us! We now write without hard signs and without yat. I with a dot is also not needed. The teachers ordered. How funny! We all make mistakes, and the teachers themselves make mistakes!”
Hardworking Masha, of course, will get used to it if she is “ordered”. Teachers will also “get used to it” - they were ordered by officials from the ministry. Probably, illiterate, dumb Rus' will also get used to it. Maybe even those close to you will feel something: the inscriptions with chalk and charcoal on fences and in democratic restrooms - a familiar picture from childhood - have long ago adopted a new spelling. In this sense they are national.
It will also be readily accepted by those numerous people who will consider it a liberation of the language from “tsarism.” The number of hard foreheads has always been very significant.
Educated Russian society chuckles, makes a slight fuss, calls the reform “stupidity,” but in general, of course, is also indifferent. Where is there to talk about the unfortunate thing when the Germans are on the nose? However, if it weren’t for the Germans and the revolution, few people would have been interested either: who cares about language! Terribly interesting. You never know what the dying Turgenev said about the “great and mighty” Russian language. That's why he's a writer, that's his business. There really are people for whom language issues are not indifferent; It is also true that these are, first and foremost, writers and artists, those who have spent half their lives communicating with the word, for whom the word is life and air. They cannot be indifferent to language reform.
I think that there are two sides to the issue of new spelling: philological and aesthetic. Not being a philologist, I will not dwell on the first, I will only point out the following: let’s say that after Peter they began to write e in the wrong places, and in some words where the root should have been written, e was written. (That’s what philologists say. ) Does it follow from this that e should be thrown out altogether? It would seem that there is only one conclusion: it is necessary to restore some distorted words to their former spelling. The e itself is, undoubtedly, an echo of some ancient sound (iotated e or another long vowel - it doesn’t matter). The longitude sign exists in Greek. In French accent circonflexe2, the “house” above the vowels that is familiar to us from childhood, indicates the ancient nobility of the sound, its, as it were, eminent pedigree (from the merger that occurred, God knows when). Let its pronunciation be clearer than ours. We must make a reservation - it’s clearer for the French; We, Russians, often fail to catch it in its pronunciation. In our ѣ there is also a sound difference from е, although it is very subtle - our language is, in general, a very subtle and complex tool. Yat is sharper, I would say - more poisonous in sound than e. Hotter than it. It almost always causes stress and softens the preceding consonant. The echo of the ancient i is not lost in it3. To throw it out means to simplify the language in a bad sense, to deprive it of its nuance.
Here we come, apparently, to the heart of the reform, to its aesthetics, which is what I particularly draw attention to. Its aesthetics are insignificant. Everything is done for utilitarian reasons. Utilitarianism and plebeianism are the foundations of “transformation.”
What “shades” can we talk about when none of the reformers thought about any colors in the language, any beauty of the language of speech did not rise and could not rise, for the reform comes not from the artists of the word, but from its accountants. It is not poets, but teachers of gymnasiums and universities who are busy creating an updated language, which should be better than the previous one. It is clear that the spirit of the gymnasium teacher is hovering over the attempt to convert the Russian language into Esperanto4.
Previously, the gymnasium teacher was silent, although he was liberal and “noble.” Now he has spoken. Oh, he has his own household chores. He has students who make a lot of mistakes starting with the letter ѣ. Under Casso5, he gave them deuces and left them for the second year. Now he is more humane and makes it easier for students, “simplifying” the language that was not created by him, the precious heritage of the past. The language is adapted for the lower school, for its convenience. It is also adapted for trading offices, banks, industry, newspapers, and Bolshevik appeals. There is a simplification here - saving effort, the ruble, in the end. Practice, America. One ardent writer6, famous for the fact that he attributed the books of the Prophets to post-Gospel times, directly wrote about “unnecessary” letters: they should be removed from printing houses and poured into cannons to protect the homeland. For a “practical” person, does it really matter how one typeset Pushkin’s poem:

The flying ridge of clouds is thinning

The flying ridge of clouds is thinning.

What is cheaper and what is “advanced” is better. Would Flaubert's pharmacist Homais, immortal common sense, be interested in the magic of words? He doesn’t see it, doesn’t hear it, and doesn’t perceive it.
For those who have neither an ear nor an eye, the reform is proceeding quite well. Today, three letters have been abolished, the agreement of an adjective with a plural noun8. Why not cancel verb types tomorrow? Why should there be nuances that are so difficult for a foreigner and complicate matters? “Leave them aside.” And it’s already close to the very verb forms. “Reduce”, “simplify”, make it clear to everyone. After all, Esperantists are working on their language, in their own way - not without success. True, it smells like a homunculus9, a chemical retort... Well, what can you do? But it's convenient.
The ugliness, uncreative and deathly nature of the reform is especially clear when you hold in your hands the pages printed on this vile Volapuk. You have to be either a blinded fanatic or understand nothing at all about the language to like it. The spirit of Pushkin, Tolstoy, Gogol is conveyed by the same techniques with which an illiterate hooligan writes on a fence. On great words there is a touch of something alien, bad. The combinations е, я instead of е, ія definitely resemble Little Russia, that is, again, a common vernacular. Pushkin seems to be translated into some plebeian jargon. I don’t want to offend the Ukrainians, but it cannot be denied that their language is the language of the peasantry; and as good as it is for folk songs, just as poorly does, for example, Ibsen sound on it (“Lyalkina Khata”10).
In the editorial office of the magazine, several issues of which were published using the new spelling, the staff-painters protested against it. They unanimously argued that the new writing was visually and graphically disgusting. It ruins every font, even the best one. I mention this because I don’t think it’s possible to ignore the voices of artists. This spelling had to be abandoned.
From everything stated above, it is clear, I think that the reform does not raise the language, it lowers it; it is not the reformer who intends to raise the crowd behind him, but himself to descend to the level of the crowd. This is the plebeian flavor of the reform.
The way this innovation was introduced is also characteristic: people of art, artists of words, were completely ignored. This is already an ancient bureaucratic Russian leaven. Russian literature, which glorified Russia throughout the world, is almost our only unshakable heritage - Russian literature was in bad standing both with Nicholas I and all subsequent and current masters. Russian artists, who are reviled by everyone during their lifetime, can sometimes be erected monuments (if their bones have completely decayed). But taking them into account, recognizing their voice as influential, is too much for the pharmacist Homais. He would rather lay his project to the congress of “teachers in city schools”11 than to Merezhkovsky, Bunin, Vyacheslav Ivanov... Well, Russian writers are used to it.
I still think that some organizations, for example the Moscow Writers' Club, should speak out. Among poets, fiction writers and philosophers, I have not yet met a single defender of the new letter. Everyone laughs and says the inevitable: “stupidity.” But perhaps laughter alone is not enough. Of course, life is entirely in the hands of businessmen, politicians and officials; Our words, a handful of impractical people, will not have any practical meaning. Nevertheless, contemporary Russian literature can and should lend its voice on issues that closely concern it. We must not forget that in fifteen years not only will our children begin to write in Esperanto, but also our prose and poetry will begin to be published in foreign jargon to please a handful of officials, in the silence of voiceless Russia. If we don’t like it, they will ask us: “Why were you silent?”

Notes

1 Volapuk, or Volapuk, is an international artificial socialized language created in 1879 by the German Catholic priest Johann Martin Schleyer.
2 Accent circonflexe (circumflex (French)) - diacritic mark over a vowel; denotes the open nature of the sound.
3 A number of scientists believe that the difference in the pronunciation of the letters e and ѣ disappeared in the 19th century, others argue that the special pronunciation of yat remained in speech at the beginning of the 20th century. In a number of dialects, a special shade of the sound e in place of the former yat is still observed.
4 In France, there was recently an attempt at spelling reform, but it failed under the blows of French writers (see, for example, Remy de Gourmont, an article in his Promenades Philosophiques). — Note. B.K. Zaitseva.
At the turn of the twentieth century in France, on behalf of the Ministry of Education, philologists P. Meyer and F. Bruno developed projects for spelling reform. As a result of a discussion in which prominent writers criticized the reform, the French Academy did not sanction its implementation. B. Zaitsev is referring to the article by the French writer and critic Remy de Gourmont (1858-1915) “An attempt to simplify spelling” (“Essai sur la simplification de l’orthographe”) in his book “Philosophical Walks” (Paris, 1905).
5 Kasso Lev Aristideovich (1865-1914) - Minister of Public Education in 1910-1914, under whom control over educational institutions and the activities of teachers was strengthened.
6 We are talking about N.A. Morozov (1854-1946), who revised the entire biblical chronology - in particular, he dated the books of the prophets to the 5th century AD. He also nurtured the idea of ​​compiling a “rational alphabet”, considered the letters ѣ and ѣ unnecessary, proposed replacing the dot sign with an asterisk, eliminating capital letters, etc.
7 The pharmacist Homais is a character in G. Flaubert’s novel Madame Bovary, personifying triumphant vulgarity. Stupid and ignorant, he claims to be a beacon of thought and a bearer of enlightenment.
8 The letters ѣ, ѣ, Ѳ, ѳ, I, i were canceled. A single spelling of endings was established for the nominative and accusative plural of all genders (for example, instead of good deeds, blue rivers - good deeds, blue rivers).
9 Homunculus or homunculus (homunculus (lat.) - little man) - in the view of medieval alchemists, a creature similar to a person that can be obtained artificially.
10 In modern Ukrainian publications, the title of G. Ibsen’s play “A Doll’s House” (1879) is translated as “Lalkovy Dim” or “Lyalkovy Budynok”.
11 For example, the All-Russian Congress of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature, held in December 1916 - January 1917 in Moscow, spoke in favor of reform.

Complete collection of creations

T. 4

A. M. Lyubomudrov
Saint Ignatius and the problem of creativity

All beauty, both visible and invisible, must be anointed with the Spirit; without this anointing, it bears the mark of corruption.

From a letter from St. Ignatius
K. P. Bryullov 1

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4), said the Lord. Indeed, the word of God is our precious, saving food. Is a word of art capable of nourishing a person’s soul? And what is this food, does it help spiritual growth, or, on the contrary, does it contain poison? What place does artistic creativity occupy in achieving the main Christian goal - enlightenment, deification, salvation of the soul?

The problem of the relationship between the church worldview and artistic creativity arose with the beginning of the New Age, when the paths of the Church and the paths of culture decisively diverged. Such questions were not faced by the contemporaries of St. Andrei Rublev, who created icons in fasting and prayer, reflecting the heavenly world of spiritual realities, not bringing anything “from himself,” but carefully listening to Eternity.

1 Letter from Archimandrite Ignatius to K. P. Bryullov dated April 27. 1847 // Collection of letters of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea. M.; St. Petersburg, 1995. P. 473. (Hereinafter – Collection of letters...).

Much credit for raising the question of Russian philosophical poetry, of the need to combine poetry with philosophy, belongs to a group of poets who entered the history of literature under the name of poets of wisdom. “The group of wise men,” wrote V.N. Orlov, “singled out three poets - Dmitry Vladimirovich Venevitinov (1805-1827), Stepan Petrovich Shevyrev (1806-1864) and Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804-1860). Their work (bearing in mind the activities of Shevyrev and Khomyakov only in the twenties and thirties) represents the first experience on Russian literary soil of creating theoretically conscious philosophical poetry, that is, poetry imbued with thought on the basis of a single and holistic philosophical and aesthetic worldview.”
D.V. Venevitinov, a recognized ideologist of the wise men, justified the demand put forward by the wise men to combine poetry with philosophy: “The first feeling never creates and cannot create, because it always represents agreement. Feeling only gives rise to thought, which develops in struggle and then, again turning into feeling, appears in the work. And therefore, the true poets of all peoples, of all centuries, were deep thinkers, were philosophers and, so to speak, the crown of enlightenment...” .
The idea of ​​the deep kinship of all genuine poetry with philosophy is one of the favorite and fundamental ones both for Venevitinov and for other wise men. Opa lay at the basis of their general aesthetic concept and determined the primary theme and content of their poetic experiments.
The current of social thought, which the group of wise men represented, was not isolated from the general development of Russian thought. It was due to reasons of general significance: the desire of a significant part of the Russian intelligentsia for thorough knowledge, for enlightenment, which would rest on solid and at the same time the most modern, the latest philosophical foundations. As Yu. Mann noted, “philosophy was one of the first (which appeared even before the December tragedy) symptoms of a change in moods and views in Russian society, one of the early forms of a broad philosophical movement of the 20-40s” 3.
In a certain, limited sense, the literary and aesthetic aspirations of some Decembrist writers were close to the literary quest of the wise men. Thus, A. Bestuzhev wrote about poetry of high philosophical content as a desirable future for Russian literature in “The Polar Star”. V. Kuchelbecker, who published in 1824-1825, wrote a lot about the same thing. together with the wise man V. Odoevsky, an almanac of the philosophical direction “Mnemosyne”. It is interesting that the biographer of the wise man Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev especially noted the closeness of the literary and aesthetic views of Kuchelbecker and the wise men: “... the critical views of Kuchelbecker can be recognized as those beliefs that were more or less current among the youth to which Alexander Ivanovich belonged...” 4.
Already after the program of philosophical poetry was promulgated by the wise men, in the late 20s and 30s, E. Baratynsky created examples of Russian philosophical lyrics incomparable in depth of thought and artistry. The fact that the achievements of the wise men cannot be compared with the poetic achievements of E. Baratynsky does not in any way negate the parallelism of their literary aspirations and a certain commonality of goals. As E. N. Kupreyanova wrote, “the very philosophical interests of the wise men, who were keen on German idealistic philosophy, and above all Schelling’s natural philosophy, were alien to Baratynsky, brought up on French rationalistic culture. But the actual aesthetic program of philosophical poetry put forward by the wise men corresponded to a certain extent with his creative aspirations”5.
In the early 30s - and this is also very significant - young Lermontov created cycles of poems, based
8 10. Mann. Russian philosophical aesthetics. M., “Iskusstvo”, 1939, pp. 7-8.
4 Biography of Alexander Ivanovich Koshelev, vol. 1, book. II. M., 1889, p. 24. About Kuchelbecker’s closeness to the philosophers, see also in the book: II. Kotlyarevsky. Vintage portraits. St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 91.
B E. II. Kupreyanova. E. A. Baratynsky - In the book: E. A. Baratynsky. Full collection poem L., 1957, p. 29.
bathrooms based on a strict and harmonious poetic and philosophical concept. At the same time, in some of his poems of these years (“Russian Melody”, “Elegy”, “Prayer”, etc.) Lermontov directly echoes the wise men6.
Finally, Pushkin in the second half of the 20s and in the 30s (we still have to talk about this thoroughly and in detail) did not remain indifferent to those philosophical quests in Russian poetry, which the wise men declared more than others and were among the first.
Thus, the literary and philosophical program and aspirations of the wise men are fundamentally not exceptional, but typological phenomena. They responded to the spirit of the times, they expressed significant trends in general literary development in Russia. And this ultimately determines the true historical significance of the wise men.
The Philosophers got their name from the name of the philosophical circle to which they belonged - the “Society of Philosophy.” This society arose in 1823. In addition to Venevitinov, Shevyrev and Khomyakov, it also included (or were close to him) V. F. Odoevsky, brothers I. V. and P. V. Kireevsky, A. I. Koshelev, V. P. Titov, N. A. Melgunov and some other representatives of Moscow literary youth.
Essentially, the unification of Moscow writers, called “lyubomudry”, into a close circle of like-minded people for most of them began before the emergence of the philosophical circle - even in early youth. Pupils of the Moscow University boarding school, students of Moscow University, belonging to the cultural elite of Moscow society, they very soon became close and became friends with each other on the basis of common philosophical, scientific and literary hobbies.
A.I. Koshelev, who left behind very lasting memories of this time, wrote: “At this time, i.e. in 1820-1822, I met some peers whose friendship or affection had a beneficial effect on my life. My first acquaintance was with I.V. Kireevsky... I was especially interested in political knowledge, and Kireevsky was belles lettres
6 See about this: B. M. Eikhenbaum. Lermontov's literary position. - In the book: B. M. Eikhenbaum. Articles about Lermontov. M.-JL, Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961, pp. 47-62.
and aesthetics, but we both felt the need for philosophy. .. My other acquaintance, which turned into friendship, was with Prince. V. F. Odoevsky. He and I soon started talking about German philosophy, which was introduced to him by Professor M. G. Pavlov and I. I. Davydov, who had returned from abroad... In addition, at this time I became friends with V. P. Titov, S. P. Shevyrev and N. A. Melgunov...”
The circle of future wise men gradually expanded and at the same time became increasingly smaller. Over time, in 1822-1823, it took shape, so to speak, organizationally. First, in a literary circle named after his inspirer, writer and famous translator S.E. Raich. Then in a philosophical circle, in a society of wise men.
About the nature of the activities in the circle of wise men, A.I. Koshelev wrote: “German philosophy dominated here, i.e. Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Oken, Görres, etc. Here we sometimes read our philosophical works; Most often, and for the most part, they talked about the works of the German philosophers who had read them. The principles on which all human knowledge should be based constituted the primary subject of our conversations; Christian teaching seemed to us suitable only for the masses, and not for us, the wise. We especially highly valued Spinoza, and we considered his works much higher than the Gospel and other sacred writings. We gathered at the book. Odoevsky... He presided, and D.V. Venevitipov did most of the talking and often delighted us with his speeches. These conversations continued until December 14, 1825, when we considered it necessary to stop them, both because we did not want to incur the suspicion of the police, and because political events concentrated everything on ourselves..."
The Decembrist uprising turned out to be decisive in many ways for the wise men. The attitude of the Lyubomudrov towards the Decembrists will help us clarify the social position of the Lyubomudrov, as it looked in the 20s.
Numerous facts and historical documents indicate that the majority of the wise men sympathized with the Decembrists and were close to them, although not in political views, but in the general spirit of independence and freethinking. It is significant that the official authorities suspected more than was and could be in reality. They saw the wise men as potential “rebels.” In the archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where many wise men served at that time, the rite of oath to the new tsar took place in compliance with emergency security measures: “By order from above, the military guard at the archive was tripled and the soldiers were supplied with cartridges. It was not a non-commissioned officer who commanded, but a major. They imagined, it seems, that the archive youths would imitate the St. Petersburg indignation.”
All wise men were keenly concerned about the fate of the Decembrists after the failure of the uprising. A.I. Koshelev testifies: “These days, or, more accurately, these months (for this situation continued until the appointment of the Supreme Court, i.e., it seems, until April), whoever lived through them will, of course, never forget . We, the youth, suffered less than we worried, and even almost wanted to be taken and thereby gain both fame and the crown of martyrdom...”
When the verdict was announced on the Decembrists, the wise men felt not only deep sorrow, but also horror: “It is impossible to describe or convey in words the horror and despondency that took possession of everyone: it was as if everyone had lost their father or brother...” p.
Of course, one should not exaggerate either the opposition of the wise men or their closeness to the Decembrists. Much in their behavior and speech bore traces of bookish influence; much came not from conviction, but from moral and aesthetic sympathy. These were people in their circle and culture close to the Decembrists, but of a different generation and a different “call”. They met the Decembrists shortly before they appeared before history in the aura of martyrdom. It was this last circumstance that made the strongest impression on the wise men and had the greatest impact. They sympathized not so much with the views of the Decembrists, but with them themselves. Their attitude towards the Decembrists was noticeably romantic. But they still sympathized with the Decembrists, and not with the government.
It is easy to see that this characteristic of the social position of the wise men is in the most general sense - so to speak, in summary. In reality, the wise men were by no means all alike. In relation to each of the wise men separately, this summary characteristic requires clarification.
Among the poets of wisdom - and they, naturally, interest us in the first place - Venevitinov was closest to the Decembrists in his views. A. I. Herzen wrote about him as a young man “full of dreams and ideas of 1825.” Shortly before the Decembrist uprising, Venevitinov expressed the idea (he was supported in this by I. Kireyevsky, Rozhalii and Koshelev) about the need to “make a change in the way of government in Russia.” After the failure of the uprising in St. Petersburg, together with I. Kireevsky and Koshelev, he engaged in fencing and horse riding “in anticipation of the triumph of the conspiracy in the southern (second) army and in the hope of joining the rebels in their supposed victorious march through Moscow to St. Petersburg.”
There is a version that Veievitpnov belongs to one of the secret societies. The notes of P. N. Lavrentieva, excerpts from which were published in the collected works of Venevitinov in 1934, say: “I knew from the words of Appepkov that Venevitinov was accepted into society, that he fully shares their noble views...”.
This evidence can hardly be trusted. But the point is not only in its validity or unfoundedness. The very possibility of such a version appearing is quite indicative. It proves, if not directly, then indirectly, the typological closeness of Bepevitipov to the Decembrists.
The position of A. S. Khomyakov in the 20s was, although more moderate than that of Venevitinov, but nevertheless quite independent and freedom-loving. During the events of December 14, Khomyakov was abroad. However, before leaving abroad, he collaborated with Ryleev and Bestuzhev in the almanac “Polar Star” and, while in St. Petersburg, often attended Ryleev’s meetings. At these meetings, true to his moderately conservative views, he argued for the injustice of " military revolution"16. They argued with him - and they trusted him. They trusted his personality and political honesty, respected him for his spirit of independence and inner love of freedom. The latter was manifested, in particular, in his sharply negative attitude towards serfdom - in this he was directly like-minded with the Decembrists. Later, in “Notes on World History,” Khomyakov would express the essence of his view on the enslavement of the people - a view that he never changed: “The enslaved people absorb many evil principles: the soul falls under the weight of the shackles that bind the body, and cannot already develop thoughts that are truly human. But domination is an even worse mentor than slavery, and the deep depravity of the victors takes revenge for the misfortune of the vanquished.”17
In the 20s, even S.P. Shevyrev, about whom there are still many prejudices in literary scholarship (and not without reason), adhered to fairly progressive views. During these years, he was not yet the retrograde and reactionary that he became later, in the 40s and 50s. In the social and scientific views of Shevyrev in the 20s and early 30s, a certain aesthetic bias and the predominance of aesthetic interests are noticeable. For him, aesthetic problems almost always come to the fore, although Shevyrev does not limit himself to aesthetic issues at this time. Very often, thoughts about the need for aesthetic education of the people lead Shevyrev with logical inevitability to the ideas of people's freedom.
The thought of the need for freedom for the people constantly occupies Shevyrev; this is a “sick” thought for him. On June 16, 1830, he writes in his diary: “... Russian
iv See: V. 3. Zavitnevich. Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov, vol. I, book. 1.
Kyiv, 1902, pp. 93-95. 117 A. S. Khomyakov. Poly. collection cit., ed. 2nd, vol. 3. M., 1882, p. 130.

the man is a slave, and the slave does not know the pleasure of grace. The graceful is tasted by a free soul."
It is interesting that even those features of Shevyrev’s views, which later developed into official Slavophilism, in the 20s look like a manifestation of enlightened and humane patriotism. He writes in his diary: “Russians should be educated in a spirit of tolerance towards everything foreign and in a passionate love for what is native. Whoever combines the tolerance of a stranger with love for his own is truly Russian... Truth, virtue, grace should be for every person, and therefore for a Russian, above his own egoism.” “Let us love our own,” he writes further, “believing it in truth, grace and virtue, and we will be impartial to the things of others. Let the Russian be a man
predominantly, a person with consciousness...” * * *
The Society of Philosophers nominally ceased to exist immediately after December 14, 1825. “I vividly remember,” wrote A.I. Koshelev, “how after this unfortunate date the prince. Odoevsky convened us and, with particular solemnity, committed both the charter and the protocols of our society of philosophy to the fire in his fireplace.”
However, the December events only put an end to the formal existence of the philosophical circle, but they did not at all lead to the disintegration of the literary community and the weakening of friendly ties. On the contrary, these ties have become even more internally strengthened. “The circle of wise men,” notes V.N. Orlov, “not being formalized organizationally, continued to exist precisely as a single and cohesive group until the end of the thirties” 22.

In fact, what united the wise men in their society, the literary and philosophical tasks that they set for themselves, after the December uprising not only did not lose their meaning and significance, but also acquired new and lively interest. The tragic failure that befell the noblest people of Russia on Senate Square forced many honest and thoughtful people to go into a kind of “spiritual underground”, to retire into the world of poetry and philosophical thought. The literary and philosophical goals of the wise men, therefore, find strong justification in the conditions of the post-December reaction. Paradoxical as it may sound, the wise men begin their true historical existence not when the society bearing this name arose, but from the time when it ceased to exist.
Most active and widespread in the period after December literary activity Lubomudrov unfolded in the magazine they published, Moskovsky Vestnik. It began publication in 1827. Initially, A.S. Pushkin also took part in its publication.
The background of the Moskovsky Vestnik magazine is as follows. In the autumn of 1826, Pushkin arrived from Mikhailovsky to Moscow. “Moscow received him with delight. Everywhere he was carried in their arms...” Shevyrev later recalled. Here in Moscow, first at P. A. Vyazemsky’s, and then at the Venevitinovs’ house, Pushkin reads his “Boris Godunov.” The brothers Kireevsky, Khomyakov, Shevyrev, Rozhalip, Pogodin were present at Venevitinov’s reading. Pogodin wrote about this reading: “The reading is over. We looked at each other for a long time and then rushed to Pushkin. Hugs began, noise arose, laughter was heard, tears flowed, congratulations. “Evan, hey, give me the cups!” Champagne appeared, and Pushkin became animated, seeing his effect on the chosen youth. He was pleased with our attention...”
So at the evening at the Venevitipovs’, Pushkin’s first acquaintance with young Moscow writers and lovers of wisdom took place. Apparently, there and then Pushkip learned about the intention of the wise men to publish their magazine, welcomed this intention, promised cooperation and help, and a few days later, having become acquainted with the publication plan, he gave the magazine a direct blessing. A formal agreement on the principles of cooperation is concluded with Pushkin. In December 1826, in the house of Khomyakov, in the presence of Mitskevich and Baratynsky, the founding of the new magazine was solemnly celebrated.
The agreement and alliance of Pushkin and the wise men in the joint publication of the magazine, although it turned out to be not very durable and strong, was, nevertheless, not accidental and had serious preconditions behind it. There is no doubt that Pushkin treated the philosophers with sympathetic interest and attention. As D.D. Blagoy noted, “the Venevitinov circle in the first two or three December years was the only literary and friendly association that was distinguished by a freedom-loving spirit and thereby continued, to some extent, the ideological traditions of the Decembrists. It is not surprising that at first, in this circle, Pushkin found, as it seemed to him, the closest environment to himself.”
At the time when the Moskovsky Vestnik was conceived and began to be published, Pushkip could not help but be attracted to the wise men by their open and honest youth, their not only love, but also their serious attitude towards poetry, their passion for positive knowledge. Kopechpo, this was far from everything that Pushkin would have ideally desired, but this was quite enough for agreement in the years of tragic timelessness.
Moskovsky Vestnik was one of the first Russian magazines with a direction. Pushkin openly sympathized with his direction at the early stages of the zhurpal’s existence. But it was still determined not by Pushkin, but by the wise men: it corresponded to their views on literature, their understanding of literary tasks. By its nature, by its predominant tendencies, Moskovsky Vestnik was a magazine with a noticeably expressed literary and philosophical direction.

The philosophical direction of the journal of wise men was reflected both in the content of literary-critical and general theoretical articles published in the magazine, and in the properties of the published poetic material. In the selection poetic works For printing, the publishers of the Moskovsky Vestnik showed a tendency that directly corresponded to their interest in philosophical themes and genres in poetry. The magazine published historical dramas, not of everyday life, but of a historical, philosophical and psychological nature: “Boris Godunov” by Pushkin, “Ermak” by Khomyakov, “Don Carlos” by Schiller, etc. Numerous translations from “Faust” by Hethe and others were published his works are mainly of a philosophical nature. The so-called “pantheistic” poems, both translated and those belonging to the philosophers themselves, occupied a large place in the magazine: for example, Khomyakov’s poems “Dawn” and “Youth”, Shevyrev’s poem “Night”. Here the reader was offered such philosophical poems by Shevyrev, already by name, as “Wisdom”, “Thought”, etc.
It is significant that even those poets, employees of the magazine, who had the slightest connection with either philosophy or the philosophers themselves, when published on the pages of Moskovsky Vestnik, tried to look like “philosophers.” Thus, in one of the issues of the magazine for 1829, publishing the poems “Two Fairies” and “The Seducer,” their author M. Dmitriev makes the following note to them: “These two poems constitute, so to speak, two sides of one subject. The questions of philosophy in them are the same; but in the first I wanted to present the restless doubt of the mind of the examiner, and in the second the calm confidence of a simple heart...” 27.
This amusing author's explanation of poems, infinitely far from any philosophy, serves as a kind of negative proof of the philosophical direction of the magazine. Authors like M. Dmitriev clearly tried to adapt themselves and their poems to general philosophical problems, so as not to be strangers to the magazine.
The best years for the Moskovsky Vestnik were the first two - 1827 and 1828. At this time, Pushkin and all the wise men took part in the publication of the magazine.
27 “Moskovsky Vestnik”, 1829, part 1, p. 146. Ій
except for the early deceased Venevitinov, who was able to see only the first issues of his favorite brainchild. Since 1829, the gradual decline of the magazine began. Disappointed with the way the magazine is run by its editors (both in business and literary terms), Pushkin sharply cools towards it; disagreements among the wise men and publishers of the magazine are intensifying; Readers' trust in him is gradually being lost. In 1830 the magazine ceased publication.
““Moscow Messenger,” wrote V. G. Belinsky, “had great merits, a lot of intelligence, a lot of ardor, but little, extremely little ingenuity and insight, and therefore he himself was the cause of his premature death” 28.
In essence, in the form in which it was originally conceived, the magazine existed for a long time. But even this short time was enough for Moskovsky Vestnik to leave a good memory and a noticeable mark in the history of Russian literature and journalism. “Moskovsky Vestnik,” wrote Gogol, “one of the best magazines, despite the fact that there was not much modern movement in it, was published in order to introduce the public to the most remarkable creations of Europe, to expand the range of our literature...”29 .
Both Gogol and Belinsky (even when they noted the failures and shortcomings of the magazine) felt clear sympathy for him. Both of them, although not to the same degree, saw the publication of wise men as a useful and historically significant enterprise.
The undoubted merit of the journal of wise men “Moskovsky Vestnik” was that it contributed to the spread of education in Russia. The historical place of the magazine, its historical and literary significance is largely determined by the fact that for the first time it directly posed the problem of philosophical poetry to Russian literature and that on its pages - also for the first time - they declared themselves as a single poetic group, as a kind of poetic TECHIOPIE in Russian lyric poetry of the 20s "POETS" are wise.

1. V. G. Belinsky. Poly. collection soch., vol. 1. M., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953, pp. 88-89.
2. N.V. Gogol. On the movement of magazine literature in 1834-lt; 1835 - Collection. op. in 6 volumes, vol. 6. M., Goslitizdat, 1950, p. 101.

# # *
The poets-philosophers Venevitinov, Khomyakov and Shevyrev (as well as Tyutchev) I. Kireevsky and after him Pushkin were called poets of the “German school” 30. There was some truth in this, although the words “German school” should be denounced more metaphorically than literally sense.
The “German school” for the poets of wisdom and Tyutchev already existed in the most external way: in listening to lectures by German professors, in communicating with German poets and scientists, etc. But the “German school” existed for the philosophers of wisdom in a deeper sense: in the influence German - primarily philosophical and romantic - ideas on their literary program, on their poetics, on the inner world of their poetry.
This influence was far from direct; it was also revealed in the forms of disagreement, polemics, and repulsion - which, however, did not make it any less significant or significant.
The very slogan of philosophical poetry, which was proclaimed by the wise men in Russia, partly went back to the German romantics. One of the most common definitions and characteristics of the romantic movement in literature, created by its first theorists and practitioners in Germany, connects romanticism in poetry with a philosophical understanding of life that is obligatory for the poet.
The call for the unification of poetry with philosophy was repeated in Germany at the end of the 18th century and into early XIX V. constantly - and was repeated by all the romantics of the older generation: Tieck, and Novalis, and Wackenroder, and the Schlegel brothers. The most prominent theorist of German romanticism, Friedrich Schlegel, wrote: “Philosophy and poetry, the highest manifestations of man, which even in their heyday in Athens existed separately, now merge with each other in order to enliven and elevate each other in endless interaction” 31.
“The whole history of modern poetry,” asserted
80 I. Kireevsky. Review of Russian literature for 1829 - Poly. collection soch., vol. 2. M., 1911, pp. 25-26; A. S. Pushkin. Poly, coll. op. in 10 volumes, volume 7, p. 114. 3) F. Schlegel. Epochs of world poetry. - In the book: Literary theory of German romanticism. Documents, JL, 1934, p. 199.

F. Schlegel elsewhere - there is an ongoing commentary on a short text of philosophy; every art must become a science, every science an art; poetry and philosophy must unite...” 32
The romantics in Germany, like the wise men in Russia, saw the merging of philosophy with poetry as a vital task of modern literary and social development. At the same time, the slogan of romanticism in literature and the slogan of philosophical poetry were in many ways adequate for them. As the same F. Schlegel said, “the real embryo of the romantic direction of mind was the mixture of poetic and philosophical views” 33.
Schelling occupied a prominent place among the German romantics, whose philosophical views, especially during his early period of activity, were noticeably pantheistic in nature. This is what most of all made him close to the romantic poets - both German and Russian. The humanization and deification of nature, so characteristic of the paptheistic view of the world, is, in essence, the same as the recognition of the fact that nature is involved in human secrets. The human principle lives in nature - and therefore it is given to man through nature to know himself The Russian Schellingian and wise man V.F. Odoevsky wrote about Schelling: “At the beginning of the 19th century, Schelling was the same as Christopher Columbus in the 15th: he revealed to man an unknown part of his world, about which there were only some fabulous legends - his soul!”34.
Schelling and his metaphysical system were the connecting link between philosophy and poetry. Poets who aspired to become philosophers found in him a thinker who not only wanted to be a poet, but was one in practice.
V. M. Zhirmunsky wrote about Schelling: “In Schelling himself there lived a direct poetic feeling of nature: that’s why he philosophical works similar to poems..." 35.
Schelling was a poet both in his methodology and in the quality and content of his thoughts. The very concept of the world that he proposed had all the features of a poetic picture. Nature was for him the most majestic of poems, “hidden under the shell of wonderful secret writing.” “The spirit of nature,” wrote Schelling, “only outwardly opposes the soul. Taken in itself, it is an instrument of its revelation." Outside the concept of “life,” nothing in the world can exist or be thought of: “...even what is dead in nature is not in itself dead, but is only extinct life.”
Poetry has the power to see and feel the living foundation of the universe - that is why, according to the romantic teachings of Schelling, the pastoral philosopher has the right, and even the obligation, to look at the world through the eyes of a poet. Schelling liked to repeat that his own philosophy “not only arose from poetry, but also sought to return to this source.”
Schelling, with his philosophy, gave poetry aesthetically attractive ideas about the universe, and symbolic images of the world around us, and ready-made poetic allegories about it. At the same time, images and allegories turned out to be no less productive in the poetic sense than the philosophical ideas themselves. They served as a kind of new mythology for romantic poetry, and provided Schelling with the enthusiastic sympathy of all theorists and practitioners of romanticism.
In the 20s and 30s of the XIX century. Schelling's popularity in Russia was enormous, his influence on Russian poetic thought was very noticeable. First of all, Schelling and his teaching had a profound influence on the wise. But Schelling's influence on Russian writers and poets was not limited to philosophy.
A. I. Turgenev called Schelling “the first thinking head in Germany”,
D.V. Venevitinov wrote to Koshelev that Schelling was for him “a source of pleasure and delight.”
In Russia, Schelling influenced such different poets and thinkers as Venevitinov and Shevyrev, A. Grigoriev and I. Kireevsky, Tyutchev and young Belipsky, etc. In many ways, this was facilitated not only by the poetic, but also by the anti-dogmatic principle in philosophical Schelling's constructions. A. I. Herzen noted that Schelling in his philosophy only outlined the paths, and did not proclaim the ultimate truth. The poetic and anti-dogmatic basis of Schelling's philosophy allowed both any and all Russian admirers of the German philosopher to follow him freely, without sacrificing at all the originality of their own thoughts and their own view of things.
Russian thinkers and poets, if they took something from Schelling, did so entirely in their own way. They almost never used Schelling's words and ideas literally. No matter how great the gravitation of Russian thought towards precise, philosophical knowledge, it perceived Schelling’s philosophy primarily from an artistic point of view: in general terms, as images and symbols of the universe, and much less in its own system and connections. With Schelling's philosophy in mind, Baratynsky wrote to Pushkin: “... I was very glad to have the opportunity to become acquainted with German aesthetics. I like her own poetry in her, but the beginning of it, it seems to me, can be refuted philosophically...” .
Among the wise men, Venevitinov was more fascinated by Schellip than others. As a consequence of this passion, in his articles we find individual provisions that could be called “Schellingian”.
But Venevitinov remained an original thinker and was by no means mechanically using formulations
Schelling. He freely included individual postulates of the German philosopher into his own concept, while Schelling’s mental moves and syllogisms, understood and interpreted in his own way by Venevitinov, led to special goals and led to completely independent conclusions.
This is not typical for Venevitinov alone and largely determines the overall relationship that developed between Schelling and the Russian romantics, between the wise men and the “German school.”
There is no doubt that the content of the concept of “German school”, which was put forward by I. Kireevsky, also included Schelling as an indispensable component of it. Perhaps it was Schelling and his influence on the poets of wisdom that I. Kireevsky had in mind in the first place when he spoke about the “German school.”
Proclaiming the slogan of philosophical poetry, Romantics in Germany - and in this they were supported by Schelling - saw in the poetic comprehension of the world the highest kind of knowledge. “Poetry is everything and everyone,” asserted theorists and practitioners of German romanticism. Poetry is capable of comprehending not just the truth, but the world-encompassing truth: “... it expresses not only the harmony of lines and the beauty of forms, but also world harmony, the mysterious connection between our “I” and nature, between the life of the individual and the life of the universe.”
Philosophical poetry for romantics is universal poetry and holistic knowledge. Poetry is called upon to fulfill not particular, not special, but global and universal tasks. According to the Romantics, in universal poetry “nature and art, poetry and prose, serious and comic, memory and premonition, spiritual and sensual, earthly and heavenly, life and death” should dissolve and appear as indivisible.
Perhaps it was this all-encompassing poetry and all-encompassing truth, this highest and complete knowledge promised by the romantics in Germany, that attracted most Russian writers to them - including the wise men. In the 20s of the XIX century. V. Odoevsky wrote: “Love-wisdom, which embraces the whole person, touching all aspects of his nature, can even more free the spirit from one-sided education and elevate it into the realm of the universal...” .
The dream of universal and integral knowledge, based on poetic insight and poetic “instinct,” runs through V. Odoevsky’s entire life and throughout his entire work. Khomyakov called for a universal, integral and poetic comprehension of truth in his works. Venevitinov wrote about “thinking” poetry based on an integral philosophy in program articles.
Although such unanimity in aspirations and statements is partly due to the belonging of the named writers to the “German school,” it cannot be explained alone. Of course, German philosophical and aesthetic thought suggested a lot to the wise, but the same demands and appeals that the German romantics seemed to make sounded different to the Russians: they had a different meaning and, most importantly, a different basis. The call of the German romantics to create universal philosophical poetry was taken up by the wise men because in Russia in the second quarter of the 19th century. there was a real need and its own special reasons.
Russian social thought, especially after the events of December 1825 and the reaction that followed, showed strong tendencies towards philosophical understanding modern reality, life in general, man. The Russian thinker of an independent and progressive persuasion, deprived of hopes for the quick implementation of his social ideals, sought to compensate for this tragic deficiency with a deep and profound knowledge, an internal, spiritual comprehension of the truth. And in this he did not want and could not limit himself to little. He needed the whole truth: only the world-encompassing truth and the world-encompassing poetry-philosophy could satisfy him.

Both Belinsky, speaking about world-encompassing philosophy, and the wise men, who strove to create universal philosophical poetry, did not think about Hermapia, but about the needs of Russian life and were guided by these needs. Belinsky and the wise men had different views, but a common historical basis: in some cases this could not but lead to a certain similarity of views. The fact that Belinsky belonged to the “Russian” school is beyond doubt for us. But the “German” school of wise men also turned out to be largely a Russian school. And this is very important for clarifying the true place of the wise men in the history of Russian literature.
The program of philosophical poetry proposed by these poets and not entirely implemented by them in practice, had a deep historical meaning. It met the essential needs of modern Russian life and therefore went beyond the scope of purely circle searches. It was historically determined and historically necessary.
The philosophical aspirations of the wise men were in close connection with the leading, deep processes of Russian life of the Los-Decembrist period. Ultimately, what the wise men did, and even more so, what they strove for in terms of their poetic and philosophical quests, was objectively an expression not of particular, but of general trends in the development of Russian society and Russian literature. That is why, in this sense, not only the poetic quests of Tyutchev, but even the quests of Pushkin were not completely fenced off from the searches of poets of wisdom.