First published: The story of my acquaintance with Gogol, including all correspondence from 1832 to 1852. Op. S. T. Aksakova. <Под ред. Н. М. Павлова> AND Russian Archive. 1890. Book. 4. N° 8.
pp. 39-40. Reprinted from a copy by S. T. Aksakov in his “History of our acquaintance with Gogol, including all correspondence from 1832 to 1852.”<с 1832 по 1843 г.>»: RSL. F. 3. K. 6. Unit. hr. 1.
Liza is yours... she writes herself.- Gogol's sister E.V. Gogol, kstr. 302 living in the house of P.I. Raevskaya. Apparently, a letter from Elisaveta Vasilievna to her brother was attached to S. T. Aksakov’s letter (see commentary to letter No. 480).
S. T. Aksakov
First published (with inaccuracies and omissions: <Ку- лиш П. А.>Nikolay M. Notes on the life of N.V. Gogol. St. Petersburg, 1856.
T. 1. P. 260; more fully, but also with inaccuracies and omissions, printed: Letters of N.V. Gogol): Ed. V. I. Shenrok. St. Petersburg,<1901 >. T. 2.
pp. 58-60. Autographed: GLM. F. 67. Op. 1. D. 3. 2 l.
...I still hope to stay in Vienna for about a month and a half... - See comment. to letter No. 482.
...“What will you give us as a new gift?”... - S. T. Aksakov rev. zoz ended, as in the fall of 1839, upon Gogol’s arrival in Moscow, “Konstantin asked Gogol a question, the most natural, but, of course, too often repeated by everyone when meeting the writer: “What did you bring us, Nikolai Vasilyevich?” - and Gogol suddenly he answered very dryly and with displeasure: “Nothing.” Such questions were always very unpleasant for him; he especially liked to keep secrets
what he was doing, and couldn’t stand it if they wanted to disrupt it” (Gogol in the memoirs of his contemporaries. P. 99).
Tsinsky(Tsynsky) - Lev Mikhailovich, Moscow chief of police in 1834-1845.
Konstantin Sergeevich - Aksakov.
kstr.304...wasn't my Shakespeare found, volume 2, which was taken to him?
with myself... - We are, in all likelihood, talking about that publication in French, which Gogol mentioned in a letter to A.S. Danilevsky dated April 23 (New Style), 1838: “Will you find the first one somewhere?” volumes of Shakespeare, that edition, which is in two columns and in two volumes, I think, and in these shops in Paleroyal, you can very easily find it. If Noel had been there, he would have fulfilled this commission gloriously. You can give up to 10 francs for it, because I gave 13 francs for both volumes<ков>"(letter No. 356).
...both editions of Maksimovich's songs... -"Little Russian songs published M. Maksimovich."(M., 1827); “Ukrainian folk songs published by M. Maksimovich” (M., 1834. Part 1).
Mikhail Semenovich- Shchepkin.
...all the boots made for me by Take... - About the Moscow shoemaker Taka, see the commentary to the lines of the seventh chapter of the first volume of “Dead Souls” - ...big... hunter of boots...- in volume 5 present. ed.
My comrade- V. A. Panov.
E. V. Gogol
The dating of the letter has been clarified. Written, in all likelihood, in Vienna, where Gogol was expecting a letter from his sister (see letter to her dated June 25 (NS); letter No. 473) and where on July 5 (NS) 1840 he received a letter from Moscow from S. T. Aksakov. In this letter, Aksakov informed Gogol that his sister was also writing him a letter, which was probably attached to Aksakov’s message: “Your Liza is healthy, she is beginning to get used to her new life and is settling well. We see each other quite often. She is visiting us another day: yesterday was Resurrection, and today Raevskaya is not at home. Lisa writes herself” (letter No. 478). A month later, in a letter to his mother dated August 7, 1840 from Vienna, Gogol mentions the letters he receives from his sister in Moscow. In the same place, Gogol talks about his sister’s message (in her letter to her mother) about the illness that happened to Elisaveta after saying goodbye to Gogol on May 18, 1840: “... out of her recklessness, she wrote a letter at that very moment, and added to it chest pain, which is naturally a lie. Because I just received a letter from Aksakov that she has gained weight. And she herself writes to me that, despite her grief, she is getting fat and is extremely afraid of becoming Shchepkin and all the dresses had to be sent to her. This is the kind of chest pain she has!” (letter No. 482). (Apparently, citing Aksakov’s “evidence” in the letter that his sister “gained weight,” Gogol was thus “retelling-
Aksakov’s brief message that “Liza... is healthy.”) In turn, in a letter to Elisaveta herself, Gogol writes about her illness: “You are very suspicious when it comes to your own health.” (Later, in a letter to his sister dated September 10, 1840, Gogol reprimands her: “Why did you write that you fell from the droshky, that your chest has been hurting since then, that you are terribly bored”; letter N° 484.) Thus, the letter from his sister was apparently received by Gogol on July 5 (new century), 1840, along with a letter from S. T. Aksakov; and the answer, in turn, was enclosed, as one might assume, in a letter to Aksakov dated July 7 (New Style), 1840.
Molchanova - Sofya Nikolaevna.
A. A. Ivanov - N. V. Gogol
First published, with inaccuracies and without reference to Gogol: Alexander Andreevich Ivanov. His life and correspondence. 1806-1858. Published by Mikhail Botkin. St. Petersburg, 1880. pp. 125-126. Reprinted from: Correspondence of N.V. Gogol. In 2 vols. Intro. Art. A. A. Karpova. Comp. and comment. A. A. Karpova and M. N. Virolainen. M., 1988. T. 2. P. 444-445; with addition by: Alexander Andreevich Ivanov (1806-1858).
Letters and notebooks. Compilation, preface. and note.
B. M. Bernstein AND Masters of art about art. M., 1969. T. 6.
P. 301. to page 305
...arranged in the form of offices... - Further in the 1969 publication:
"very tightly closed." back to page goiter
...in Overbeck's studio his large painting...- Painting by F. Overbeck “The Union of Religion and the Arts” (finished in 1840).
...in Ingres's studio his painting... - This refers to either the painting by J. Ingres “Odalisque and the Slave” or his “Stratonicus”.
M. I. Gogol
I stay here no more than a week and go to Venice. - A month before this, on July 7 (New Style), 1840, Gogol wrote to S. T. Aksakov: “... I still hope to stay in Vienna for about a month and a half...” In a letter to his sister A. V. Gogol dated On August 7 (NS) 1840 he also reported: “I’m leaving here these days for Venice." However, Gogol arrived in Venice only on September 2, 1840. The reason for the delay was illness. V. A. Panov wrote to S. T. Aksakov on November 9/21, 1840: “In Vienna, he was only bothered by some kind of pain in his leg. During the almost 4 weeks that I stayed here with him, I clearly saw that he was busy with something. Although at this time he was treating himself, drinking water, taking a walk, he still had free time, and then he reread and rewrote his huge collection of Little Russian songs, collected scraps on which he had written sayings, remarks, etc. Separating around half of June [to date] Art.], we decided to meet in Venice. He wanted to come
there from Vienna in mid-August, and my deadline was September 1st. Entering Venice 2 September<бря>, I was trembling, afraid I wouldn’t find him in it anymore. Instead, I meet him in St. Mark's Square and find out that we entered from opposite directions at the same hour. The illness from which he thought he would die kept him in Vienna. Fortunately, I was with him<Н. П.>Botkin, the brother of the one whom Konstantin Sergeevich knows. This truly kind man looked after him like a nanny. [He came here with him, and now lives with me in the same house.] This illness upset Nick for a long time<олая>You<ильевича>, already upset. She distracted his attention from everything, and only in Venice did he sometimes have moments of calm, in which his spirit somehow brightened the terrible gloom of his condition, mostly out of necessity material” (Letters of N.V. Gogol / Ed. V.I. Shenroka, T. 2, p. 87). See also letter Nq 490.
Praskovya Ivanovna- Raevskaya.
...added chest pain, which is naturally a lie.- See comment to letter No. 480.
E. V. Gogol
The dating of this letter, as well as related letters No. 485-487, has been clarified. The year indicated by Gogol on the letter to his sister: “1840”, as well as the place of departure indicated in three letters: “Venice”, indicate that the letters could only have been written during his stay in Venice from the 2nd to the beginning of the twentieth September (NS) 1840 August these September letters were marked by Gogol incorrectly; a similar error is often found in his correspondence and is associated with an incorrect understanding of the calendar when recalculating the difference between the European and Russian styles of chronology (see, in particular, the commentary on letters No. 378, 419, etc.). The dating of these letters in September (10th of the New Art), and not in August, as in Gogol, was proposed at one time by A.I. Kirpichnikov (see: Kirpichnikov A. I. Doubts and contradictions in the biography of N. V. Gogol AND News ORYAS. 1900. Part 2. p. 46-49). Arguments of A.G. Dementyev, who did not agree with this dating (see commentary, in the ed.: Gogol N.V. Poly. collection Op.: In 14 vols.<Л.>, 1952. T. 11. P. 437), seem to us unconvincing. The intention communicated by Gogol at the end of this letter to his sister: to be in Rome “at the end of this month” is exactly fulfilled (if we rely on the proposed dating) with Gogol’s arrival in Rome on September 25 (NS) 1840. Gogol’s message in the same letter about his health: “It was definitely bad, and I was seriously ill,” corresponds to data about his illness in Vienna, from where he left at the end of August (NS) 1840 (see comment , to letter No. 482). According to his own testimony, Gogol then used the means of healing from his illness by moving from Vienna to Tri-
eats (not far from Venice) and further - to Venice and Rome: “I ordered myself to be put on a stagecoach and taken to Italy. When I reached Trieste, I felt better. The road, my only medicine, had its effect this time too” (letter to M.P. Pogodin dated October 29 (NS) 1840 from Rome - N° 490). All this contradicts attempts to attribute the letters written by Gogol in Venice to the time of his stay in Vienna - especially since then it is difficult to bring convincing considerations to the “question of why Gogol indicated Venice instead of Vienna” (Gogol N.V. Full collection cit.: In 14 vols. T. 11. P. 437).
Now I'm looking forward to your description of the village...-kstr.309 E.V. Gogol, together with P.I. Raevskaya, S.N. Molchanova, N. Zederholm and V. Mosolova, spent the summer of 1840 in the village of Raevskaya (see Gogol’s letter to P.I. Raevskaya dated June 25 (n. Art.) 1840 - N° 477).
Sofya Nikolaevna- Molchanov (see commentary to the letter to the extr.zyu No. 467).
Nadezhda Karlovna- Zederholm.
Olga Nikolavna- typo; Above, Gogol correctly names the name of Sofia Nikolaevna Molchanova.
Varinka- Mosolova (born 1828), niece of P.I. Raev-kstr. 312
M. S. Shchepkin
Printed with a correction according to the meaning, in the phrase: “More.” I didn’t have time to correct Shakespeare’s play in a hurry,” instead of the erroneous: “I didn’t have time to correct Shakespeare’s play in a hurry.”
See commentary to the section “Translations edited by N.V. Gogol. Plays for benefit performances by M. S. Shchepkin” in vol. 7 present, ed., as well as lines in Gogol’s letter to A. S. Danilevsky dated April 23 (New Art), 1838:
“Can you still find the first volume of Shakespeare somewhere...”
(letter No. 356).
...half the bet is won...- See commentary to the section “Translations edited by N.V. Gogol. Plays for benefit performances by M. S. Shchepkin” in volume 7 present. ed.
...the comedy is ready.- Russian translation, edited by Gogol, of the comedy by J. Giraud “A Man in a Difficult Situation”
(vol. 7 present edition).
S.T. - Sergei Timofeevich Aksakov. to page 3 12
I didn't have time to correct the Shakespeare play in a hurry. - See com-kstr. 314 ment, to the section “Translations edited by N.V. Gogol. Plays for benefit performances by M. S. Shchepkin” in volume 7 present. ed.
O. Sem. Aksakova
The dating of the letter has been clarified (see commentary to letter No. 484).
...Sergei Timofeevich is probably not in Moscow now.- S. T. Aksakov recalled this time: “... I informed Gogol,
that I was leaving with Konstantin for the Volga, where I left, it seems, on June 27... I returned from beyond the Volga at the end of August” (Gogol in the memoirs of his contemporaries. pp. 127-128).
...hand over to Mikhail Semenovich the accompanying action of the comedy translated for him. -
This request applies directly to Vera Sergeevna... - S. T. Aksakov explained: “The request to Verochka relates to my portrait, which she promised to paint for Gogol, the fulfillment of which, no doubt, was hindered by my absence” (Gogol in the memoirs of his contemporaries. P. 128).
M. P. and E. V. Pogodin
The dating of the letter has been clarified (see commentary to letter No. 484). kstr.315...give Shchepkin the attached action of the translated
comedy for him. - See commentary to letter No. 485.
Peter- son of M.P. Pogodin, born in 1840, shortly after Gogol’s departure from Moscow.
Mitya - Dmitry Mikhailovich (1836-1859), son of the Pogodins, to page 316Liz<авета>Fominishna - Wagner, mother-in-law Pogodin.
Agraf<ена>Mikhailovna- Pogodin, mother Pogodin.
Grigory Petrovich- Pogodin, brother of M. P. Pogodin.
Mikhail Ivanovich- relative of the Pogodins.
Agrafena Petrovna- sister of M. P. Pogodin (married Messing).
Rialto bridge in Venice.
M. I. Gogol
Gogol arrived in Rome together with N.P. Botkin and V.A. Panov on September 13/25 (new style), 1840.
A. V. Gogol
kstr. 318...as the Savior Himself said, do not look at people. - Probably,
This refers to the words of the Savior: “Woe to you when all people speak well of you” (Luke 6:26).
Godson- nephew N.P. Trushkovsky.
M. P. Pogodin
The dating of the letter has been clarified. Pogodin responded to Gogol to this letter on November 28, 1840 (letter No. 493). Gogol's letter was received by him in Moscow on November 27, 1840, about which an entry was preserved in his diary: “November... 27... I received a letter from Gogol. I was consoled and saddened. Amazing creation man! - And I still can’t quite believe it. Man is corrupt, the original mind is clear. “There were solemn moments.” (Pogodin M.P. Diary. 1840-1845; RSL.
F. 231. Section. I. K. 33. Unit. hr. 1. L. 19 rev.). On November 28, 1840, Pogodin wrote a response (see letter No. 494). Apparently, the date that Gogol put on the letter: “October 17,” refers to the Russian style, because only in this case the time it took for it to reach Moscow (20 days) will be quite real. If we assume that the letter is dated in a new style, i.e. written on October 5/17, then the time it will be on the road will be more than a month - which seems less plausible.
Lisa- Elizaveta Vasilievna, Gogol's sister. kstr 321
...to the rare finds you made. - On August 28, M.P. Pogodin acquired manuscripts and early printed books from the collection of the merchant Laptev for the “Ancient Repository”.
...which lies closest to me... - Perhaps we are talking about the “Chronicle of Little Russia,” on the discovery of which M. A. Maksimovich congratulated M. P. Pogodin at that time.
A plot that I've been lazily keeping in my head lately. 322 to her... - Drama from the era of Bogdan Khmelnitsky (see Vol. 7 of this edition).
...the terrible anxiety in which I saw poor Velegorskykstr.323in the last minutes of life. - O. Sem. Aksakova, responding to these lines of Gogol, wrote to M. P. Pogodin: “Gogol’s letter covered me in a fog. He needs to be pulled out of Rome. He himself doesn’t understand, he needs his native air - Russian, Moscow friends, and he will come to life, but otherwise he will die, like Vielgorsky, like Stankevich.” (Barsukov N. Life and works of M. P. Pogodin. Book 5. P. 369).
...place near Krivtsov. - Gogol was applying for the position of secretary. 324 tar under P.I. Krivtsov, who was appointed chief of Russian artists in Rome. In exchange for this, Krivtsov offered Gogol the position of “librarian of the as yet non-existent library”
No. 522). See also letters N© 452, 464, 476, 492, 494.
...against... all sorts of different chaff... - See comment to line. 325 Kam of Gogol's notebook 1846-1850. - ...the sting of satire touched... even that which should constitute a shrine... - in volume 9 present. ed.
...immortal dome... - Dome of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
...as if Zhukovsky is getting married?- In 1841, V. A. Zhukovsky, at the age of 58, married young Elisabeth Reitern, daughter of the German artist G. R. Reitern.
E. V. Pogodina
The dating of the letter has been clarified. The letter was probably included in a message to M.P. Pogodin dated October 29 (New Style) 1840 (see commentary to this letter - No. 490).
You also thank me, Elizaveta Vasilievna, for remembering you. - See letter No. 487.
P. A. Pletnev
to page 327 ...what's my business.- Gogol means the secretary's place in
P.I. Krivtsov (see commentary to letters No. 452, 464, 476, 490, 494).
I fell seriously ill... - See commentary to letter No. 482, as well as letter No. 490.
Veturin(vetturino; it) - cab.
I started such a thing... - This refers to a drama from Ukrainian history (see commentary to<Наброскам и материалам драмы из эпохи Богдана Хмельницкого>in volume 7 present. ed.).
In this article, Dobrolyubov continued the analysis of the work of S. T. Aksakov, which he began in the article “The village life of a landowner in the old years.” The critic here clarified and supplemented previous judgments and gave a concise, apt description of the writer’s creative individuality. In “The Village Life of a Landowner...” the critic’s gaze was focused on the positive, from his point of view, trends in the writer’s work. Now he criticizes the “old world” principle, which was especially clearly evident in the works collected in the book “Miscellaneous Works”. Dobrolyubov now appeals to the opinion of readers who found Aksakov’s works boring and drawn out.
* * *
The given introductory fragment of the book Various works by S. Aksakov (N. A. Dobrolyubov, 1859) provided by our book partner - the company liters.
Moscow, 1858
S. T. Aksakov’s new book cannot in any way arouse serious criticism, similar to those to which his “Family Chronicle” and “Bagrov’s Childhood Years” were subjected (1). The “Miscellaneous Works” now published have one property that should force criticism - whatever its meaning - to take on a completely different character than before. When reviewing a book, a reviewer always has in mind whether the public will read the book being reviewed or not. If so, then criticism, assuming the content is known, tries to explain its meaning, trace the development of the author’s ideas, express its opinion about the objects presented by the author and the method of depicting them. This is what our criticism did with the works of Mr. Aksakov, published in recent years. But if many considerations lead criticism to the conviction that the public will not, and should not, read books, then the analysis, obviously, should have a different meaning: it should only give an idea about the book in order to save lovers of reading from wasting time. It is precisely this kind of analysis that we consider appropriate for Mr. Aksakov’s “Miscellaneous Works.”
But first, out of respect for the talent and literary authority of the venerable author, let’s say why we believe that his new book will not be read. We know that he aroused the interest of some of the public with his notes on fishing and gun hunting. Regarding these books, it was noted that Mr. Aksakov writes in a very good style, describes the beauties of nature with a warm feeling and has great knowledge about different breeds of fish and birds (2). S. T. Aksakov remained with this reputation until 1856, when he published the “Family Chronicle” (3). Excerpts from the “Chronicle” and “Memoirs” had previously been published in various magazines (4) and aroused great expectations among the public. The publication of the Chronicle was greeted with such enthusiasm, which, they say, has not happened since the appearance of Dead Souls. All magazines were filled with articles about S. T. Aksakov. Not all critics have shown equal insight in determining the merits of The Family Chronicle; but they all equally reminded us of the times in which we had Russian Pindars, Molieres and Voltaires. Some of the critics asserted that S. T. Aksakov, in terms of the calmness and clarity of his worldview, is nothing more than a new Homer; others argued that due to his amazing skill in developing characters, he is most likely the Russian Shakespeare; still others, much more moderately, said that S. T. Aksakov is nothing more than our Walter Scott. (5) However, none of the critics went lower than Walter Scott. We don’t know whether the public read all the criticisms of S. T. Aksakov and whether they believed them if they did; but what is certain is that the “Family Chronicle” was soon published in a second edition, (6) which means it was read. Its success, in addition to the undoubted merits of the presentation, was greatly facilitated by the circumstance that helped the success of “Old Years” by Mr. Melnikov, “Past Times” by Mr. Saltykov (7), etc. There was a look back at the past, which we We were afraid to look back at that time, because it had not yet completely passed for us. Memoirs of Mr. Aksakov were warned by several months of the works of Messrs. Shchedrin, Pechersky and others, and, in addition, they stood a degree higher than them in relation to public interest, which the public is now mainly looking for in literary works. In accusatory stories, readers saw a parable, an allegory, a collection of anecdotes; in Mr. Aksakov they found the truth, reality, history. Carried away by their main idea - to punish vice, denunciatory writers very often made the mistake of discarding in their works everything that seemed to outsiders to be their main idea; That is why their stories often suffered from some artificiality and lifelessness. Mr. Aksakov did not have such a one-sided hobby; he simply wrote the truth he had lived and felt, and that is why his book showed more vitality and versatility; public interests were grouped with private, intimate ones and were expressed in the book exactly to the extent that they mattered in the author’s life itself. Thus, S. T. Aksakov’s book was striking in its simplicity, sincerity, and the absence of pretensions and predetermined provisions. Readers willingly forgave the author for some of the prolixity of his descriptions, and unnecessary repetitions of the same thing in different places of the book, and warmed-up lyricism about events long past, and the remnants of some servile attitudes towards various celebrities whom the author met in his youth. All this was forgiven him for those lively pages in which he presented the living types of the Bagrovs and Kurolesovs, described his gymnasium and university education, and conveyed fresh impressions of the nature that surrounded his childhood. “Family Chronicle” and “Memoirs” of Mr. Aksakov clearly and directly told the reader that this is living reality, and not fiction, Indeed, but not on purpose- an advantage that most of our accusatory stories lacked. And this is what, in our opinion, most explains the success of Mr. Aksakov’s book among our public, usually so indifferent to artistic merits, and now especially susceptible to public interests. Criticism at one time did not pay due attention to this side of the relationship of “The Family Chronicle” to modern readers and was almost exclusively concerned with analyzing its artistic form. Sticking to their point of view, critics greeted Bagrov’s Childhood Years, published by Mr. Aksakov last year, with the same enthusiasm. They found in them the same mastery of storytelling, the same sincerity and simplicity, the same ability to paint nature, and therefore they expected that they would have the same success as the “Family Chronicle.” (8) But the public was not at all interested in the new work Mr. Aksakov of the same enthusiasm; “Childhood Years” seemed boring, enthusiastic magazine praise for it aroused laughter in readers; Of all the critics on Mr. Aksakov, the one I liked most was the strictest one (in the Athenaeum), although its whole essence lay in the very thorough and witty development of one main idea: “that Mr. Aksakov’s book would have been good if it had not been too long "(9) We were also sorting out the "Childhood Years" at that time and, feeling that we could not help laughing if we decided to talk about their artistic merits, we decided to collect from the entire book those grains of generally interesting facts that were scattered in the "Childhood Years" years" between many hundreds of fishing, digestive and drawing details. When compiling our analysis, we even then had in mind that the public would read Mr. Aksakov’s new book poorly; but we did not want to appear as ominous prophets for the author and then noted: “The authority of S. T. Aksakov was established by the public - let it itself destroy him if it wants; There is no need for criticism to shout in defiance of the public in this case, because Mr. Aksakov’s activities do not contain anything harmful or ignoble.”(10)
Our assumptions came true, unfortunately, sooner and more completely than we expected; complete indifference, even some disdain and mockery now appeared in the public instead of the previous enthusiasm for the works of Mr. Aksakov. Last year’s “Russian Conversation” constantly published his “Literary and Theatrical Memoirs” (11) and was constantly overlooked even by the readers of the “Conversation.” Everyone has already learned that Mr. Aksakov’s talent is too subjective for accurate social characteristics, too full of lyricism for a calm assessment of people and works, too naive for sharp and deep observation. In “Memoirs”, published together with the “Chronicle”, it was already clear that S. T. Aksakov too loose refers to those personalities and life phenomena that occupied his youth. And there the author’s pathos, directed at fishing rods, noble performances and celebrities like Shusherin, Kokoshki, etc., was no longer quite pleasantly striking in places. In the new memoirs they expected even stronger pathos, even more pettiness, and they were not mistaken. As a result, the literary fame of S. T. Aksakov disappeared as quickly as it arose, and his new book was greeted with coldness that borders on disdain. Recently we even heard a comparison between S. T. Aksakov’s new memoirs and the notes of that gentleman, an excerpt from whose diary was published last year in Sovremennik (in “Notes of a New Poet”). RV, 1856, book. 1, and 1858, book. 9–11. (12) We would like with all our hearts to refute the unfavorable opinion of the public by analyzing Mr. Aksakov’s “Miscellaneous Works”; but, unfortunately, they fully justify the disappointment of readers, as we will now see.
More than half of the book “Miscellaneous Works” is occupied by literary and theatrical memories. More than half of the rest is “Biography of Zagoskin.” Then the book contains small articles: “Buran”, “A few words about M. S. Shchepkin” and “Memories of D. B. Mertvago”. IN applications Three more short articles by Mr. Aksakov, written thirty years ago, were reprinted from old magazines: “On the merits of the prince. Shakhovsky in dramatic literature”, “About the novel Yuri Miloslavsky” and “Letter to the publisher of the Moskovsky Vestnik about Pushkin”. Wanting to give an idea of the nature of “Literary and Theatrical Memoirs” in comparison with Mr. Aksakov’s previous memoirs, we will use one of his remarks about Mochalov. According to Mr. Aksakov, Mochalov was very good when he played completely simply. In one play he delighted the prince with his performance. Shakhovsky, and he forced him to repeat the play and asked some important person from the visitors to the theater, specifically to watch Mochalov’s play. Having learned about this, Mochalov, but according to S. T. Aksakov, "I tried and played unbearably badly.” Something similar happened to the author of The Family Chronicle. Noticing that general curiosity was directed at him, hearing praise for his style, sincerity and the truth of his memories, S. T. Aksakov apparently began try, and the result came out similar to Mochalov’s. All the shortcomings that were in embryo in the “Chronicle” and “Memoirs” have now grown terribly and obscured the modest virtues that had managed to protect themselves from the corrupting influence efforts Aksakov. And in the venerable author’s previous memoirs there were lyrical pages that said, for example: “With what trembling heart I used to wait for half past five to go to Sennaya Square - to Shusherin!.. I still can’t remember without admiration about this blissful time! - or: “It is impossible to express in words what I felt and what a night I spent waiting for the blissful moment when I would be introduced to Shishkov”; - or: “I was intoxicated with delight and happiness, having had the honor of reading Derzhavin’s poems! Blessed be the art of reading, which has illuminated the humble path of my life with such bliss, the memory of which still pours joy into my entire being! (13) In previous memories there were also very special details, such as that in such and such a scene , at such and such a performance, Bobrov was stupid, and Semyonova was charming, that the actor Fyalo very naturally played the role of the Unknown, that at such and such a home performance, one of the noble artists accidentally had his jacket unbuttoned, and S. T. Aksakov took it and buttoned it up, etc. But all this means absolutely nothing in comparison with the thoroughness with which Mr. Aksakov’s new memories are distinguished. Previously, he depicted at least Derzhavin, Shishkov, Shusherin; now Nikolev, Ilyin, Kokoshkin, Shakhovskoy, Pisarev, etc. appear before us. And speaking about these people, the author still reveals some remnants of the naive servility with which he was imbued with them in his youth. “So-and-so treated me kindly... This one loved me very much... This one treated me very favorably” - these are the expressions in which Mr. Aksakov talks about his literary acquaintances. And don’t think that such relationships existed at a time when the author was still a modest youth; no, it was like this all the time - until S. T. Aksakov himself became the “patriarch of Russian literature.” Here, for example, is how he speaks about his acquaintance with the book. I. M. Dolgoruky in 1821, when the author of “Memoirs” was already thirty years. Ivan Mikhailovich saw him at a home performance and praised him. "I'm ashamed– the author touchingly notes thirty-eight years later, – repeat his praises, which were, of course, too exaggerated ... " Then he continues: “From then on, the prince fell in love with me very much. I read to him a lot from his unpublished works, including a huge tragedy, in three thousand barbaric verses, which took place in an unknown place, among an unknown people. However, the writer himself laughed at his creation” (p. 67). So - the author’s obsequiousness was not limited to the fact that in his blooming youth he enthusiastically read Derzhavin’s absurd tragedies: he did the same at the age of thirty for Prince I.M. Dolgorukov, who laughed at himself! He did the same for Nikolev, whom, as he himself says, he did not respect at all. On his first date with Nikolev, he said that “I would be happy if I could hear something from his tragedy “Malek Adel.” Nikolev began to recite, S. T. Aksakov was carried away and extolled the author with sincere praise, and the following four strong verses were forever “embedded” in his memory:
End of introductory fragment.
|
N.V. Gogol and Aksakovs “Very few knew Gogol as a person. Even with his friends he was not completely, or better yet, always frank...” S.T. Aksakov
« Gogol constantly looked at his work as a feat; there were not two lives and two separate persons in it: the writer and the person, a member of society. When I was present at the reading of two chapters from the second volume of “Dead Souls,” I felt scared, so every line seemed written - in blood and flesh, with his whole life. It seemed as if he had taken into his soul all the sorrow of Russia.”.
I.S. Aksakov
|
 |
The Aksakov family is a remarkable and, in its own way, unique phenomenon of Russian life of 1830-1850. The head of the family, the writer Sergei Timofeevich Aksakov (1791-1859), left a noticeable mark on our culture; his eldest son Konstantin Sergeevich (1817-1860) gained fame as a poet, critic and publicist; Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov (1823-1886) was also a prominent poet and public figure. Contemporaries were attracted by the warmth and cordiality that reigned in this family, the purity of its moral atmosphere, the breadth of cultural interests, and the surprisingly strong connection between the older and younger generations.
Gogol was first introduced into the Aksakov house, one of the centers of Moscow life of that era, by M. P. Pogodin in July 1832. Over time, friendly relations united the writer with many members of this family, but Sergei Timofeevich turned out to be closest to him. He was one of the first to understand the greatness of Gogol's talent, treated his genius with the greatest respect, was lenient towards human weaknesses, and unselfishly helped in everyday affairs. Sergei Timofeevich never tired of proving to everyone that Gogol cannot be “judged by himself,” by ordinary human standards, that his thoughts, nerves and feelings are several times subtler and more vulnerable than everyone else’s.
For all the complexity of Gogol’s relationship with Aksakov, there was no other family where the writer was treated with such sincere cordiality and admiration. The Aksakovs transferred their good feelings towards Nikolai Vasilyevich to his family. Their long-term correspondence speaks about the warm, trusting relationship of Gogol’s mother and sisters to these people.
N. Pavlov recalled that “they had never seen Gogol anywhere... so cheerful and wide open as in the Aksakovs’ house.”
The Aksakov family, in which nine children were lovingly raised, went down in the history of Russian culture as a very friendly and loving exemplary family. In the atmosphere of love that reigned here, the eternal wanderer himself, Gogol, often “warmed up.”
29. Correspondence of N.V. Gogol: in 2 volumes. T.2. / editor: V.E. Vatsuro [et al.]; comp. and comment. A.A. Karpova, M.N. Virolainen. – M.: Artist. lit., 1988. –S. 5-113. – (Correspondence of Russian writers).
This collection includes 24 letters from Gogol to Aksakov and 18 letters from Sergei Timofeevich and Konstantin Sergeevich to him. These confessional letters are a kind of chronicle of Gogol’s mental life, which traces all the drama of his changes in his attitude towards the world and people.
30. Aksakov, S.T. The story of my acquaintance with Gogol, including all correspondence from 1832 to 1852 / S.T. Aksakov // Collection. op.: in 4 volumes / prepared. text and notes S. Mashinsky. – M.: Gosizdat Khudozh. lit., 1956. – T.3. - pp. 149-388.
31. Aksakov, S.T. The story of my acquaintance with Gogol. Notes and letters 1843 - 1852 / S.T. Aksakov // Collection. cit.: in 3 volumes / comment. V.N. Grekova, A.G. Kuznetsova; issued artist V.N. Jodorowsky. – M.: Artist. lit., 1986. – T. 3. – P. 5-248.
32. Aksakov, S.T. The story of my acquaintance with Gogol / S.T. Aksakov //Gogol in the memoirs of his contemporaries / ed. text, preface and comment. S. Mashinsky; under general ed. N.L. Brodsky [and others]. – M.: Gosizdat Khudozh. lit., 1952. -P.87-208. – (Series of literary memoirs).
This book occupies one of the leading places in memoir literature. It was created by a talented, intelligent and honest writer, a man devoted to his friend and who sincerely loved him. Aksakov believed that he would help his contemporaries and descendants come closer to understanding Gogol’s complex personality. The book consists of two parts: the first is memoirs covering the period from 1832 to 1843, written by the author himself; the second is carefully selected letters, diaries and other documents stored in the Aksakov family archive with great chronological accuracy.
33. Aksakov, S.T. Letter to Gogol's friends. A few words about the biography of Gogol / S.T. Aksakov // Collection. op.: in 4 volumes / prepared. text and notes S. Mashinsky. – M.: Gosizdat Khudozh. lit., 1956. – T. 3. - P. 599-606.
Two very poignant articles written immediately after Gogol’s death (the first) and a year after his death (the second). In the spirit of Christian morality of forgiveness, the author calls on readers and friends of the great writer to stop arguing and forget previous disagreements.
34. Veresaev, V. Gogol in life: A systematic collection of authentic testimonies from contemporaries / V. Veresaev; entry Art. I.P. Zolotussky; prepared text and notes E.L. Beznosova. – M.: Moscow. worker, 1990. – 640 p.
The book is similar to another widely known work, “Pushkin in Life.” The author collected memories and letters about Gogol and combined them together, which creates a living portrait of a “strange” genius.
The 1933 edition is reproduced unabridged.
35. Voitolovskaya, E.L. Aksakov and Gogol / E.L. Voitolovskaya // S.T. Aksakov in the circle of classic writers: documentary essays / design. I. Sensky; photographs by A. Korol. – L.: Det. lit., 1982. – P. 91-151.
In the history of Russian literature there are few examples of relationships between two writers that would be as sincere, confessional and at the same time dramatic as the relationship between N.V. Gogol and S.T. Aksakova. The difference in character did not interfere with their friendly relations. We owe the accuracy and truthfulness of the literary portrait of the writer he created to Aksakov’s love for Gogol.
36. Lobanov, M. Sergey Timofeevich Aksakov / M. Lobanov. – M.: Mol. Guard, 1987. – 366 pp.: ill. – (Life of remarkable people: ZhZL: ser. biogr.: founded in 1933 by M. Gorky; issue 3 (677).
The life and work of the famous writer, a soulful singer of Russian nature, are inextricably linked with the personalities of the largest representatives of Russian culture of the 19th century, but Gogol was closest to him. These two people seemed to complement each other. “He,” wrote Aksakov, “stood in front of me, face to face, raised abandoned thoughts from the bottom of my soul and said: “Let's go together!” … Help me, and then I’ll help you.”
37. Mann, Y. In search of a living soul: “Dead souls.” Writer – critic – reader / Yu. Mann. – Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional – M.: Book, 1987. – 351 p. – (The Fates of Books).
38. Mann, Y. In search of a living soul: “Dead Souls.” Writer – critic – reader / Yu. Mann. – M.: Book, 1984. – 415 p. – (The Fates of Books).
Gogol's painful creative search, expectations, and disputes around “Dead Souls” are recreated with great force; the dialogue of the writer with the reading public, among whom Sergei Timofeevich and Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov, Archimandrite Feodor (Bukharev), is revealed.
39. Mashinsky, S. S. T. Aksakov and Gogol / S. Mashinsky // S.T. Aksakov. Life and art. – Ed. 2nd, add. – M.: Artist. lit., 1973. –S. 272-303.
The author focuses on the ideological contradictions between the two writers caused by the publication of Gogol’s book “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends.”
40. Palagin, Yu.N. Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol / Yu.N. Palagin // Russian writers of the 19th century about Sergiev Posad. Part III: from the book “Russian and foreign writers of the 14th-20th centuries about Sergiev Posad.” – Sergiev Posad, LLC “Everything for You - Moscow Region”, 2004. – P. 90-102.
The famous Sergiev Posad local historian describes in detail the relationship between N.V. Gogol and S.T. Aksakova.
41. // Land of Radonezh: facts, events, people: local history calendar of significant, memorable dates and events for 2009: annual bibliographic manual / resp. ed. N.I. Nikolaev; comp. I.V. Gracheva, L.V. Biryukova. – Sergiev Posad: MUK “Central City Hospital named after. A.S. Gorlovsky", 2008. – P.18.
42. Popova, T.M. Gogol in the memoirs of his contemporaries / T.M. Popova // Literature at school. – 2009. - No. 3. – P. 25-28.
It was difficult for the writer’s contemporaries to understand why he changed so much in the last years of his life, so the memories of people who had close contact with the writer during this period are of particular interest. Among them is S.T. Aksakov.
43. Rybakov, I. Will never be forgotten, or Gogol as Gogol / I. Rybakov // Sergievskie Vedomosti. – 2009. – March 13 (No. 10). – P. 15; March 20 (No. 11). – P. 15.
“It takes a lot of time for the memory of Gogol to lose its freshness: it seems to me that he will never be forgotten,” as S.T. Aksakov expressed his feelings for the great writer, whose memory he endlessly treasured throughout his life.
Nikolai Ivanovich AKSAKOV (1727 - October 11(23), 1802) - Yaroslavl vice-governor from January 30 to November 10, 1797, Yaroslavl governor from December 11, 1797 to January 8, 1799.
The noble family of the Aksakovs (in the old days the Oksakovs) descended from the noble Varangian Shimon, who took the name of Simon Afrikanovich in baptism. He arrived in Kyiv in 1027. Members of this family in pre-Petrine times occupied various positions, served as governors, solicitors, were among the Moscow nobles and received estates from Moscow sovereigns for their service. Representatives of this family continued public service in the 18th century.
Nikolai Ivanovich Aksakov was born in 1727. At first he was in military service. He began his army career as a private in the Trinity Dragoon Regiment on July 6, 1742, that is, at the age of fifteen. His military career was not very successful. Only on October 30, 1753, he became an ensign, and two years later he was promoted to second lieutenant. By 1758, N.I. Aksakov had risen to the rank of captain; all four years before this appointment he was with his corps. In 1756, the Seven Years' War began, and N.I. Aksakov had the opportunity to participate in military operations on the territory of Prussia. However, even before the end of the war, on March 24, 1760, he left the army and was discharged into the civil service with the rank of 8th class.
N. I. Aksakov’s entire civil life was connected with the Yaroslavl region. On January 1, 1761, N.I. Aksakov was appointed governor of the city of Romanov, which he ruled for seventeen years. During this time, he showed administrative abilities and the ability to conduct business. Nikolai Ivanovich was especially successful in increasing treasury profits. For example, he was able to increase the income from drinking establishments in the city and county by 14,466 rubles. 58 ¾ kop. per year, which at that time was a very impressive amount.
In 1775, he was tasked with investigating thefts from the treasury of the Kostroma province. N.I. Aksakov not only found the culprits, but also returned the money that was considered stolen to the treasury. He also distinguished himself with his skillful actions during the plague epidemic in 1771, was able to quickly eliminate it in the city of Romanov and thereby attracted the attention of the government.
The long exemplary service of the Romanov governor prompted the first governor A.P. Melgunov to include it in the new provincial government bodies. On August 27, 1777, N.I. Aksakov was appointed advisor to the Yaroslavl viceroyal government. Eight years later, on March 12, 1785, he became chairman of the Yaroslavl Civil Chamber. In 1793, Nikolai Ivanovich was promoted to full state councilor.
The pinnacle of N. I. Aksakov’s civil career was his further promotion during the reign of Paul I. He was appointed Yaroslavl vice-governor on January 30, 1797. Already on October 14, there was a decree on the promotion of N. I. Aksakov to Privy Councilor, and 10 November 1797 he was appointed governor of Smolensk. But before he had time to leave for a new duty station, which at his rather advanced age was difficult to do quickly, an order followed to remain in the Yaroslavl province. On December 11, 1797, Nikolai Ivanovich Aksakov replaced L.V., who had been here for a short time, as Yaroslavl governor. Tredyakovsky. For long service, on April 5, 1797, N.I. Aksakov was granted by the emperor 300 souls in Medynsky district.
Soon after N.I. Aksakov took up his new post, news arrived in Yaroslavl about Paul I’s intention to visit the province on the way back from Kazan to St. Petersburg. This news greatly alarmed Aksakov and the entire local administration. On February 11, 1798, Prosecutor General Prince Alexei Borisovich Kurakin sent a letter to the governor, obliging him to take the necessary measures in advance so that the emperor would not encounter delays anywhere along the route.
However, the travel route around the province was chosen to be very risky: through Yaroslavl, Rybinsk, village. Berezovo, Krasnoe village, Bolshoi Dvor village and further to Ustyuzhna. Paul I could simply drown in the swamps along with his retinue and sons Alexander and Constantine, since in the summer they had to move along the winter route, which was not traveled during the warm season. However, no one dared to report this to the emperor, since Paul I did not tolerate any objections.
In such a difficult situation, Aksakov did not immediately decide what to do. First of all, he transferred the issue to the Yaroslavl governor's office, and it, in turn, sent the provincial land surveyor I. Korenev to look for a safe road. Residents were required to provide written testimony about local roads, but this did not make them any better.
Soon N.I. Aksakov informed Prince Kurakin that it was impossible to strictly fulfill the will of the sovereign, since part of the road was completely impassable. Decrees were sent to all district cities about the imminent visit of Paul I. Particularly strict measures were ordered to be taken against drunkenness, which the emperor did not tolerate.
In agreement with I. Korenev, N.I. Aksakov proposed going from Rybinsk to Mologa, through the villages of Dubetc, Breytovo and Gorinskoye towards Vesyegonsk. In the spring, they began to repair this road with all their might. The peasants built bridges, built roads, and dug ditches. The work was completed by early June 1798, and, fortunately, the emperor agreed to this route. At the entrance to Rybinsk, dilapidated houses and a tavern were even demolished so that they would not spoil the general appearance.
In the Yaroslavl province, the sovereign's stops were scheduled in the village. Tunoshna, the cities of Yaroslavl and Romanov, the village of Kindyaki, the cities of Rybinsk, Mologa, the village of Dubets, s. Breytovo and village. Gorinskoe. At each station, 250 horses with drivers and harness were prepared, then the number of horses was increased to 535. They had to be collected throughout the province. The highest train consisted of 4 carriages that belonged to the emperor’s family, 37 carriages of his retinue and two wagons.
Prince Kurakin, in a letter dated April 6, 1798, informed N.I. Aksakov of the highest order “not to make any preparations along the roads or anything that would look like an elegant meeting.” The governor received an order “to remain in his place and to strictly prohibit other provincial officials from holding meetings, and that they should all be at their posts.” But at the same time, N.I. Aksakov was instructed to prepare a huge amount of kitchen utensils, furniture and food - for 60 people. The district leaders of the nobility wrote to the governor about their problems with finding lemons, asparagus and champignons, to which Aksakov replied: “You can, with your prudence, find the things you inevitably need from other places... But there is no time to correspond.” Along the entire route of the emperor, people were forbidden to shout “Hurray.”
Finally, on June 4, 1798, Paul I arrived in Yaroslavl. He was met by the governor, Archbishop Arseny (Vereshchagin), all the highest civil officials of the province and the clergy. A wooden house was prepared for the emperor, in which Yaroslavl governors-general had previously lived. On the same day, N.I. Aksakov was awarded the Order of St. Anna of the first degree, so, apparently, the sovereign liked the reception he received in Yaroslavl. A gala dinner was held for ten people on the occasion of the governor's award. Archbishop Arseny of Yaroslavl and Rostov recalled: “The Emperor deigned to talk to me about various matters; and after the table we drank coffee.”
Paul I's visit to Yaroslavl coincided with the birthday of Grand Duke Constantine, and the city celebrated the feast of the Yaroslavl wonderworkers Vasily and Constantine, who were buried in the Assumption Cathedral. V.D. Sankovsky sang this event in his poems. On the occasion of the holiday, the emperor listened to the divine liturgy and prayer service in the cathedral. Then he visited the Bishop's House and prayed there in front of the shrine with the relics of the holy princes Fyodor, David and Constantine. While in Yaroslavl, he sent a rescript to Archimandrite Augustine of the Tolga Monastery and granted a full velvet sacristy for the cathedral priesthood. All the utensils were made of dark green velvet, embroidered with gold and lined with white satin.
On June 12, Pavel and his sons were already in Rybinsk, but did not stay there long. The townspeople brought him bread and salt and fish. The emperor spent the night in Mologa. And when he passed through Breytovo, local peasants filed a complaint with Paul I against the landowner I.Ya. Musin-Pushkin. After a conversation with the peasants, Pavel decided that “the land does not follow them according to scribe books and land surveys.” Thus ended the emperor's visit to the Yaroslavl province.
Another important event carried out in the province under N.I. Aksakov was the compilation of topographical descriptions of the region. Attention to this under Paul I was due to the revision of 1795 and new administrative-territorial reforms of 1796 -1797. In 1799, one of the 9 handwritten topographical descriptions of the Yaroslavl province known today was prepared; it was signed by Governor Nikolai Aksakov and provincial surveyor Ivan Korenev. This description records the geographical location of the province, characterizes its forests and reservoirs, wildlife and fish. The area of the province is determined to be more than three thousand square acres, and the population is 796,147 souls of both sexes. It is also noted that “residents lead a healthy life, but die between 60 and 50 years of age.”
Nikolai Ivanovich Aksakov remained as Yaroslavl governor for just over a year. On January 8, 1799, Pavel appointed his son Mikhail Nikolaevich Aksakov to this place. However, Nikolai Ivanovich did not immediately give up the job - for several months he continued to serve as governor. On October 28, 1800, Nikolai Ivanovich Aksakov received the rank of actual Privy Councilor.
N.I. Aksakov was married twice. From his marriage with his first wife, Fevronia, he had a son, Mikhail, and a daughter, Anna, who married Major Yaroslavov, and from his marriage to Anna Petrovna, he had two daughters - Maria and Alexandra, who married Prince P. P. Meshchersky.
Nikolai Ivanovich died on October 11, 1802 and was buried in the Tolga Monastery. Much later, his wife Anna Petrovna and son Mikhail Nikolaevich Aksakov were buried next to him. During his short governorship, N.I. Aksakov was able to leave a memory of himself as a “kind and managerial” ruler.
“One of the rare ones in our time...”
Under this title, in 1909, the only small brochure dedicated to the life and work of the outstanding Russian church scientist Nikolai Petrovich Aksakov was published. On the occasion of the 165th anniversary of his birth, we are publishing a fragment from the forthcoming monograph by Yu.V. Balakshina “Brotherhood of Zealots of Church Renewal (a group of “32” St. Petersburg priests). 1903-1907. Documentary history and cultural context."
Nikolai Petrovich Aksakov was born in 1848 in the Alexandrinsky district of Tula province. on the family estate of his father P.N. Aksakova. The Aksakovs belonged to an ancient noble family and revered among their ancestors Shiman, an employee of Rev. Theodosius of Pechersk. Nikolai Aksakov received his initial education at home under the guidance of his mother, “a very educated, deeply religious woman” 1 . At the age of nine, Nadezhda Aleksandrovna Aksakova visited Sarov and met Rev. Seraphim. She wrote down her childhood memories and subsequently published them in 1903 in the form of a brochure “The Hermit of the 1st quarter of the 19th century (from childhood memories).”
During a trip abroad with his mother and the rest of his family, Nikolai Aksakov had the opportunity to continue his education at European universities. At the age of 16, he attended several semesters at the higher philosophical and theological school in Montauban (France). “This school was Protestant, but, respecting the freedom of beliefs of its students, it introduced them to the teachings of all religions and did not influence their freedom of conscience” 2. He then attended lectures at the universities of Heidelberg and Halle. During his stay in Heidelberg, a course of lectures on church history was given to Aksakov by the famous Orthodox scholar, canonist Prof. A.S. Pavlov, who was in Germany on a scientific trip. “Classes under the guidance of prof. Pavlov gave direction to the theological views and scientific and church interests of Nikolai Petrovich, who did not break the spiritual connection with his teacher even after returning to his homeland” 3.
In 1868, at the age of 19, Aksakov passed the final exam at the University of Hesse and there he publicly defended his dissertation on philosophy, which he wrote in German - “The Idea of Divinity.” According to his contemporaries, “his dissertation was recognized in the scientific world both abroad and here as one of the remarkable philosophical treatises” 4 . Also in 1868, the Aksakovs returned to Russia and settled in Moscow. Here the young scientist gave a series of public lectures “On the Spirit in the modern state of science,” directed against the teachings of materialists. The lectures attracted the attention of intelligent Moscow; thousands of people gathered to listen to the young man. The future Archbishop of Kharkov Ambrose, at that time still an academician-priest, said: “This brilliant appearance of a young scientist in front of a crowd of scientists involuntarily brings to mind the Gospel story about how the young Christ amazed the scientists with his knowledge in the Jerusalem temple. May this young man, until the end of his days, be a faithful follower of Christ and the church He created." 5 Thanks to these lectures, Nikolai Aksakov became acquainted with the circle of Moscow Slavophiles: Pogodin, Samarin, Katkov, I.S. Aksakov, Elagin, Yuryev, Koshelev and others. Subsequently N.P. Aksakov called himself one of the last representatives of this movement of the Russian spirit and Russian thought, and the St. Petersburg priests from the circle of the “32” especially appreciated Aksakov for the living spiritual connection that connected them through Nikolai Petrovich with the tradition of A.S. Khomyakova.
During the Moscow period of his life, Aksakov collaborated with a number of periodicals, published the work “On Freedom of Conscience,” several articles of a philosophical and polemical nature, and read abstracts. He became the secretary and editor of the publications of the Society for the Distribution of Useful Books; member and secretary of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature; editor of one of the departments of the magazine “Conversation”, which was a continuation of “Russian Conversation” and published by A.I. Koshelev.
In his work “On Freedom of Conscience” (1871) N.P. Aksakov argued that “every person should have the opportunity to freely express his faith” 6 that any coercion in the religious sphere prompts the coerced to an inevitable lie, puts lies at the very foundation of his nature, and kills his moral personality. According to the scientist, a lie that penetrates into the very being of a person is a greater evil and a greater reason for division than the lack of dogmatic unity. “Is unity possible where there is no conscience, where there is no truth?” 7 - asks Aksakov and comes to the conclusion that “all coercion is a natural weapon of disintegration and discord” and only freedom “seems to be a necessary condition for unity” 8. “Depriving the faith of a unit of freedom of manifestation, the general deprives it of strength, strength and life, deprives it of food necessary for its very existence” 9.
Aksakov received an offer to apply for the department of philosophy at St. Petersburg University and at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, began work on his master's thesis, but the material well-being of his family soon changed, and in 1878, yielding to his father's requests, Nikolai Petrovich accepted the position of chairman Alexandrinsky district zemstvo government of the Tula province. Marriage forced him to seek means to support his family through daily literary work and was forced to abandon his vocation as an armchair scientist. During these years, “Nikolai Petrovich published articles on various issues, wrote stories (“Children-Crusaders”, “Zora’s Castle”), published poems,<...>bears the responsibilities of an editor" 10 . In 1893 N.P. Aksakov accepted T.I.’s offer. Filippov joined the State Control Service and moved to St. Petersburg. Here he began to actively collaborate in the magazines “Blagovest”, “Russian Conversation”, “Russian Labor”, focusing his attention on church issues. In 1894, in the Blagovest publishing house, he published in a separate edition one of his most significant works, “Do not quench the Spirit! Regarding L. Tikhomirov’s article “The Clergy and Society in the Modern Religious Movement.” Aksakov’s research was devoted to identifying the meaning of the “church people” in the church. Based on the history of the church and church canons, he argued that “a layman is not just a peaceful layman, but a member of the Church invested with a kind of rank, receiving at baptism “unenvious grace” and “gifts of the Spirit.” It was this work by Aksakov, inspired by the image of the Church as a single people of God, not divided into the clergy and the world, the teaching church and the learning church, that was actively discussed in private circles of the St. Petersburg clergy and subsequently became the theological and canonical basis for the performances of the “32-x” group. November 21, 1903 Priest. Konstantin Aggeev wrote to Kudryavtsev: “Yesterday we had the usual reading of a compiled essay about the Church by N.P. Aksakova<...>If you don't find it, I'll send it to you. Read carefully, even if just the preface. N<иколай>P<етрович>- personal friend of T.N. Filippov - completely immersed himself in the theological patristic literature and based on it he creates a theology - completely far from the dry, in a sense atheistic, catechisms and dogmatics of Macarius. Now we are reading his essay on the Church. Yesterday there was a surprisingly good reading about the victory over hell, or the beginning of the Christian Church according to the teachings of St. fathers."
N.P. Aksakov was not widely known in contemporary Russian society, which was explained both by his “non-partisanship” and his focus primarily on church problems and interests. “His free mind, his broad outlook, enriched by serious scientific knowledge, could never fit into the narrow party conditions of creativity. He was always freely critical of both the conservative and liberal camps” 11. However, despite his inclination to work as an armchair scientist, Aksakov had a bright social and pedagogical temperament: a circle of people gathered around him, whom he inspired with his ideas; Vl. Solovyov called Aksakov his teacher; Nikolai Petrovich was a member of various circles and meetings at which he made reports and debates. According to Skripitsyn, he “more than once chaired and supervised the abstracts of student youth who formed a circle for the acquisition of religious knowledge” 12 at the Society for the Propagation of Religious and Moral Education in the Spirit of the Orthodox Church.
In 1905, when the question of the need for changes in the church system of the Russian Church became acute, the period of Aksakov’s most intense scientific activity began. “With youthful fervor and extraordinary diligence, he writes work after work, exploring issues related to the proposed reform” 13. His articles were published at this time by the magazines “Church Bulletin” and “Church Voice” and almost immediately published as separate brochures. Among Aksakov’s most important works of these years are “Councils and Patriarchs” (in the collection “To the Church Council”), “Canon and Freedom” (St. Petersburg, 1905); “Patriarchate and Canons” (St. Petersburg, 1906), “On the election of bishops in the ancient Christian Church” (St. Petersburg, 1906), etc. Being a specialist in canon law and relying in his argumentation on the canonical decrees of church councils, Aksakov at the same time time called "in ourselves<...>canonical principles to distinguish the actual canons from the discretion of countless “projector-builders” of the medieval system, who imagined themselves to be canonists.” He considered the canons “echoes of the apostolic tradition, of which the councils were only a restoration or exposition” and proposed that “all transformations in the Church” should be coordinated with “the unity obligatory for her throughout the centuries,” which follows from “her very essence, from what she accepted and preserved throughout the centuries.” legends" 14.
When the Pre-Conciliar Presence was established at the Holy Synod in 1906, Nikolai Petrovich Aksakov was among the few representatives of the laity who were invited to it. He took an active part in the work of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, not only constantly speaking at its meetings, but also publishing articles in church publications on issues discussed in the Presence. Thus, in the journal “Church Voice” in 1906 his articles “What do the canons say about the composition of the cathedral?”, “Several notes on the canons”, “39 apostolic canon and pre-conciliar canonists”, “My apology for the accusatory speech of Prof. Glubokovsky”, “Are decisive and deliberative voices possible in the Church?” In 1907, the same magazine published his works “The Question of the Parish in the Pre-Conciliar Presence”, “Fundamentals of Church Judgment”.
People who knew Aksakov closely recalled that “Nikolai Petrovich wrote with amazing speed, no less amazing with the breadth of his knowledge” 15. He found time to respond to pressing issues of the day. Thus, he responded with an article in the Church Bulletin to the religious speeches of L.N. Tolstoy (“A Minute of High Illumination.” Regarding Count L.N. Tolstoy’s reasoning about the commandment of love.” St. Petersburg, 1905) and wrote a response to the sensational book by N.A. Morozov about the origin of the Apocalypse (“The Infinity of Ignorance and the Apocalypse.” St. Petersburg, 1908).
In the last years of his life N.P. Aksakov was an official of special assignments of the V class. In the magazine “Theological Bulletin” he published his extensive study “The Tradition of the Church and the Tradition of the School,” which was published as a separate publication after the author’s death. Shortly before the death of N.P. Aksakov, Archbishop Anthony of Volyn (Khrapovitsky), with whom “Nikolai Petrovich sometimes polemicized in the press, but who at the same time respected Aksakov as a theologian,” 16 invited him to take part in the commission on the reform of the church school, but the Synod rejected Archbishop Anthony’s proposal.
Nikolai Petrovich Aksakov died on April 5, 1909 from the third pneumonia, leaving his wife A.I. Aksakov and 12-year-old daughter Zinaida. “The priests, and most of all the academicians, one after another came to his coffin and conciliarly served requiem services over him and served wonderfully - with inspiration, with feeling. Such services don't happen often. They performed the funeral service for him in the same way, and two of the priests delivered wonderful funeral speeches, which comprehensively illuminated the deceased as a faithful son of the Church of Christ” 17. Paying their last respects to their friend, assistant, and mentor, the St. Petersburg priests sang the song of the Resurrection over his grave. “This one who left us in his earthly life was a Christian, devoted to his teacher - he was a disciple of Christ, and the holy fire of the truth of the Gospel always burned in him, and therefore, although he died, the holy fire that was in him will not go out” 18.
---------------------
1 Skripitsyn V.A. One of the rare ones these days. (Dedicated to the memory of N.P. Aksakov). St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 9.
2 Ibid. P. 10.
3 V.K. Nikolai Petrovich Aksakov. Obituary // Church Bulletin. 1909. No. 16. P. 493.
4 Skripitsyn V.A. P. 10
5 Ibid. P. 11.
6 RO IRLI. F. 388 (collection of G.V. Yudin). Op. 1. No. 4. L. 68 vol.
7 Ibid. L. 67.
8 Ibid. L. 68.
9 Ibid. L. 67 rev.
10 V.K. Obituary. P. 494.
11 Skripitsyn V.A. P. 20.
12 Ibid. pp. 26-27.
13 V.K. Obituary. P. 495.
14 Aksakov N.P. Patriarchate and canons. Objection to the article by Prof. Zaozersky “Basic principles of the establishment of the patriarchate” (Theological Bulletin. 1905. December). St. Petersburg, 1906. pp. 3-5.
15 V.K. Obituary. P. 495.
16 Skripitsyn V.A. P. 23.
17 Ibid. P. 24.
18 Ibid. S. I-II.
