Strakhov is a critic. Nikolai Nikolaevich fears

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (life 1828-1896) is a Russian philosopher, publicist, literary critic, corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences since 1889. In books entitled “The World as a Whole” in 1872, “Philosophical Essays” (1895) and many others, he defined religion as the highest form of knowledge and criticized the materialism of modern society and spiritualism. In his journalism, Strakhov clearly shared Pochvennikov ideas. He wrote a number of articles about Tolstoy and acted as the first biographer of Dostoevsky.

He was an active contributor to such neo-Slavic magazines as Vremya, Zarya and Epoch. In them, he defended the ideas and identity of the Russian people and the monarchy, criticized the views of nihilists and liberals, who were quite popular at that time, and expressed a negative attitude towards the West. Strakhov published articles against Pisarev, as well as against Chernyshevsky. In addition, he was an idealistic philosopher who sought to describe science in the spirit of pantheism and reform the rational system of natural science, which was based on religion.

From the theological seminary in Kostroma, where he completed his studies in 1845, Strakhov received the deepest convictions about religion, which did not leave him throughout his entire life and subsequently acted as the most important element of his philosophy. In addition, Strakhov had an early interest in such a science as natural science, which led him to the physics and mathematics department, first at St. Petersburg University, and then at the Main Pedagogical Institute. After completing the course, he held the position of teacher of physics and mathematics in gymnasiums for several years. In 1867, he defended his master's thesis entitled “On the bones of the wrist of mammals.” Around this time, his activities in the field of literature also began.

Strakhov's biography is very rich in various events, especially related to his creative activity. He translated a lot. Among the largest translations, we should highlight “The History of Modern Philosophy” and “Bacon of Verulam” by K. Fisher, “The Life of Birds” by Bram and others. In his works (3 books under the general title “The Struggle with the West in Our Literature”) Strakhov analyzes European rationalism, criticizes the views of Strauss, Mill and Renan, rejects the foundations of Darwinism and tries to decipher the work of Russian writers in the Slavophile spirit.

Some of Strakhov's collections are devoted to issues of natural science and philosophy. In addition, he wrote numerous articles, abstracts, and scientific works, some of which were published in “Philosophical Essays.”

He said about the world of Fear that it is whole, that is, it is connected in all its directions in which the human mind can consider it. The world is a single whole, that is, it cannot split into 2,3, or several parts - entities that are connected regardless of their personal characteristics. This unity of the world can be achieved exclusively by spiritualizing nature, recognizing that the real essence of all things lies in different degrees of the spirit of incarnation. Consequently, the root of all existence, as a single whole, is the spiritual eternal principle, which constitutes true world unity. He believes that materialism and idealism can equally go to extremes when they strive to find the only beginning of everything that exists. This principle is seen either in the material or in the spiritual.

Avoiding one-sidedness, as Strakhov notes, is possible only in one case - if you look for the unifying principle of both the material and spiritual sides in themselves, and above them, and not in the world that represents the unification of matter and spirituality, but beyond world, in a supreme being who is different from the world. According to Strakhov, man acts as a “node of the universe” in which the merging of the material and spiritual sides of existence occurs. However, neither the body can become subjective, nor the soul can gain objectivity. These worlds are strictly demarcated.

Biography of Strakhov N.N. allows us to understand the essence of the origin of all his ideas and the direction of his thoughts.

Strakhov’s main philosophical work is “The World as a Whole,” which was practically not noticed by his contemporaries.
Indifference, or to be more precise, blindness, in Strakhov’s philosophical work is an inherited disease that passed from Soviet philosophers to many Russian ones. This was noted by Ilyin.

Among other things, it is of interest because it was in it that Strakhov, significantly ahead of his time, was able to make an anthropological revolution, which would be one of the main themes of religious Russian philosophy of a later time. It was by developing the idea of ​​the hierarchical and organic nature of the world that Strakhov was able to consider in man the main node of the universe. Researchers of later times did not receive unambiguous assessments of his work. Strakhov mainly tried to justify his own religious worldview using evidence by contradiction.

The main object of his philosophical polemics is the fight against the rationalism of Western European countries, for which he chose the most suitable concept of “enlightenment.” By this concept he understood, mainly, faith in the omnipotence of human reason and admiration, which reaches the worship of idols, before the conclusions and achievements of the natural sciences. Strakhov believed that both acted as a philosophical basis for describing utilitarian and materialistic ideas, which were quite popular both in Russia and in Western countries.

Another work of Strakhov received a significantly greater public response - a 3-volume study entitled “The Struggle with the West in Russian Literature” in 1883, where his passion for the ideas of Schopenhauer and Grigoriev was clearly demonstrated. Interest in the ideas of Grigoriev brings him closer to the so-called “soilists,” and the ideas of Schopenhauer bring him closer to Tolstoy. Revealing the true face of the West as the kingdom of rationalism, he emphasizes the originality of Russian culture. Strakhov becomes an ardent supporter and also a promoter of Danilevsky’s basic ideas about the differences between cultural and historical types. For Strakhov, pochvenism ends in the struggle against the secularist system of the West and in the obedient adherence to the religious and mystical ideas of culture in Tolstoy. In general, one must agree with Levitsky that it was Strakhov who acted as an intermediate link between the Slavophiles of the late period and the religious and philosophical Russian Renaissance.

An objective and correct assessment of Strakhov's philosophy was mainly hampered by the lack of a complete collection of all his works, his eternal stay on the “side.” If we try to assess the significance and role of Strakhov absolutely impartially, then his enormous services to Russian philosophy and culture, and his unusualness will become obvious, which is indirectly confirmed by the fact that Strakhov himself cannot be counted among the supporters of one or another philosophical or ideological idea.

Please note that the biography of Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov presents the most important moments from his life. This biography may omit some minor life events.

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov( -) - , corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (). In the books “The World as a Whole” (), “On Eternal Truths” (), “Philosophical Essays” () he considered the highest form, criticized the modern, as well as; in journalism he shared ideas. Articles about (including about ""); first .

Biography

An active contributor to neo-Slavophile magazines, Epoch, Zarya, in which he defended the idea of ​​“Russian identity” and the monarchy, criticized liberal and nihilistic views, which were very popular, expressed his hostility towards the West and published a number of articles against and. At the same time, Strakhov was a prominent idealist philosopher who sought to interpret science in a pantheistic spirit and build a system of “rational natural science” based on religion.

From the Kostroma Theological Seminary, from which he graduated in 1845, Strakhov carried out deep religious convictions that did not leave him throughout his life and subsequently formed the most important element of his philosophy. At the same time, Strakhov showed an interest in natural science relatively early, which led him to the physics and mathematics department - first at St. Petersburg University, and then at the Main Pedagogical Institute. After completing the course, he taught physics and mathematics in gymnasiums for several years, and in 1867 he defended his master’s thesis “On the carpal bones of mammals.” Strakhov's literary activity began around the same time.

Strakhov owns a number of major translations: “The History of New Philosophy” and “Bacon of Verulam” by Kuno Fischer, “The History of Materialism” by Lange, “The Life of Birds” by Bram and some others. From Strakhov’s own works, one can point to three books under the general title “The Struggle with the West in Our Literature,” in which the author analyzes European rationalism, criticizes the views of Mill, Renan, Strauss, rejects Darwinism and seeks to reinterpret the work of Russian writers in the Slavophile spirit. The collections “On the method of natural sciences and their significance in general education” and “The world as a whole, features from the science of nature” are devoted to issues of the philosophy of natural science. In addition, Strakhov wrote a large number of articles and abstracts of scientific works, some of which were included in “philosophical essays.”

Strakhov expressed his view of the world as follows: “The world is a whole, that is, it is connected in all directions in which our mind can consider it. The world is a single whole, that is, it does not break up into two, three, or even several entities that are connected regardless of their own properties. Such unity of the world can be achieved only by spiritualizing nature, recognizing that the true essence of things consists in various degrees of the incarnating spirit.” Thus, the root of all existence as a coherent whole is the eternal spiritual principle, which constitutes the true unity of the world. Strakhov believes that both materialism and idealism equally go to extremes when they strive to find a single beginning of everything that exists. And they see this beginning either in the material or in the spiritual. It is possible to avoid this or that one-sidedness, he writes, only in one case - “if we look for the unifying principle of the spiritual and material sides of existence in themselves, and above them, - not in the world, which represents the duality of spirit and matter, but outside the world, in the highest being, different from the world."

According to Strakhov, the “knot of the universe,” in which the material and spiritual aspects of existence seem to be intertwined, is man. But “neither the body becomes subjective, nor the soul receives objectivity; these two worlds remain strictly separated.”

Strakhov's main philosophical work, “The World as a Whole,” was practically not noticed by his contemporaries.

Indifference, or rather blindness to his philosophical creativity is a hereditary disease that passed from “Soviet” philosophers to the majority of “Russian” ones. N. P. Ilyin

It is interesting, among other things, because in it Strakhov, ahead of his time, makes that “anthropological revolution” that will become one of the central themes of later Russian religious philosophy, namely, by pursuing the idea of ​​​​the organic and hierarchical nature of the world, Strakhov sees in man is the “central node of the universe.” Later researchers did not receive an unambiguous assessment of Strakhov’s work. He largely sought to justify his religious worldview with the help of proof by contradiction. The main object of Strakhov's philosophical polemics is the fight against Western European rationalism, for which he invented the very successful Russian term “enlightenment.” By enlightenment Strakhov understands, first of all, faith in the omnipotence of the human mind and admiration, reaching the point of idolatry, for the achievements and conclusions of the natural sciences: both of these, according to Strakhov, serve as a philosophical basis for justifying materialism and utilitarianism, which were very popular at that time and in the West and in Russia.

Strakhov’s other work, the three-volume study “The Struggle with the West in Russian Literature” (1883), received a much greater public response, where his passion for the ideas of Ap. Grigoriev and A. Schopenhauer. Passion for the ideas of Ap. Grigoriev brings him closer to the “soil people” (although, as S.A. Levitsky rightly notes, his significance goes beyond the boundaries of “soilism”), his passion for A. Schopenhauer brings him closer to L. N. Tolstoy (and forces him to renounce his other idol, F.M. Dostoevsky, and renunciation reaches its extreme limits, to obvious slander - a trait very characteristic of Strakhov). “Exposing” the West as the kingdom of “rationalism,” he persistently emphasizes the originality of Russian culture, becoming an ardent supporter and propagandist of the ideas of N.Ya. Danilevsky about the difference between cultural and historical types. Strakhov’s pochvenism culminates in the struggle against the entire system of Western secularism and in the unconditional adherence to L.N.’s religious-mystical understanding of culture. Tolstoy. In general, one should agree with S. A. Levitsky that “Strakhov was an intermediate link between the later Slavophiles and the Russian religious and philosophical renaissance.”

A correct and objective assessment of Strakhov’s philosophical work was hindered (and partly continues to be hindered) by the lack of a collection of his works, his eternal presence in the “shadow of the greats” (mainly L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky, but not only them). If we evaluate the role and significance of Strakhov completely impartially, then his undeniable merits in the face of Russian philosophy and culture, and his uniqueness will become obvious, which is indirectly confirmed by the fact that Strakhov cannot be unconditionally included in any philosophical or ideological “camp.”

Literature

• N. N. Strakhov. The world as a whole. Traits from the natural sciences. //Iris Press M2007 Preface, comments by N. P. Ilyin (Malchevsky). Advanced option: Nikolay Ilyin
• Gerstein L. Nikolai Strakhov, philosopher, man of letters and social critic. Harvard University Press, 1971 (“a book by Linda Gerstein, which was published in the prestigious series of works of the “Center for the Study of Russia” in the USA” (N.P. Ilyin). Here you can trace the analogy with the American who helped to write “”)
• Gavryushin N.K. The world as a whole. N.N. Strakhov on the development of natural science // Nature. 1982.-No. 7. P.100-107.

Links

• The last secret of nature. About the book “The World as a Whole” and its author
• Tarasov A. B. N. N. Strakhov in search of the ideal: between literature and reality

Sources

• Galaktionov A. A. Nikadrov P. F. “Russian flosphy of the 11th-19th centuries”
• Russian philosophy: Small encyclopedic dictionary.

Notes

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Strakhov, Nikolai Nikolaevich (writer and philosopher)

Writer and philosopher. Genus. in 1852, the son of a priest of the Moscow province, teacher of philosophical subjects at the Kharkov Theological Seminary; received his education at the Moscow Theological Academy. Works of S.: “Methodology of the Law of God” (1st ed., Kharkov, 1882; translated into Serbian in 1893; 6th ed., 1900), “Philosophical doctrine of knowledge and the reliability of the knowable” (M., 1888; 2 ed., Kharkov, 1896), "Essay on the history of philosophy from the ancient times of philosophy to the present time" (Kharkov, 1893, 2nd ed., ib., 1894), "Marriage, considered in its nature and from the form of its conclusion" ( Khark., 1893; a new edition of this book was published in 1895 under the title: “The Christian teaching on marriage and opponents of this teaching”); "The Doctrine of God according to the Principles of Reason" (M., 1893), "Methodology of Russian literacy and initial exercises in the Russian language." (1st ed., Kharkov, 1898; 2nd ed., ib., 1900). Among S.'s journal articles, the most important are: “The Merit of the Greek Philosophers of the Archaic Period” (“Faith and Reason”, 1884), “Narrow and Broad View” (ib., 1884), “Ancient and Modern Sophists” (ib., 1886), “On the essence of the physical world” ib., 1889), “On the question of the tasks of the history of philosophy” (ib., 1894), “The newest example of idealistic philosophy” (ib., 1895), “On the visual-sound method of teaching literacy” (ib., 1895). "Russian School", 1897), "Tasks and Methods of Teaching Reading" ("National Education", 1897), "On Writing Exercises in Primary Education" ("Church and Parochial School", 1898), "True Science and False Claims modern scholarship" ("Faith and Reason", 1900).

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Strakhov, Nikolai Nikolaevich

Critic, publicist. Genus. in Belgorod, Kursk province, in the family of a priest. He studied at the theological seminary. In 1851 he graduated from the Main Pedagogical Institute. He was a teacher of mathematics and natural sciences in Odessa and St. Petersburg for ten years. In 1857 he defended his dissertation for a master's degree in zoology, but did not receive a department in the capitals. In 1850 he tried to write poetry and journal notes. In 1858 he published “Letters on Organic Life” in the Russian World, which brought him closer to Ap. Grigoriev. S. was an ardent admirer and promoter of the theory of this critic.

The decisive influence on S.'s transition to literary criticism and journalism was his rapprochement with the Dostoevsky brothers and the invitation to collaborate in their magazine "Time". S. wrote a number of articles under the pseudonym N. Kositsa, ch. arr. polemicizing with Sovremennik and Russian Word. Because of S.’s article “The Fatal Question,” which was a response to the Polish uprising of 1863, “Time” was closed. Soon the magazine began to appear again under the name "Epoch", and S. continued to collaborate in it until its liquidation in 1865. In the following years, S. was intensively engaged in translations of scientific literature, mainly of a philosophical, historical and natural history nature (Kuno Fischer , Renan, Taine, Bram, Lange, Strauss, etc.). In 1867 S. edited Kraevsky's Notes of the Fatherland, and in 1869-1872 he was the main director of the journal. "Dawn". In 1873 he entered the service of the Public Library, where he served until 1885.

According to his political convictions, S. was a conservative nationalist, a supporter of the “original” development of Russia. Those closest to him in ideology are N. Ya. Danilevsky, Dostoevsky, Leskov. He was a fierce enemy of Darwinism, whose various manifestations he fought for 30 years.

Three books of articles by S., entitled “The Struggle with the West in Russian Literature,” set themselves the task of providing an analysis of the philosophical and ethical foundations of European “nihilism” and showing its harm to Russian society. These positions of S. were, of course, deeply hostile to the revolutionary movement of that time.

S.'s literary critical articles are imbued with the same struggle against European "nihilism" and the defense of the "original", "organic" principle in Russian literature. Attacks on Pisarev, Shchedrin, Chernyshevsky, Nekrasov are interspersed in them with sympathetic reviews of Aksakov’s “Day”, with defense of the “soil” and “organic manifestations of the people’s essence.” S. opposed Turgenev as a Westerner. S. saw the embodiment of the “Russian heart” in Pushkin. He was attracted by the struggle for Russian originality and organicity in Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. Articles about the latter (especially about “War and Peace”) constitute the most significant part of S.’s legacy. They are not without interest in characterizing the artistic merits of L. Tolstoy’s novels. In addition to articles about the above writers, S. left very sympathetic notes about a number of poets - about Tyutchev, Fet, Ap. Maikov, Polonsky, whom he felt ideologically close to himself, and sharply hostile - about Nekrasov and Minaev.

Bibliography: I. From the history of literary nihilism (1861-1865), St. Petersburg, 1890 (articles from the magazines “Time”, “Epoch”, “Bib-ka for reading”); Notes about Pushkin and other poets, St. Petersburg, 1888; the same, 3rd ed., Kyiv, 1913 [articles from “Notes of the Fatherland”, “Skladchina”, “Citizen”, etc. from 1866]; “Crime and Punishment” by F. M. Dostoevsky, “Otechche Zapiski”, 1867, vol. 171, book. 3 and 4; The Poverty of Our Literature (Critical and Historical Essay), St. Petersburg, 1868; Critical articles about I. S. Turgenev and L. N. Tolstoy (1862-1885), St. Petersburg, 1885; the same, 5th ed., Kyiv 1908; Correspondence of L. N. Tolstoy with N. N. Strakhov (1870-1894), in the book: Tolstoy Museum, vol. II, St. Petersburg, 1914; Memories of Dostoevsky, in the posthumous collection. Op. Dostoevsky, vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1882; Memoirs and excerpts, St. Petersburg, 1892 [poems by S., articles “Talks about L.N. Tolstoy”]; The fight against the West in our literature, book. 1, St. Petersburg, 1882 (3rd ed., Kyiv, 1897), book. 2, St. Petersburg, 1883 (3rd ed., Kyiv, 1897), book. 3, St. Petersburg, 1896 (2nd ed., Kyiv, 1898).

V. Nechaeva.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Strakhov Nikolai Nikolaevich (writer I)

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Strakhov, Nikolai Nikolaevich (writer)

Famous writer. Genus. Oct 16 1828 in Belgorod, Kursk province; son of the master of the Kyiv Academy, archpriest and teacher of literature at the Belgorod seminary. Having lost his father early, S. was taken in by his mother’s brother, the rector of the Kamenets-Podolsk and then Kostroma seminary. Having completed the course in the latter, S. entered mathematics in 1845. Faculty of St. Petersburg University, and in 1848 he transferred to the natural and mathematical category of the main pedagogical. Institute, where he graduated from the course in 1851. He was a teacher of physics and mathematics in Odessa, then taught natural sciences. history in 2nd St. Petersburg. gymnasium. In 1857 he defended his thesis for a master's degree in zoology: “On the carpal bones of mammals.” The dissertation has scientific merits, but at the debate, the master’s student, who did not have the gift of speech, defended himself unsuccessfully, as a result of which, when replacing the zoological department in St. Petersburg and Moscow, other candidates were preferred to him, and he did not want to accept the invitation to Kazan. In 1858, S., who had already published something before, appeared in the Russian World with Letters on Organic Life. They attracted attention and brought the author closer to Apollo Grigoriev, whose friendship was of decisive importance in the history of S.’s literary worldview. In 1861, he left the service and became a close employee of the Dostoevsky brothers’ magazine “Time.” In this body of that variety of Slavophilism, which took the name “pochvenniks,” S. primarily stood out as a polemicist. Under a pseudonym N. Kositsa he wrote a number of sensational articles in his time directed against Chernyshevsky, Pisarev and others. In 1863, S., under the pseudonym “Russian,” published in the April book “Time” an article “The Fatal Question,” dedicated to Russian-Polish relations. It would seem that the general direction of the magazine, which always spoke in the name of Russian principles, freed it from suspicion of sympathy for the Polish uprising: but S.’s evasive style, his manner at first seemed to quite sympathetically present the criticized system in order to then more accurately smash it, led to this , that the first half of “The Fatal Question”, which appeared in print, also had fatal consequences. Katkov, who had just entered a new path, published a thunderous article in which he accused the magazine of treason. Vremya, which had a large circle of subscribers, was banned forever. The mistake was soon clarified to the publisher of Vremya, Mikh. Dostoevsky was allowed from 1864 to publish a magazine under the same name, "Epoch", where S. was again a close collaborator; but permission was received only before the subscription itself, the magazine had no success and soon ceased. Left without permanent work, S. in 1865-67. He lived exclusively by translations, which he willingly did later. With love and very well, he translated "History of Modern Philosophy" by Cuno Fischer, "Bacon of Verulam" by the same author, "On Mind and Knowledge" by Taine, "Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine" by Claude Bernard, "The Life of Birds" by Bram, "History of Materialism" " Lange, "Voltaire" by Strauss (destroyed by censorship), "Memoirs" by Renan (in "Russian Review" in the 1890s). In addition, in need of income, he translated many popular and educational books for the company of Wolf and others. In 1867, after the death of Dudyshkin, S. edited Otech. Notes, and in 1869-1871. was the de facto editor and main employee of Zarya, which died in the fight against the indifference of the public, where, by the way, his articles about Tolstoy were published. In 1873, S. re-entered the service as a librarian in the legal department of the Public Library. Since 1874 he was a member of the scientific committee of the min. adv. enlightenment In 1885 he left the Public Library and served for several months on the Foreign Censorship Committee. In the 1890s. was a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, which repeatedly entrusted him with analyzes of poetic works submitted for the Pushkin Prize. Died January 26 1896. The happiest period of S.’s personal life (an old bachelor who lived only by intellectual interests, among a huge library that he lovingly collected throughout his life) dates back to the 80s and 90s. Until then, he had been known to the general public mainly through the polemical articles of his influential opponents in radical journalism; now, when a reaction has set in in society and the charm of the ideas of the 60s has temporarily weakened, S. is gaining a larger and larger circle of fans. He begins to collect his articles into small books, which are successful and go through 2 and 3 editions. Gradually, a number of young admirers formed around him both personally and in the press - Govorukha-Otrok (Nikolaev), V.V. Rozanov, F. Shperk, B.V. Nikolsky and others - trying to create S.’s reputation as one of the largest Russians thinkers in general and outstanding critics in particular. S.’s work in the field of abstract thinking is discussed further. S.'s significance as criticism requires very significant reservations. S. did not leave anything complete, with the exception of articles about Tolstoy, and the articles about Tolstoy represent an example of one of the most outstanding critical fiascos. S.'s critical heritage is quantitatively very small; Apart from articles about Tolstoy and Turgenev, it consists almost exclusively of small notes, usually relating only to certain aspects of the activity of the writer in question. The most typical of them are his very famous “Notes on Pushkin”. Written at different times over a period of 15 years, these 12 notes, which even include three “letters” about Mussorgsky’s opera, “Boris Godunov” and a description of the opening of the Pushkin monument that says little about Pushkin himself, generally occupy less than 100 pages of magazine format. Here, quite briefly, several features of Pushkin’s work are outlined, such as the fact that Pushkin did not create a new literary form, that he was very imitative, but did not just imitate, but organically processed, that he was a remarkably subtle parodist and, finally, he was very truthful. All these completely true, sometimes even banal truths are like a simple recording of the thoughts flashing in the critic’s head, without any detailed elaboration. S.’s favorite technique is to write out a poem and provide it with a line of explanation like this: “here, too, there is simplicity and clarity, but the verse has acquired an incomparable, magical musicality.” In the style of “Notes” about Pushkin, notes about S. and other poets were also written. S. dedicated three small notes to his favorite, Fet. The most voluminous of S.’s collections is made up of the same small, and sometimes even tiny, notes: “From the history of literary nihilism.” In general, a significant part of the critical articles by S. gives the impression of pages from a notebook or a program of future articles. Of S.'s literary critical collections, the book "From the History of Literary Nihilism" (St. Petersburg, 1890) is of least importance. Entirely polemical, it consists of small notes that have now lost all interest and, moreover, about phenomena of secondary importance. The essence of nihilism, which S. includes the entire movement of the 60s, remained aside; a person who would like to get acquainted with it from S.’s book will not understand at all what, however, caused such, in any case, a major historical phenomenon. Much higher in literary interest are “Notes on Pushkin and other poets” (St. Petersburg, 1888, and Kyiv, 1897). Despite all the conciseness and fragmentary nature, there are very subtle and correct remarks here, indicating a deep, thoughtful study of Pushkin. In the collection “Critical Articles about I. S. Turgenev and L. N. Tolstoy” (St. Petersburg, 1885, 1887 and 1895), articles devoted to Turgenev are devoid of unity and full of internal contradictions. In his apology, the critic himself refers to the fact that at the beginning of his literary activity he did not yet see so clearly that the movement of the sixties did not contain “any seeds of thought”, and “at first attributed to Turgenev a power that he did not have... "Articles about Tolstoy form the basis of S.'s fame as a critic and really occupy the first place in a number of his critical studies: here a complete description is given and an attempt is made to describe the writer in full growth. Upon closer examination, these articles, however, require major reservations. First of all, the very widespread opinion that S. was the first to put Tolstoy at the proper height should be recognized as a literary legend. No writer has ever been so enthusiastically, faithfully and unanimously understood and accepted. beginning his literary activity, like Tolstoy. The articles of Chernyshevsky and Druzhinin (mid- and late 1850s) are prophecies for the entire course of Tolstoy’s literary career - and S. himself very conscientiously acknowledged the honor of the first interpretation for these articles. In his first article about “War and Peace,” he said: “Our criticism once carefully and thoughtfully assessed the features of this amazing talent.” After his first debuts, Tolstoy really stopped being interested in criticism, but he also passionately captured S. himself only after the appearance of “War and Peace” - a work that, also according to S. himself, was immediately a colossal success. Immediately, as he angrily states, a “current opinion was formed that this work is very high in its artistic merits, but supposedly does not contain deep thought, does not have much internal meaning.” Thus, a significant part of the glory of S.'s articles about Tolstoy - the honor of first recognizing him as a great artist - disappears. What remains then is the honor of interpretation. In the era of the appearance of S.’s articles (1870), the alliance of a conservative publicist and “fighter against the West” with Tolstoy in the name of admiration for the principles rejected by “Westernism” and “nihilism” could seem natural; but today S.’s articles are one of the most striking examples of the false coverage in which, until the 80s, Tolstoy’s activities were presented to many. Of course, S. has many correct individual comments; even the general conclusion is correct that the ideal that permeates Tolstoy’s work is “the ideal of simplicity, goodness and truth”; but with a more detailed definition of the elements of Tolstoy’s “truth”, it turns out that he does not have “bold and new tendencies”, that his main task is “to create images that embody the positive aspects of Russian life”, which is a characteristic feature of Tolstoy’s “purely Russian ideal” " - "humility" that the main subject of "War and Peace" is not the fight against Napoleon, but "Russia's fight against Europe"that in the person of Tolstoy a hero rose up and overthrew the liberal European authorities under which we bend and cower." With this understanding, it is not surprising that in the preface to the collection of articles about Turgenev and Tolstoy S., comparing "incurably infected with faith in progress" Turgenev with Tolstoy, comes to the general conclusion that the first “can be called a Westerner, the other a Slavophile.” Obviously, S. did not have the slightest premonition of the form in which Tolstoy’s general spiritual appearance would soon emerge, he completely overlooked that all-destructive analysis, which, forming the basis of Tolstoy’s infinitely sincere aspirations for light and truth and not even afraid of the charm of European thought and culture, suddenly for some reason had to calm down on the idealization of our pitiful public, comparing the “Slavophile” Tolstoy of the seventies with Tolstoy as he was bright and clear. was outlined later, one cannot, of course, completely blame the critic, although N.K. Mikhailovsky only a few years later and long before the appearance of “Confession” and Tolstoy’s later similar works was able to indicate in it those main features, the presence of which would not be a “turning point” “, there can be no talk of any “evolution” in Tolstoy’s spiritual appearance. S.’s mistake would not have been so decisive if, as is completely mistakenly thought, S. was only an “aesthetician” and would have worshiped Tolstoy only as a great artist. In fact, S. certainly wanted to see Tolstoy as a support in his struggle against the ideas of the 60s. - There is a misconception about S.’s general views on art. Thanks to his struggle with the utilitarian critics of the 60s, his ardent defense of Pushkin, Fet and “true poetry,” many look at him as a defender of “art for art’s sake” and even as an “aesthetic voluptuary.” This is in complete contradiction with S.’s direct statements and with the general meaning of all his activities. Responding to some of those who attacked him for excessive aestheticism, he makes the following statement: “I am criticized as an esthetician, that is (in their language) a person who imagined that artistic beauties can exist separately from the inner, living, serious meaning and who pursues such beauty and enjoys it. This is the exorbitant stupidity they attribute to me"("Articles on Turgenev and Tolstoy", p. 391). In another place, directly touching on the issue of "art for art's sake", he exclaims: "God save us from that purely German theory, according to which a person can be broken into parts and all sorts of contradictions should calmly coexist in it, according to which religion in itself, the state in itself, poetry in itself, and life in itself" ("Notes on Pushkin", 175). In essence, S. valued works of art only insofar as they reflected certain ideals. If most of all he admired Pushkin and Tolstoy, it was because in them he saw the most vivid reflection of the Russian “typical” principle and the Russian worldview. , also include an extensive biography of Dostoevsky (at the first posthumous edition of the work), “Talks about Tolstoy” in the collection S. “Memoirs and Passages” (St. Petersburg, 1892) and the publication of the first volume of the works of Apollon Grigoriev (St. Petersburg, 1876) S. considered Grigoriev his literary teacher, constantly quoted him and, moreover, extremely successfully; in general, he did a lot to popularize the name and ideas of this critic, little read by the general public. The transition from critical-journalistic articles to philosophical ones are S.’s three books under the general title “The Struggle with the West in Our Literature” (1st book, St. Petersburg, 1882 and 1887. 2nd, St. Petersburg, 1883, 1890 and Kyiv, 1887; 3rd, St. Petersburg, 18 6). You might think from the title that this is a review of teachings of a Slavophile nature, but in reality most of the articles are devoted to an analysis of the views of Mill, Renan, Strauss, Darwin, Taine, the Paris Commune, etc. and, thus, are only the struggle of the author himself with Western European exercises. Of the literary essays in “The Struggle with the West,” the article on Herzen is of greatest interest. This is an extremely tendentious attempt to attract into one’s struggle a person who undoubtedly also fought against the “West”, who was undoubtedly disillusioned with the “West” because even The “West” did not live up to his expectations, but with all the greater horror he turned away from the East where S. was calling.

WITH. Vengerov.

S., apparently, combined all the data in order to write a major philosophical work: extensive and versatile education, critical talent, thoughtfulness and methodical thinking, which he valued extremely highly; he lacked only true creativity, thanks to which something new is created. Therefore, it is precisely from the point of view of philosophy, to which S. always felt an inclination, that it is most difficult to characterize him: the influences that affected S.’s thinking and aroused sympathy in him were too diverse. One can, however, notice the most important principles to which he constantly adhered. Everything that has to do with philosophy in S.’s works is listed in “Materials for the history of philosophy in Russia” by Ya. N. Kolubovsky (see “Questions of Philosophy”). These include the following collections: “On the method of natural sciences and their significance in general education” (St. Petersburg, 1865), “The world as a whole, features from the science of nature” (St. Petersburg, 1892, 2nd ed.), “On basic concepts psychology and physiology" (St. Petersburg, 1894, 2nd ed.) and "On eternal truths" ("My dispute about spiritualism", St. Petersburg, 1887). The influence of Hegel and German idealist philosophy in general did not prevent S. from recognizing the merits of empiricism; Thus, he translated Taine’s book on intelligence and, in the introduction to it, pointed out the merits of empiricism; in his criticism of Troitsky’s book on English psychology, he recognizes to some extent the merits of English association psychology, which does not at all fit in with Hegelianism. In the basic concepts of psychology, he stands on the point of view of Descartes and tries to clarify the meaning of Descartes' cogito, ergo sum for modern philosophy. In Hegel's philosophy, S. valued the ability to formulate and develop concepts. S. looked at Hegelian philosophy as the completion of that thinking that strives for an organic understanding of things. Hegel “raised philosophy to the level of science, placed it on an unshakable foundation, and if his system must fight different opinions, it is precisely because all these opinions are one-sided, exclusive.” Despite this, S. cannot be called a Hegelian in the strict sense of the word: he admired German idealistic philosophy in general, in which he saw a synthesis of religious and rationalistic elements. He valued the dialectical method very highly, saw in it a truly scientific method, but, again, in dialectics he did not blindly follow Hegel, but looked at it as a path for the development of aprioristic elements in the human soul. One of the critics, who tried to determine the meaning of S., says that his central idea was religious, around which two others are located - the idea of ​​rational natural science and the idea of ​​organic categories. S. considered this definition of his meaning correct. It should be noted, however, that although S. strove for religious issues, he did not express his religious views. Perhaps he understood religion more with his mind than with his heart, he wanted to be religious more than he actually was; This seems to be the internal reason for his break with Vl. Soloviev. In any case, critical talents prevailed in him over all others; That's why he never expressed his full profession de foi. S. came to positive views only regarding some particular, very significant, however, philosophical issues. So, for example, his criticism of the atomic theory is very remarkable, which led him to positive views regarding the essence of matter. From atomism S. moved to a dynamic worldview, which was easier for him to associate with his admiration for idealism. S. strove for a clear understanding of the nature of the spirit in his “Basic Concepts of Psychology and Physiology.” “Matter,” he says, “is a pure object, that is, something completely cognizable, but not in the least cognizant; spirit, on the contrary, is a pure subject, i.e., something cognizing, but inaccessible to objective knowledge; spirit does not have in itself nothing external, everything internal, the subjective and objective worlds are strictly distinguished, but the second serves to express the first. Our “I” is a subject that can never become an object; empirical psychology is mistaken when it subsumes our “I” under that concept, under. which it considers all other phenomena it investigates, i.e. under the concept of ideas, representations." “All so-called theories of knowledge ultimately come to the denial of the concept they want to construct and explain.” In “Basic Concepts of Physiology,” S. proves that physiology, as a science of life, must necessarily take into account what constitutes life primarily, that is, mental phenomena. One way or another, all of its research must eventually merge into one whole with psychological research, for we assume the deepest unity and subordination of phenomena in the body. From this point of view, S. condemned the tendency of contemporary physiology to reduce the phenomena of life to physical and chemical processes. In a dispute with Butlerov and Wagner (about spiritualism), S. stood for the existence of immutable truths, in the recognition of which he saw a stronghold against empiricism; “complete empiricism is essentially a terrible thing... No matter how much a person searches for the truth, no matter how strictly he observes reality, no matter how long it takes to clarify his concepts, a new fact, according to the teachings of empiricism, can overthrow all this to the ground. But there are dear beliefs, there are views that determine for us the dignity and purpose of our whole life. Are people really condemned to fear forever for them? If our concepts are completely connected with some completely particular phenomena, with a certain place or time, then the position of a person who sincerely wants to be guided by the truth would be cruel" ("On Eternal Truths", p. 100). There was a duality of mind in S. and heart, which he failed to reconcile. His critical talent clearly pointed out to him the limitations of rationalism and the need to seek other principles. He repeatedly spoke about the boundaries of rationalism, but that is why his psychology stopped at bare recognition. the unknowability of the subject. He, however, says that in the subject we have immediate reality: “the life of the soul is for us the most immediate reality.” However, S. said nothing about the soul itself, because he recognized the insufficiency of rationalism, but was unable to indicate otherwise. paths. In the polemics that he had to conduct with spiritualists, with Darwinists (Prof. Timiryazev), with Westerners (Vl. Solovyov because of Danilevsky’s book “Russia and Europe”), he spoke precisely in defense of rationalist principles. S.'s significance in philosophy is determined by the time when he wrote. The specialist will not contact him for the purpose of teaching; but S.’s philosophical works will retain their pedagogical significance for a long time; for introducing the circle of philosophical concepts, for teaching correct methodological thinking, and analyzing concepts, S.’s books can provide very significant help. S.'s works appeared during the era of enthusiasm for materialist theories; S. stood firmly for the principles of idealism, and although his writings are not without contradictions, as a criticism of materialism, they retain significance. E. Radlov wrote about S., “Several remarks on the philosophy of N. N. Strakhov” (“J. M. N. Pr.”, 1896); A. I. Vvedensky, "The significance of S.'s philosophical activity." (“Obrazov.”, March, 1896); B. Nikolsky, "N. N. Strakhov. Critical and biographical essay"; N. Ya. Grot, “In memory of N. N. Strakhov” (“Issues of philosophy and psychology,” book 32); V.V. Rozanov (“Issues of Phil. and Psychiatry.” Book 4); “The general meaning of the philosophy of N. N. Strakhov” (Moscow, 1897, without the author’s name).

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Biography

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (1828-1896) - Russian philosopher, publicist, literary critic, corresponding member of the St. Petersburg A.N. (1889). In the books “The World as a Whole” (1872), “On Eternal Truths” (1887), “Philosophical Essays” (1895), he considered religion to be the highest form of knowledge, criticized modern materialism, as well as spiritualism; in journalism he shared the ideas of pochvennichestvo. Articles about L.N. Tolstoy (including “War and Peace”); the first biographer of F. M. Dostoevsky.

An active contributor to the neo-Slavophile magazines “Time”, “Epoch”, “Zarya”, in which he defended the idea of ​​“Russian identity” and the monarchy, criticized liberal and nihilistic views, which were very popular, expressed his hostility towards the West and published a number of articles against Chernyshevsky and Pisarev. At the same time, Strakhov was a prominent idealist philosopher who sought to interpret science in a pantheistic spirit and build a system of “rational natural science” based on religion.

From the Kostroma Theological Seminary, from which he graduated in 1845, Strakhov carried out deep religious convictions that did not leave him throughout his life and subsequently formed the most important element of his philosophy. At the same time, Strakhov showed an interest in natural science relatively early, which led him to the physics and mathematics department - first at St. Petersburg University, and then at the Main Pedagogical Institute. After completing the course, he taught physics and mathematics in gymnasiums for several years, and in 1867 he defended his master’s thesis “On the carpal bones of mammals.” Strakhov's literary activity began around the same time.

Strakhov owns a number of major translations: “The History of New Philosophy” and “Bacon of Verulam” by Kuno Fischer, “The History of Materialism” by Lange, “The Life of Birds” by Bram and some others. From Strakhov’s own works, one can point to three books under the general title “The Struggle with the West in Our Literature,” in which the author analyzes European rationalism, criticizes the views of Mill, Renan, Strauss, rejects Darwinism and seeks to reinterpret the work of Russian writers in the Slavophile spirit. The collections “On the method of natural sciences and their significance in general education” and “The world as a whole, features from the science of nature” are devoted to issues of the philosophy of natural science. In addition, Strakhov wrote a large number of articles and abstracts of scientific works, some of which were included in “philosophical essays.”

Strakhov expressed his view of the world as follows: “The world is a whole, that is, it is connected in all directions in which our mind can consider it. The world is a single whole, that is, it does not break up into two, three, or even several entities that are connected regardless of their own properties. Such unity of the world can be achieved only by spiritualizing nature, recognizing that the true essence of things consists in various degrees of the incarnating spirit.” Thus, the root of all existence as a coherent whole is the eternal spiritual principle, which constitutes the true unity of the world. Strakhov believes that both materialism and idealism equally go to extremes when they strive to find a single beginning of everything that exists. And they see this beginning either in the material or in the spiritual. It is possible to avoid this or that one-sidedness, he writes, only in one case - “if we look for the unifying principle of the spiritual and material sides of existence in themselves, and above them, - not in the world, which represents the duality of spirit and matter, but outside the world, in the highest being, different from the world."

According to Strakhov, the “knot of the universe,” in which the material and spiritual aspects of existence seem to be intertwined, is man. But “neither the body becomes subjective, nor the soul receives objectivity; these two worlds remain strictly separated.”

Strakhov's main philosophical work, “The World as a Whole,” was practically not noticed by his contemporaries.

Indifference, or rather blindness to his philosophical work is a hereditary disease that passed from “Soviet” philosophers to the majority of “Russian” ones. N. P. Ilyin.

It is interesting, among other things, because in it Strakhov, ahead of his time, makes that “anthropological revolution” that will become one of the central themes of later Russian religious philosophy, namely, by pursuing the idea of ​​​​the organic and hierarchical nature of the world, Strakhov sees in man is the “central node of the universe.” Later researchers did not receive an unambiguous assessment of Strakhov’s work. He largely sought to justify his religious worldview with the help of proof by contradiction. The main object of Strakhov's philosophical polemics is the fight against Western European rationalism, for which he invented the very successful Russian term “enlightenment.” By enlightenment Strakhov understands, first of all, faith in the omnipotence of the human mind and admiration, reaching the point of idolatry, for the achievements and conclusions of the natural sciences: both of these, according to Strakhov, serve as a philosophical basis for justifying materialism and utilitarianism, which were very popular at that time and in the West and in Russia.

Strakhov’s other work, the three-volume study “The Struggle with the West in Russian Literature” (1883), received a much greater public response, where his passion for the ideas of Ap. Grigoriev and A. Schopenhauer. Passion for the ideas of Ap. Grigoriev brings him closer to the “soil people” (although, as S.A. Levitsky rightly notes, his significance goes beyond the boundaries of “soilism”), his passion for A. Schopenhauer brings him closer to L. N. Tolstoy (and forces him to renounce his other idol, F.M. Dostoevsky, and renunciation reaches its extreme limits, to obvious slander - a trait very characteristic of Strakhov). “Exposing” the West as the kingdom of “rationalism,” he persistently emphasizes the originality of Russian culture, becoming an ardent supporter and propagandist of the ideas of N.Ya. Danilevsky about the difference between cultural and historical types. Strakhov’s pochvenism culminates in the struggle against the entire system of Western secularism and in the unconditional adherence to L.N.’s religious-mystical understanding of culture. Tolstoy. In general, one should agree with S. A. Levitsky that “Strakhov was an intermediate link between the later Slavophiles and the Russian religious and philosophical renaissance.”

A correct and objective assessment of Strakhov’s philosophical work was hindered (and partly continues to be hindered) by the lack of a collection of his works, his eternal presence in the “shadow of the greats” (mainly L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky, but not only them). If we evaluate the role and significance of Strakhov completely impartially, then his undeniable merits in the face of Russian philosophy and culture, and his uniqueness will become obvious, which is indirectly confirmed by the fact that Strakhov cannot be unconditionally included in any philosophical or ideological “camp.”

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov Russian philosopher, critic, publicist was born on January 24, 1828. The most significant works include the books: “The World as a Whole”, “On Eternal Truths”, “Philosophical Essays”.

Strakhov deeply appreciated religious motives, strictly criticized the materialism of modern times, liberal ideas, was indignant at the views of Western countries and showed his sentiments in articles and works.

Nikolai Nikolaevich graduated from the Kostroma Theological Seminary in 1945. Quite early he began to be interested in natural sciences, as a result of which he worked as a teacher of physics and mathematics at St. Petersburg University.

In 1867 he wrote a dissertation “On the Carpal Bones of Mammals” and successfully defended it. This period is considered the beginning of the philosopher’s literary activity. Strakhov wrote many books, translations, abstracts, scientific papers and articles.

In his works he reflects thoughts about the spiritual world as the unity of being. The main component of the entire spiritual world is man and his individual body and soul. But Nikolai Nikolaevich’s theory did not receive due recognition from his contemporaries.

But the essay “The Struggle with the West in Russian Literature,” written in 1833, had greater success among the public. Here he clearly protests against Western “rationalism” and advocates the originality of Russian culture.

Works by Strakhov N.N. were not collected, which left on him the mark of the “shadow of the great” in philosophical work. But thanks to his uniqueness, perseverance and devotion to Russian philosophy and culture, this man deserves great respect and attention. In 1896, the writer-philosopher passed away.

Critic, publicist, philosopher, corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1889). Born into a priest's family. He studied at the Kostroma Theological Seminary (1840-1844), at St. Petersburg University (1845-1848). In 1851, Strakhov graduated from the natural and mathematical department of the Main Pedagogical Institute, and in 1857 he defended his master's thesis in zoology.

Dostoevsky met Strakhov immediately after returning from exile, at the very end of 1859 or at the very beginning of 1860, in a circle at the Svetoch magazine. Since 1861, Strakhov was a close collaborator of the Dostoevsky brothers’ journal, and then, completely sharing the system of Dostoevsky’s socio-political views, which is usually called “pochvennichestvo”. From the philosophical works of Strakhov, in which he is a follower of G.V.F. Hegel, the most famous books were “The World as a Whole” (2nd ed., 1892), “Philosophical Essays” (1895), “On the Basic Concepts of Psychology and Physiology” (2nd ed., 1894). Of Strakhov’s literary critical works, the most important are: “Critical Articles on Turgenev and Tolstoy” (2nd ed., 1895) and “The Struggle with the West in Our Literature” (3rd ed., 1898), as well as the first major biography Dostoevsky in (1883).

Despite all the ideological closeness of Dostoevsky and Strakhov and their belonging to the camp of the “soilers”, despite their many years of meetings (rejection of revolutionary-democratic criticism, commonality of views, a joint trip to Italy in 1862, Strakhov is Dostoevsky’s witness at his wedding in 1867, their friendly correspondence in 1867-1871, Strakhov’s article on “Crime and Punishment” in “Notes of the Fatherland” (1867, No. 3, 4), Strakhov’s collaboration in edited by Dostoevsky, Strakhov’s visit to Dostoevsky almost every Sunday the last five years of his life), they were never really close to each other after all. This was especially clearly revealed in Strakhov’s famous letter to L.N. Tolstoy dated November 28, 1883 (see: Correspondence of L.N. Tolstoy with N.N. Strakhov. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1914. pp. 307-310. Originally - in the magazine “Modern World”. 1913. No. 10), to whom Strakhov repents for having so one-sidedly depicted the figure of Dostoevsky in his “Memoirs” about him and attributes to Dostoevsky the crime that Svidrigailov and Stavrogin committed. Although in Strakhov’s “Memoirs” about Dostoevsky, an “accusatory” tendency was already outlined (though very carefully) (though the thread stretched even earlier, from Strakhov’s letter to his brother dated June 25, 1864: “The further I go with the Dostoevskys, the more I disagree. Fyodor is terribly proud and selfish, although he doesn’t notice it, and Mikhailo is just a fist who understands well what’s going on and is happy to take it out on others”), so fully developed in a letter to L.N. Tolstoy. But Dostoevsky was far from idealizing Strakhov. This is what he, for example, said about him in a letter to his wife A.G. Dostoevskaya on February 12, 1875: “No, Anya, he’s a bad seminarian and nothing more; he already left me once in my life, precisely with the fall of “The Epoch,” and came running only after the success of “Crime and Punishment,” and in Dostoevsky’s notebooks of 1872-1875. there are lines: “If not will get fat like Strakhov, got fat Human". In the 83rd volume of “Literary Heritage”, Dostoevsky’s entry about Strakhov, dating back to 1877, is given for the first time: “N.N. WITH<трахов>. As a critic he is very similar to that matchmaker in Pushkin’s ballad “The Groom”, about which it is said:

She's sitting at the pie
And he speaks in a roundabout way.

Our critic loved the pies of life very much and now serves in two places prominent in literary terms, and in his articles he said bluntly, about, circled around without touching the core. His literary career gave him 4 readers, I think, no more, and a thirst for fame. He sits on something soft and loves to eat turkeys, not his own, but at someone else’s table. In old age and having reached two places, these writers, who have done so little, suddenly begin to dream of their glory and therefore become unusually touchy and demanding. This already gives them a completely stupid look, and a little more, they are already being transformed into complete fools - and so on for the rest of their lives. The main role in this popularity is played not so much by the writer, the author of three or four boring pamphlets and a whole series of trivial criticisms on the subject, published somewhere and at some time, but also by two official places. Funny, but true. The purest seminary trait. You can't hide your origin anywhere. No civic feeling or duty, no indignation towards any nasty thing, but on the contrary, he himself does nasty things; despite his strictly moral appearance, he is secretly voluptuous and for some fat, crudely voluptuous dirty trick he is ready to sell everyone and everything, and a civic duty that he does not feel, and a job that he does not care about, and an ideal that he does not have, and not because he does not believe in the ideal, but because of the rough bark of fat, because of which he cannot feel anything. I will talk even more later about these literary types of ours; they must be denounced and revealed tirelessly.”

Commenting on this anti-insurance note by Dostoevsky, L.M. Rosenblum rightly assumes that Strakhov saw this recording when A.G. Dostoevskaya provided him and the professor with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with Dostoevsky’s archive to prepare the first volume of the posthumous Collected Works of the writer and when it was decided to also publish most of Dostoevsky’s last notebook. Quite obvious, notes L.M. Rosenblum, that A.G. Dostoevskaya did not notice this anti-insurance note, otherwise she would have mentioned it in a statement regarding Strakhov’s letter to L.N. Tolstoy. “Of course, I understood Strakhov,” writes L.M. Rosenblum - that over time, not only Dostoevsky’s last notebook, but all the others will be published. He also knew that someday the correspondence of Leo Tolstoy would be published. Perhaps he partly had this thought in mind when sending a letter to Tolstoy, a kind of “answer” to Dostoevsky.”

The granddaughter of Dostoevsky’s friend Z.A. tells about the origins of Strakhov’s vile slander. Trubetskoy: “When Dostoevsky visited high-society salons, including Anna Pavlovna Filosofova’s, he always, if any high-society conversation took place, would retire, sit somewhere in the corner and plunge into his thoughts. He seemed to be falling asleep, although in fact he heard everything that was said in the salon. Therefore, those who saw Dostoevsky for the first time at high-society receptions were very surprised when he, as if he had been sleeping before, suddenly jumped up and, terribly excited, intervened in the ongoing conversation or conversation and could at the same time give an entire lecture. My uncle Vladimir Vladimirovich told us the following episode, of which he himself was an eyewitness.

This time Anna Pavlovna had few guests, and after dinner all the guests, among whom was Dostoevsky, went into the small living room to drink coffee. The fireplace was burning, and the candles from the chandeliers illuminated the beautiful reflections of the dresses and stones. The conversation began. Dostoevsky, as always, climbed into the corner. I, my uncle said, in my youth, was thinking about how to escape unnoticed... When suddenly one of the guests asked the question: what, in your opinion, is the greatest sin on earth? Some said - parricide, others - murder for greed, others - betrayal of a loved one... Then Anna Pavlovna turned to Dostoevsky, who sat silently, gloomily, in the corner. Hearing the question addressed to him, Dostoevsky paused, as if doubting whether he should speak. Suddenly his face transformed, his eyes sparkled like coals hit by the wind of the bellows, and he spoke. I, my uncle says, remained transfixed, standing at the door to my father’s office and did not move during the entire story of Dostoevsky.

Dostoevsky spoke quickly, worried and confused... The most terrible, most terrible sin is to rape a child. Taking a life is terrible, Dostoevsky said, but taking away faith in the beauty of love is an even more terrible crime. And Dostoevsky told an episode from his childhood. When I lived as a child in Moscow in a hospital for the poor, Dostoevsky said, where my father was a doctor, I played with a girl (the daughter of a coachman or cook). He was a fragile, graceful child of about nine years old. When she saw a flower making its way between the stones, she always said: “Look, what a beautiful, what a kind flower!” And then some bastard, drunk, raped this girl, and she died, bleeding. I remember, Dostoevsky said, they sent me for my father to another wing of the hospital, my father came running, but it was too late. All my life this memory haunts me as the most terrible crime, as the most terrible sin for which there is no and cannot be forgiveness, and with this most terrible crime I executed Stavrogin in “The Possessed”...

I heard this story more than once from my uncle and I remember how terribly indignant he was when he read Strakhov’s infamous letter to L. Tolstoy, in which Strakhov attributed Stavrogin’s crime to Dostoevsky himself. The uncle again remembered Dostoevsky’s story in Anna Pavlovna’s salon and said that this was a monstrous slander, that this could not have happened even in thoughts Dostoevsky, for thought is even more sinful than action!”

But it was not only those close to him who benefited from Fyodor Mikhailovich’s kindness: there is numerous evidence, printed and oral, that none of the strangers who approached him left him without friendly advice, guidance, or help in one form or another. Could a person who “tenderly loved only himself” act in this way, as N.N. writes about him? Fears?

Fedor Mikhailovich, according to N.N. Strakhov, was “envious.” But people interested in Russian literature remember his famous “Pushkin Speech”, and his enthusiastic and defensive articles, and his reviews in the “Diary of a Writer” about Nekrasov, gr. L. Tolstoy, Victor Hugo, Balzac, Dickens, Georges Sande, whom he obviously did not “envy.” It would be strange to suspect Fyodor Mikhailovich of envying the ranks, careers or wealth of other people when he himself, throughout his entire life, did not seek anything for himself and voluntarily distributed everything he had to those in need.

But what is even more striking for us in the letter from N.N. Strakhova is an accusation against Fyodor Mikhailovich of “debauchery.” Persons who knew him closely in his youth in St. Petersburg and Siberia (, etc.), in their memories of Fyodor Mikhailovich, did not mention a single hint about his depravity in those distant times. We, who knew Fyodor Mikh<айловича>in the last two decades of his life, we can testify that we knew him as a man suffering from a serious illness (epilepsy) and, as a result of it, sometimes irritable and unfriendly, always absorbed in his literary works and often depressed by everyday adversities, but always kind, serious and restrained in his life. expressing your opinions. Many of us know Fyodor Mikhailovich as a wonderful family man who dearly loved his wife and children, as evidenced by his printed letters.
Everything said by N.N. Strakhov in the above-mentioned letter so much contradicts the idea that we have made about the moral character of F.M. Dostoevsky, from a more or less close acquaintance with him, that we consider it our moral duty to protest against these baseless and unfounded accusations of N.N. Strakhova". ( Belov S.V. Correspondence of A.G. Dostoevskaya with his contemporaries // Baikal. 1976. No. 5. P. 144)

This protest was not published separately, but was put forward by A.G. Dostoevskaya as the basis for her special chapter “Response to Strakhov” (pp. 416-426). The history of this slander by Strakhov was studied in detail and convincingly refuted by V.N. Zakharov in his book “Problems of studying Dostoevsky” (Petrozavodsk, 1978), although there was no need to refute anything, because “genius and villainy are two incompatible things” (see: Belov S.V.“Genius and villainy are two incompatible things” // pp. 5-20).

There are 24 letters from Strakhov to Dostoevsky and 25 letters from Dostoevsky to Strakhov.