Thinking about Russia: we live only in the past or in the future

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

No country in the world is surrounded by such contradictory myths about its history as Russia, and no nation in the world is assessed as differently as Russian.

Another reason is that various "theories", ideology, and tendentious coverage of the present and the past played a huge role in Russian history. Let me give you one of the obvious examples: the Peter's reform. Its implementation required completely distorted ideas about the previous Russian history.

Since a closer rapprochement with Europe was needed, it means that it was necessary to assert that Russia was completely fenced off from Europe. Since it was necessary to move forward faster, it means that it was necessary to create a myth about Russia inert, inactive, etc. Since a new culture was needed, it means that the old one was no good

As often happened in Russian life, moving forward required a solid blow to everything old. And this was done with such energy that the entire seven-century Russian history was rejected and slandered. The creator of the myth about the history of Russia was Peter the Great. He can be considered the creator of the myth about himself. Meanwhile, Peter was a typical pupil of the 17th century, a baroque man, the embodiment of the teachings of the pedagogical poetry of Simeon of Polotsk, the court poet of his father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

There has never been a myth in the world about the people and their history as stable as the one that was created by Peter. We know about the stability of state myths from our time. One of such myths “necessary” for our state is the myth of the cultural backwardness of Russia before the revolution. “Russia has turned from an illiterate country into an advanced one …” and so on. This is how many of the boastful speeches of the last seventy years began. Meanwhile, studies by Academician Sobolevsky on signatures on various official documents even before the revolution showed a high percentage of literacy in the 15th-17th centuries, which is confirmed by the abundance of birch bark letters found in Novgorod, where the soil was most favorable for their preservation. In the 19th and 20th centuries, all Old Believers often enrolled in the "illiterate", as they refused to read newly printed books. It is another matter that in Russia until the 17th century there was no higher education, but the explanation for this should be sought in a special type of culture to which ancient Russia belonged.

There is a firm conviction both in the West and in the East that there was no experience of parliamentarism in Russia. Indeed, before the State Duma at the beginning of the 20th century, we did not have a parliament, while the experience of the State Duma was very small. However, the traditions of deliberative institutions were deep before Peter. I'm not talking about the veche. In pre-Mongol Rus, the prince, starting his day, sat down to “think about the thought” with his retinue and boyars. The meetings with the "city people", "abbots and priests" and "all people" were permanent and laid solid foundations for the Zemsky sobor with a certain order of their convocation, representation of different estates. Zemsky sobors of the XVI-XVII centuries had written reports and decrees. Of course, Ivan the Terrible "played with people" cruelly, but he also did not dare to officially abolish the old custom of conferring "with the whole earth", pretending at least to pretend that he was ruling the country "in the old days." Only Peter, carrying out his reforms, put an end to the old Russian conferences of a wide composition and representative meetings of "all people." It was only in the second half of the 19th century that public and state life had to be resumed, but after all, this public, "parliamentary" life was resumed; was not forgotten!

I will not talk about other prejudices that exist about Russia and in Russia itself. It is no coincidence that I stopped at those performances that portray Russian history in an unattractive light. When we want to build the history of any national art or literary history, even when we compose a guidebook or a description of a city, even just a catalog of a museum, we look for anchor points in the best works, we stop at genius authors, artists and their best creations, and not at the worst. … This principle is extremely important and absolutely indisputable. We cannot build the history of Russian culture without Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Tolstoy, but we can well do without Markevich, Leikin, Artsybashev, Potapenko. Therefore, do not consider it national bragging, nationalism, if I am talking about the very valuable that Russian culture gives, omitting that which has negative value. After all, each culture occupies a place among the cultures of the world only because of the highest that it possesses. And although it is very difficult to deal with myths and legends about Russian history, we will still dwell on one circle of questions. This question is: is Russia the East or the West? We talked about this before. Let's get back to this topic.

Now in the West it is very customary to refer Russia and its culture to the East. But what are East and West? We partly have an idea of the West and Western culture, but what the East is and what the Eastern type of culture is is completely unclear

Are there boundaries between East and West on a geographic map? Is there a difference between the Russians living in St. Petersburg and those who live in Vladivostok, although Vladivostok's belonging to the East is reflected in the very name of this city? It is equally unclear: do the cultures of Armenia and Georgia belong to the Eastern type or to the Western? I think that the answer to these questions will not be required if we pay attention to one extremely important feature of Russia, Russia. Russia is located in a vast area, uniting various peoples of obviously both types. From the very beginning, in the history of the three peoples who had a common origin - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians - their neighbors played a huge role. That is why the first large historical work "The Tale of Bygone Years" of the 11th century begins its story about Russia with a description of who Russia is neighboring with, which rivers flow where, with which peoples they connect. In the north, these are the Scandinavian peoples - the Varangians (a whole conglomerate of peoples, to which the future Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, "Anglyans" belonged). In the south of Russia, the main neighbors are the Greeks, who lived not only in Greece proper, but also in the immediate vicinity of Russia - along the northern shores of the Black Sea. Then there was a separate conglomerate of peoples - the Khazars, among whom were Christians, Jews and Mohammedans.

The Bulgarians and their written language played a significant role in the assimilation of the Christian written culture. Russia had the closest relations in vast territories with the Finno-Ugric peoples and Lithuanian tribes (Lithuania, Zhmud, Prussians, Yatvingians and others). Many were part of Russia, lived a common political and cultural life, called, according to the chronicle, princes, went together to Constantinople. Peaceful relations were with the Chud, Meray, Vesya, Emyu, Izhora, Mordovians, Cheremis, Komi-Zyryans, etc. The State of Russia was multinational from the very beginning. The encirclement of Rus was also multinational. The following is characteristic: the desire of Russians to establish their capitals as close as possible to the borders of their state. Kiev and Novgorod emerged on the most important European trade route in the 9th-11th centuries, connecting the north and south of Europe, on the way “from the Varangians to the Greeks”. Polotsk, Chernigov, Smolensk, Vladimir are based on the commercial rivers.

And then, after the Tatar-Mongol yoke, as soon as the possibilities of trade with England open up, Ivan the Terrible makes an attempt to move the capital closer to the "sea-okyan", to new trade routes - to Vologda, and only chance did not allow this to come true. Peter the Great is building a new capital on the most dangerous borders of the country, on the shores of the Baltic Sea, in the conditions of an unfinished war with the Swedes - St. Petersburg, and in this (the most radical that Peter did) he follows a long tradition. Considering the entire thousand-year experience of Russian history, we can talk about the historical mission of Russia. There is nothing mystical about this concept of historical mission. The mission of Russia is determined by its position among other peoples, by the fact that up to three hundred peoples have united in its composition - large, great and small in number, requiring protection. The culture of Russia has developed in the context of this multinationality. Russia served as a giant bridge between peoples. The bridge is primarily a cultural one. And we need to realize this, because this bridge, facilitating communication, facilitates at the same time enmity, abuse of state power.

Although the national abuses of state power in the past (partitions of Poland, the conquest of Central Asia, etc.) the Russian people are not to blame for their spirit, culture, nevertheless, this was done by the state on its behalf

Abuses in the national policy of recent decades have not been committed or even covered up by the Russian people, who experienced not less, but almost great suffering. And we can say with firmness that Russian culture along the entire path of its development is not involved in misanthropic nationalism. And in this we again proceed from the generally recognized rule - to consider culture to be a combination of the best that is in the people. Even such a conservative philosopher as Konstantin Leontyev was proud of the multinationality of Russia and with great respect and a kind of admiration for the national characteristics of the peoples inhabiting it. It is no coincidence that the flourishing of Russian culture in the 18th and 19th centuries took place on a multinational basis in Moscow and mainly in St. Petersburg. The population of St. Petersburg was multinational from the very beginning. Its main street, Nevsky Prospect, has become a kind of avenue of religious tolerance. Not everyone knows that the largest and richest Buddhist temple in Europe was built in St. Petersburg in the 20th century. The richest mosque was built in Petrograd.

The fact that the country, which created one of the most humane universal cultures, which has all the prerequisites for the unification of many peoples of Europe and Asia, was at the same time one of the most cruel national oppressors, and above all of its own, "central" people - Russian, is one of the most tragic paradoxes in history, largely the result of the eternal confrontation between the people and the state, the polarization of the Russian character with its simultaneous striving for freedom and power

But the polarization of the Russian character does not mean the polarization of Russian culture. Good and evil in the Russian character are not at all equalized. Good is always many times more valuable and weightier than evil. And culture is built on good, not evil, expresses a good beginning among the people. Culture and state, culture and civilization should not be confused. The most characteristic feature of Russian culture, passing through its entire thousand-year history, starting from Russia in the X-XIII centuries, the common foremother of the three East Slavic peoples - Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian, is its universality, universalism. This feature of universality, universalism, is often distorted, giving rise, on the one hand, to the blasphemy of everything that is own, and on the other, extreme nationalism. Paradoxically, light universalism gives rise to dark shadows …

Thus, the question of whether Russian culture belongs to the East or the West is completely removed. The culture of Russia belongs to dozens of peoples of the West and East. It is on this basis, on multinational soil, that it has grown in all its uniqueness. It is no coincidence, for example, that Russia and its Academy of Sciences have created remarkable oriental studies and Caucasian studies. I will mention at least a few surnames of orientalists who glorified Russian science: the Iranianist K. G. Zaleman, the Mongolian N. N. Poppe, the Sinologists N. Ya. Bichurin, V. M. Shcherbatskoy, Indologist S. F. Oldenburg, Turkologists V. V. Radlov, A. N. Kononov, Arabists V. R. Rosen, I. Yu. Krachkovsky, Egyptologists B. A. Turaev, V. V. Struve, Japanologist N. I. Konrad, Finno-Ugric scholars F. I. Videman, D. V. Bubrikh, Hebraists G. P. Pavsky, V. V. Velyaminov-Zernov, P. K. other. You cannot list everyone in the great Russian oriental studies, but it was they who did so much for the peoples who entered Russia. I knew many personally, met in St. Petersburg, less often in Moscow. They disappeared without leaving an equivalent replacement, but Russian science is precisely them, the people of Western culture who have done a lot for the study of the East.

This attention to the East and South, above all, expresses the European character of Russian culture. For European culture is distinguished precisely by the fact that it is open to the perception of other cultures, to their unification, study and preservation, and partly assimilation

It is no coincidence that there are so many Russianized Germans among the Russian Orientalists I have named above. The Germans, who began to live in St. Petersburg since the time of Catherine the Great, later turned out to be representatives of Russian culture in its all-humanity in St. Petersburg. It is no coincidence that in Moscow the Russianized German doctor F. P. to hard labor. So, Russia is East and West, but what did it give to both? What is its characteristic and value for both? In search of the national identity of culture, we must first of all look for an answer in literature and writing.

Let me give myself one analogy. In the world of living beings, and there are millions of them, only man has speech, in a word, he can express his thoughts. Therefore, a person, if he really is a Human, should be the protector of all life on Earth, speak for all life in the universe. In the same way, in any culture, which is a vast conglomerate of various "dumb" forms of creativity, it is literature, writing that most clearly expresses the national ideals of culture. It expresses precisely the ideals, only the best in culture and only the most expressive for its national characteristics. Literature “speaks” for the entire national culture, as man “speaks” for all life in the universe. Russian literature emerged on a high note. The first work was a compilation essay dedicated to world history and reflections on the place in this history of Russia - "The Philosopher's Speech", which was later placed in the first Russian chronicle. This topic was not accidental. A few decades later, another historiosophical work appeared - "The Word about Law and Grace" by the first metropolitan of the Russians, Hilarion. It was already quite a mature and skillful work on a secular theme, which in itself was worthy of that literature, that history that arose in the east of Europe … This reflection on the future is already one of the peculiar and most significant themes of Russian literature.

A. P. In his story "The Steppe" Chekhov made the following remark on his own behalf: "A Russian person likes to remember, but does not like to live"; that is, he does not live in the present, and really - only in the past or in the future! I believe that this is the most important Russian national trait that goes far beyond just literature

Indeed, the extraordinary development in Ancient Rus of historical genres, and, first of all, the chronicle, known in thousands of copies, chronographies, historical stories, time books, etc., testifies to the special interest in the past. There are very few fictional plots in ancient Russian literature - only what was or seemed to be the former was worthy of narration until the 17th century. The Russian people were filled with respect for the past. During their past, thousands of Old Believers have died, burned themselves in countless "burnt places" (self-immolations), when Nikon, Alexei Mikhailovich and Peter wanted to "destroy the old days." This feature has been retained in peculiar forms in modern times. Side by side with the cult of the past from the very beginning in Russian literature there was its aspiration for the future. And this is again a feature that goes far beyond the bounds of literature. It is characteristic of all Russian intellectual life in peculiar and varied, sometimes even distorted, forms. The striving for the future was expressed in Russian literature throughout its development. It was a dream of a better future, a condemnation of the present, a search for the ideal building of society. Pay attention: Russian literature, on the one hand, is highly characteristic of direct teaching - the preaching of moral renewal, and on the other - deeply exciting doubts, searches, dissatisfaction with the present, exposure, satire. Answers and questions! Sometimes even the answers appear before the questions. For example, Tolstoy is dominated by teachers, answers, while Chaadaev and Saltykov-Shchedrin have questions and doubts reaching despair.

These interconnected tendencies - to doubt and to teach - are characteristic of Russian literature from the very first steps of its existence and constantly put literature in opposition to the state. The first chronicler who established the very form of Russian chronicle writing (in the form of "weather", annual records), Nikon, was even forced to flee from the princely wrath to Tmutarakan on the Black Sea and continue his work there. In the future, all Russian chroniclers in one form or another not only set out the past, but exposed and taught, called for the unity of Russia. The author of The Lay of Igor's Host did the same. These searches for a better state and social structure of Russia reached particular intensity in the 16th and 17th centuries. Russian literature becomes journalistic to the extreme and at the same time creates grandiose annals, covering both world history and Russian as part of the world.

The present has always been perceived in Russia as being in a state of crisis. And this is typical of Russian history. Remember: were there eras in Russia that would be perceived by their contemporaries as quite stable and prosperous?

A period of princely strife or tyranny of the Moscow sovereigns? Peter's era and the period of the post-Peter's reign? Catherine's? The reign of Nicholas I? It is no coincidence that Russian history passed under the sign of anxiety caused by dissatisfaction with the present, veche unrest and princely strife, riots, disturbing Zemsky councils, uprisings, and religious unrest. Dostoevsky wrote about "an eternally emerging Russia." A. I. Herzen noted:

"In Russia there is nothing finished, petrified: everything in it is still in a state of solution, preparation … Yes, everywhere you feel lime, you hear a saw and an ax."

In this search for truth-truth, Russian literature was the first in the world literary process to realize the value of the human person in itself, regardless of its position in society and regardless of its own qualities. At the end of the 17th century, for the first time in the world, the hero of the literary work "The Tale of Misfortune" was an unremarkable person, an unknown fellow, who did not have a permanent shelter over his head, who spent his life ineptly in gambling, drinking from himself everything - to bodily nudity. "The Tale of Grief-Misfortune" was a kind of manifesto of the Russian revolt. The theme of the value of the "little man" then becomes the basis for the moral staunchness of Russian literature. A small, unknown person, whose rights must be protected, becomes one of the central figures in Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and many authors of the 20th century.

Moral searches are so engrossing in literature that content in Russian literature clearly dominates over form. Any established form, stylistics, this or that literary work seems to constrain Russian authors. They constantly shed their clothes of uniform, preferring the nakedness of truth to them. The movement of literature forward is accompanied by a constant return to life, to the simplicity of reality - by referring either to vernacular, colloquial speech, or to folk art, or to "business" and everyday genres - correspondence, business documents, diaries, notes ("Letters of a Russian Traveler" Karamzin), even to the transcript (separate passages in Dostoevsky's Demons). In these constant refusals from the established style, from the general trends in art, from the purity of genres, in these mixtures of genres and, I would say, in the rejection of professionalism, which has always played a large role in Russian literature, the exceptional richness and diversity was essential. Russian language. This fact was largely confirmed by the fact that the territory in which the Russian language was spread was so great that only one difference in everyday life, geographical conditions, a variety of national contacts created a huge stock of words for various everyday concepts, abstract, poetic and etc. And secondly, the fact that the Russian literary language was formed from, again, "interethnic communication" - Russian vernacular with a lofty, solemn Old Bulgarian (Church Slavonic) language.

The diversity of Russian life in the presence of a diversity of language, the constant intrusions of literature into life and life into literature softened the boundaries between the one and the other. Literature in Russian conditions has always invaded life, and life - in literature, and this determined the character of Russian realism. Just as the old Russian narrative tries to tell about the real past, so in modern times Dostoevsky makes his heroes act in the real situation of St. Petersburg or the provincial city in which he himself lived. So Turgenev writes his "Notes of a Hunter" - to real cases. This is how Gogol combines his romanticism with the most petty naturalism. So Leskov convincingly presents everything he tells as really the former, creating the illusion of documentaryness. These features also pass into the literature of the XX century - the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. And this "concreteness" only strengthens the moral side of literature - its teaching and revelatory character. She does not feel the strength of everyday life, way of life, building. It (reality) constantly causes moral dissatisfaction, striving for the best in the future.

Russian literature, as it were, squeezes the present between the past and the future. Dissatisfaction with the present is one of the main features of Russian literature, which brings it closer to popular thought: typical for the Russian people religious quests, searches for a happy kingdom, where there is no oppression of bosses and landowners, and outside of literature - a tendency to vagrancy, and also in various searches and aspirations

The writers themselves did not get along in one place. Gogol was constantly on the road, Pushkin traveled a lot. Even Leo Tolstoy, seemingly having found a permanent place of life in Yasnaya Polyana, leaves home and dies like a vagabond. Then Gorky … The literature created by the Russian people is not only their wealth, but also a moral strength that helps the people in all the difficult circumstances in which the Russian people find themselves. We can always turn to this moral principle for spiritual help.

Speaking about the enormous values that the Russian people own, I do not want to say that other peoples do not have similar values, but the values of Russian literature are unique in the sense that their artistic strength lies in its close connection with moral values. Russian literature is the conscience of the Russian people. At the same time, it is open in relation to other literatures of mankind. It is intimately connected with life, with reality, with the awareness of the value of a person in himself. Russian literature (prose, poetry, drama) is both Russian philosophy, and the Russian peculiarity of creative self-expression, and Russian all-humanity. Russian classical literature is our hope, an inexhaustible source of moral strength for our peoples. As long as Russian classical literature is available, as long as it is printed, libraries are working and open to everyone, the Russian people will always have the strength for moral self-purification. On the basis of moral forces, Russian culture, the expression of which is Russian literature, unites the cultures of various peoples. It is in this association that her mission is. We must heed the voice of Russian literature.

So, the place of Russian culture is determined by its diverse ties with the cultures of many and many other peoples of the West and East. One could talk and write about these connections endlessly. And whatever the tragic breaks in these ties, whatever the abuse of ties, it is ties that are most valuable in the position that Russian culture (namely culture, not lack of culture) has occupied in the world around it. The significance of Russian culture was determined by its moral position in the national question, in its worldview quests, in its dissatisfaction with the present, in the burning pangs of conscience and in the search for a happy future, albeit sometimes false, hypocritical, justifying any means, but still not tolerating complacency.

And the last question that should be addressed. Can the thousand-year-old culture of Russia be considered backward? It would seem that the question is not in doubt: hundreds of obstacles stood in the way of the development of Russian culture. But the fact is that Russian culture is of a different type than the culture of the West

This applies primarily to Ancient Russia, and especially its XIII-XVII centuries. The arts have always been clearly developed in Russia. Igor Grabar believed that the architecture of Ancient Rus was not inferior to that of the West. Already in his time (that is, in the first half of the 20th century) it was clear that Russia was not inferior in painting, be it icon painting or frescoes. Now to this list of arts, in which Russia is in no way inferior to other cultures, one can add music, folklore, chronicle writing, ancient literature close to folklore.

But in what Russia until the 19th century clearly lagged behind Western countries - this is science and philosophy in the Western sense of the word. What is the reason? I think, in the absence of universities in Russia and generally higher school education. Hence, many negative phenomena in Russian life, and church life in particular. The university educated stratum of society created in the 19th and 20th centuries turned out to be too thin. Moreover, this university educated stratum failed to arouse the necessary respect. The populism that permeated Russian society, admiration for the people, contributed to the fall of authority. The people, who belonged to a different type of culture, saw in the university intelligentsia something false, something alien and even hostile to themselves.

What to do now, at a time of real backwardness and catastrophic decline of culture? The answer, I think, is clear. In addition to the desire to preserve the material remnants of the old culture (libraries, museums, archives, architectural monuments) and the level of skill in all spheres of culture, it is necessary to develop university education. Here one cannot do without communication with the West

Europe and Russia should be under the same roof of higher education. It is quite realistic to create a pan-European university in which each college would represent one European country (European in the cultural sense, that is, the United States, Japan, and the Middle East). Subsequently, such a university, created in some neutral country, could become universal. Each college would have its own science, its own culture, mutually permeable, accessible to other cultures, free for exchanges. After all, raising a humanitarian culture around the world is the concern of the whole world.