Pushkin about liberalism
"Everything was corrupt"
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin was not only a genius poet, but also a wise and independent thinker. When you read his articles and letters, you are amazed at the accuracy, brevity and accuracy of the wording. Behind these brief theses are very deep and Christianly correct thoughts. Therefore, they always tried not to remember ...
Pushkin did not like democracy. He devoted quite a few pages of his articles to the dismantling of the ideology of liberalism that was born during his time. When around all the nobility turned their eyes to the West, not seeing in the popular worldview the basis for their culture, only the great Pushkin saw this danger to such an extent that he was even willing to sacrifice his work for the sake of removing free expression from French eyes. “Do you know that the sovereign allowed me a political newspaper,” we read in the letters of 1832 of the year. “I don’t intend to place poems, for Christ forbade casting beads to the public ... One thing hurts me: I want to destroy, show all the disgusting meanness of modern French literature” (Pushkin A.S. PSS in 10 t. - M., Science, 1964. T. 10. C. 416. Further: volume and page).
The slogan of the French Revolution - freedom, equality, fraternity. But the brilliant Pushkin prophetically saw all the destruction of the French ideas of freedom without Christ. The beginning of his story "Arap Peter the Great" - a list from our democratic time: "Nothing could compare with the free frivolity, madness and luxury of the French of that time ... Greed for money combined with the greed of pleasure and absent-mindedness; the estates disappeared; morality perished; the French laughed and counted, and the state disintegrated under the playful choruses of satirical vaudevilles ... The need to have fun brought together all the states ... Everything that served curiosity or promised pleasure was accepted with the same blessing "Literature, scholarship, and philosophy ... were to please fashion by controlling its opinions."
The poet saw the very basis of liberal philosophy, which "was directed against the dominant religion, the eternal source of poetry in all nations, and its favorite tool was cold and cautious irony and ridiculous madness and square." He was well aware that these liberal values had penetrated into Russia. Analyzing Fonvizin’s article “A Conversation with Princess Haldina,” he drew attention to “a curious depiction of the mores and opinions prevailing here” in the 18th century. because of the "Parisian imitation of manners": "The princess scolds the maid, why did she not let the guest go to the dressing room." Don't you know that I like to dress with men? "-" But shame, "says the maid." Here is all that French freethinking has brought at the household level. Today we have made significant progress in this freedom: the princess was undressing in a room, in our days - in television studios.
Pushkin further continues the picture of new morals. The madmen "signed up for the service in order to ride a train (in modern language - on a Mercedes - NL). He spends nights behind the cards (read - at the computer - NL) ... He feels the absurdity of business paper and agrees with the opinion of others (today it’s all NL) ... He sells the peasants for recruits and intelligently talks about enlightenment. " Pushkin does not just criticize, but shows the reason for seduction by liberal freedom: it gives pleasure, freeing from what Russia has lived for centuries - sacrificial service to God and the fatherland. Without this, everyone is striving "to the service, to ride the train" ...
NOBILITY AS A SERVICE
The central theme in the works of Pushkin is the role of the nobility in the state. Today, the ministry remains only in the Church and in the army. And originally the nobility was understood as the same service! Elected authorities are temporary mercenaries. This is not power, but an illusion of power, a game of power, running along a predetermined circle, when power is outside this circle, behind a screen. Pushkin very accurately notes in the article "On the Nobility" that the state "surrounds itself with loyal mercenaries, and this suppresses all opposition and independence. The hereditaryness of the highest nobility is a guarantee of its independence; the opposite is inevitably linked to tyranny." Any sane person today can see that the elective power is the “despotism” of the crowd, on which it fully depends. If you indulge, you hold, if you don't, you lose power. Therefore, Pushkin's remark is exactly like a shot: being chosen eliminates independence.
“The ranks became the passion of the Russian people,” wrote the poet. “Peter the Great wanted that.” It was Peter who began to replace the hereditary nobility with a businesslike one. It seems everything is correct, business qualities are needed. Only after the death of the Tsar did their businessiness turn to their own enrichment. After all, if there is no God, then everything is for himself ...
"I never shared with anyone any democratic hatred of the nobility. It always seemed to me a necessary and natural estate of a great educated people ... I regretted seeing the ancient clans being destroyed ... and as the name of a nobleman, from hour to hour more degraded, finally, in the mockery of raznochintsy ... and even idle pranksters! ... Wildness, meanness and ignorance do not respect the past, kowtowing before the present, "the poet defines the essence of the" new Russian nobles. " The true nobles because of the reforms of Peter was becoming less and less, and such as Molchalin from "Woe from Wit", more and more. Decrees of Peter III "On the Freedom of the Nobility" (1762), "with which our ancestors were proud and of whom they should have been ashamed of," gave the aristocracy independence from serving God and the state. "Catherine," continues Pushkin's narration of the nobility, "humiliated the spirit of the nobility." The enormous riches accumulated by Russia were already heard not only for services to God and the Fatherland, but for proximity to the court, for sins! “From here, these enormous estates of completely unknown surnames and a complete lack of honor and honesty in the upper class of the people took place ... Everything was corrupt. Thus, the depraved empress corrupted her state,” Pushkin ends the story. Since 1834, education has begun to play a decisive role in the career. "If the nobility," Pushkin argues, "it will be possible to come from other estates, like from a rank to a rank, ... then soon the nobility will not exist ... What does our old nobility mean ... with enlightenment ... and with all the claims to power and riches? There is no such terrible element of rebellion in Europe. Who were in December 14 Square? Some nobles. How many will there be at the first new outrage? I don’t know, but it seems a lot. " Today, the demand for educated destroyers of traditions is increasing. Their army, which, it seems, no one can overcome ...
FIFTH POWER. OFFICERS.
Already under Pushkin, democratic attacks began on the traditional understanding of the ministry according to conscience. “Why did the mob get into a frenzy of the nobility?” He asked. “Because for some time the nobility was presented to her by the despicable and hated estate ... And honest and kind writers were the cause! ... The epigrams of democratic French writers prepared the cries of" aristocrats to the lantern "; we the same epigrams can have even worse consequences. " The fifth power was already seen by the poet in his terrible influence.
By the time of Pushkin, the nobility is less formally connected with the duty of the state service: the structure of the state clearly does not coincide with the structure of society, the state is increasingly becoming only a management apparatus and violence, and not a unifying form of society on high Christian ideals. A typical example is given by Pushkin in the 1934 diaries of the year: many chamberlain did not appear in the service on Palm Sunday. "The sovereign was not happy and said:" If it is difficult for them to fulfill their duties, then I will find a means to save them. "" Then there was still someone to save them ...
Service to the Sovereign began to be perceived as servility, backwardness, ignorance. When Pushkin returned to the service of the Sovereign, all together they rushed to condemn him:
But only the king's soup I tasted,
And became the court sycophant,
- walked such an epigram on him. But Pushkin did not pay attention to the boorish attacks of lovers of democratic freedoms. He was above that. Although caution society tried.
“15 years ago,” he writes in the article “On public education”, “upbringing did not deviate from the initial outlines. 10 years later, we saw liberal ideas with the necessary sign of good upbringing; literature turned into handwritten libel on the government and outrageous songs; finally, secret societies, conspiracies, plans more or less bloody and insane. " The necessary companion of a democratic society is bureaucracy. Pushkin, well aware of the danger of Decembrism, called on the nobles "to serve the fatherland with faith and truth, having the goal to sincerely and diligently unite with the government in the great feat of improving state decrees, rather than hindering it, insanely persisting in secret ill will." But the officials did their best so that the King could not return the former principle of sacrificial service to God, the King and the fatherland, so that they would be able to catch their rich fish in troubled waters. In the Nicholas era, even Slavophiles — ideal conservatives — were on their political suspicion. "Kireyevsky, kind and modest Kireyevsky, is presented to the government by a tomboy and a Jacobin!" - exclaims Pushkin, surprised by the power of officials. Conservatism was understood by officials as a serving and is not understood as a free expression of the soul. All Slavophiles are haters of liberalism and bureaucracy: the Tsar was for them a father, not a formal authority. In Pushkin we find evidence of such an informal, paternal attitude towards subordinates: "For a long time the Tsar did not produce Boldyrev as a general for a gambling game."
From now on, the empire had a terrible enemy. Pushkin said while about him only in passing. His role in the 1917 events of the year, especially those that preceded the revolution, is not yet fully realized. Nicholas II was unarmed against the most terrible enemies - the enemies in their offices ... The Empire collapsed.
History is given to us in order to understand better the present. There are always enough parallels there. In 1811, Count Joseph de Maistre, a French philosopher and politician who lived in Russia for about 15 years, wrote to his friend Count NP Rumyantsev, what is now remembered in the study of Perestroika: "The deplorable literature of the 18th century suddenly appeared in completely defenseless Russia, and the first lessons of the French language for this nation were blasphemy unaccustomed to him. As they are released, people will find themselves between suspicious teachers and clergy, deprived of strength and respect. They will undoubtedly immediately go from superstition to atheism and from unreasoning obedience to unbridled self-will activities. " No, I will stop reading newspapers, and I will take up a small volume of Pushkin - he is much more modern than our publicists, honestly!
REPENTANCE - CHANGE OF MIND
Pushkin was well aware of the cost of free thinking, for the reason that he himself went through this hobby. But quickly figured out and became a firm monarchist and traditionalist.
Count Strutynsky writes how Pushkin conveyed to him a conversation with the Tsar in the Miracle Monastery 18 of September 1926: “Youth is feverish, insanity,” Pushkin said to the Tsar. “It leads to great folly, or even great guilt. You know that I was considered a revolutionary, a conspirator, an enemy of autocracy. That was really what I was in. Freedom that does not recognize anything on earth or in Heaven, pride that was not considered traditions and customs, the denial of any faith in the afterlife of the soul, of all religious rituals it all filled my head seducer chaos ... It seemed to me that submission to the law is humiliation, all power is violence, the King is an oppressor, and that it is commendable to encroach on it in word and deed. I did not remember myself from joy when I was forbidden to enter the capital cities and surrounded by supervision. that he became great and to hell frightened the government. But everything had its time. All the childish things flew off. And when I looked around - I realized that what seemed to be true until now was a lie, that I loved - delusion, and my goals were threatened with a fall, a shame! I realized that freedom, not limited by the Divine law, about which suckers or madmen indulge in, is disastrous for the individual and society ... ”
Pushkin began to openly blame the French writers for free-thinking. Even Rousseau, he considered the writer "immoral," because idealizing forbidden passions is immoral. He is especially indignant at Voltaire, who tempted him to write a poem about "which he cannot remember without paints of shame." Never again did he defend the idol of youth - Byron: "Byron threw a one-sided look at the world and the nature of humanity, then turned away from them and plunged into himself."
Pestel for him is a blind fanatic. "Duma" Ryleeva called rubbish and jokingly said that their name from the German "Dumm" - a fool. “There is nothing Russian in them except names,” he writes. Speaking of ingratitude in a letter to his wife, Pushkin casually remarks: "This is worse than liberalism." Today, Pushkin's humor would not be appreciated ...
From the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of the French Revolution:
5. The law can only prohibit actions that are detrimental to society ...
6. The law is an expression of the Common Will.
10. No one person can be prosecuted for his convictions, even for religious convictions, unless they threaten public order.
As we see, now goodness is no longer absolutely, but it is created by a group of people and is imposed on the rest of society, ostensibly in its own interest. Good is only that which serves society (note - democratic!) In the era of the French Revolution, the formula "The people never make mistakes" crystallized. Pushkin thought differently: "At the Frenchmen, Vilon sang praises in the areal couplets of the taverns and the gallows and was revered by the first national poet!" .
But the question arises: the better the self-rule of one person of the self-indulgence of a group? If one is wrong, the group - can not? Recall Jota Nazis in Germany. It is good to hide behind public opinion, justifying their own delusions, lust, lust for power, vanity, etc. To legitimize sin, justifying itself: "Everyone ran, and I ran." This legitimacy stifle the voice of conscience. It is well known that in a crowd a person behaves much more relaxedly, often doing something that he would never do alone with himself. That is what democracy is for. Yes, I am ashamed to do it; Yes, our ancestors did not do this; Yes, conscience sometimes sharpens me for it - but this is now recognized and done by EVERYTHING! So this is normal. The absolute laws of the Creator are replaced by the law of the crowd.
Depend on the authorities
Depend on the people
Doesn't matter to me?
- sighs wise Pushkin.
In "Boris Godunov," Boyar Pushkin frankly explains the source of the Pretender's power:
“But do you know how strong we are, Basmanov? ... And opinion, yes! popular opinion ".
Pushkin will answer this challenge of democracy very simply and clearly: both the poet and the ruler must "be fulfilled by My will" (Lord's), and not by democratic social law. The opinion of the people is only a cover. In Pushkin we read even such a bold statement: "Peter I ... despised humanity, perhaps more than Napoleon." Accepting Peter's economic achievements, the poet nevertheless did not forget about the primacy of the answer before Heaven: and from this point of view the price of progress is incomparable with the task of saving the soul of his fellow citizens.
In the poem "Slanderers of Russia" (1831), the poet contrasts the increasingly de-Christianized and pagan in its spirit with Napoleonic Europe to Orthodox monarchical Russia:
Pointlessly seduces you
Fighting desperate bravery
And you hate us.
For what? - Answer: for whether,
What is on the ruins of flaming Moscow
We did not recognize the brazen will
To whom you were trembling?
As you know, under Catherine II of 954 monasteries, 754 was closed, and a huge part of the monastic grounds were given as a gift to the favorites. Until now, history textbooks like to emphasize the enormous riches of the Church and the rational decision of the state to nationalize these lands and riches without bothering to try to find out where these riches have gone. If people! Alas, in that distant "privatization" the majority was squandered by the favorites, "plundered by lovers" (8;). Pushkin, notes about Catherine briefly, but succinctly: she "pleased the spirit of the times."
“Understand that Russia has never had anything in common with the rest of Europe; that its history requires another thought, a different formula ...”, Pushkin shouts to us from the thickness of time. But his voice is not heard ... The legalism of the West is the result of his deviation from true Christianity. Their path does not suit us. "Read the complaints of the English factory workers: the hair will stand on end with horror. How many disgusting tortures, incomprehensible torment! ... And notice, all this is not abuse, but occurs within the strict limits of the law .... We have nothing of the kind."
And once again a subtle remark: in the West, lawlessness is carried out within the "limits of the law", as is now euthanasia, same-sex marriage, soft drugs, etc. We, while solving a problem, for example, gay parades, proceed not from international laws, but from an understanding of sinfulness. And so in everything.
Most of all, Pushkin attacked the first of the liberal rights that was beginning to fight its way back in the days of Pushkin — freedom of the press. He everywhere protects censorship.
“Censorship is a beneficent institution, not an oppressive one; it is the faithful guardian of the welfare of the private and the state,” it says, as for a textbook.
"No power can resist the destructive action of a typographic projectile. Respect the class of writers, but do not let it master you completely! ... Is speech and manuscript not subject to the law? Every government has the right not to allow to preach in the squares that it comes to mind ... The law not only punishes, but also warns. This is his beneficent side. " The logic of iron: the state should monitor compliance with the norms, including moral.
"One of our great compatriots once told me that if we had freedom of typography, he and his wife and children would go to Constantinople. Disrespect for the honor of citizens and the convenience of slander are one of the main disadvantages of press freedom," adds the poet. How well he understood the essence of democratic institutions! “The convenience of slander” leads to the fact that those who are better able to slander, who are ready to step over it, who have audacity, for whom nothing sacred does not exist and does not stop, come to power. Conversely, with such a system, modesty and gentleness will immediately be suppressed and squeezed out of a public field.
Pushkin clearly shared what should be protected by censorship: "contrary to faith, government, morality and personal honor." As we see, in the first place is faith, then - the state and the individual.
Democracy is the rule of law. But not moral and moral! “I started writing from the 13 age,” complains Pushkin. “I would like to destroy much. Other things, like a reproach, on my conscience. At least I should not be responsible for reprinting the sins of my adolescence ... Mr. An. I had no right to have my poems and send poems that I have committed to oblivion. Or not written for the press or which I was forgivable to write on 19, but it is unforgivable to accept publicly at the age of power. ”Indeed, where is the earliest sinful things You must stop the sense of responsibility, duty, dictates of conscience, the fear of God. With a liberal approach, all this is thrown into a landfill. And now all the publishers strive to find the classics with everything that will have a noisy, scandalous success with the main legislator of the liberals - the crowd. Nobody asks the authors themselves, their rights (about which the liberals love to talk hypocritically!) Are grossly violated. Liberals argue: there is a court for this, laws, let them decide through litigation. But Pushkin cannot sue them for infringement of his copyright. And the judgment of God they do not recognize. Hence the result: they print EVERYTHING without restraint and the gap of conscience! Democracy!
"We are still thinking: how can this be stupid or unfair? After all, it is printed!" - Pushkin is outraged by despotism of public opinion.
Why was the liberal press so angry at censorship by 1900? Censorship did not allow vulgarity, criticism, populism in the media to unfold, and therefore seriously interfered with their profitability, their power over the crowd. Money and the power of the mob - two gods of liberalism came into conflict with the principle of censorship. After the 1905 Manifesto, the censorship was abolished ... Now, each student who did not study properly considered it his duty to laugh at Russia, the Church, the Fatherland, the Sovereign and the "German spy" Tsaritsa. Liberal printing press hit without a miss. The revolution was already unstoppable ...
Pushkin gives an example of the onset of liberalism in literature. “French journals inform us of the imminent appearance of the Notes of Samson, the Paris executioner.” This should have been expected. That's what brought us the thirst for novelty and strong impressions. After the seductive Confessions of the philosophy of the 18th century, political, no less seductive revelations came. We were not content to see people famous in the cap, we wanted to follow them into their bedroom and beyond. When we got tired of it, a crowd of dark people appeared with their shameful legends. But we didn’t stop at the shameless notes of Casanova ... We threw off There is no shame in it to seek inspiration for a mud-filled novel, the executioner lacked ... Finally he appeared, and to our shame we say that the success of his "Notes" seems unquestionable. We don’t envy people who, having based their calculations on the immorality of our curiosity, they dedicated their pen "... Again the exact wording of the poet. "Calculations on the immorality of our curiosity," explain the high ratings of lecherous programs today. But the authors of “School” and “House-2” are justified by the ratings.
"Imagine a person without a name and shelter, living daily reports, ... an inveterate swindler, as shameless as a vile one, and then imagine, if you can, that there must be moral writings of such a person." Note, Pushkin does not write about the usefulness of the information that this new hero will inform the society (as the minister convinces us, justifying the “School”), but cares about the “moral” result! We have no one about the moral influence of "dill" does not say. Give freedom of information! And the fact that she kills, it is not customary to recall this.
Further, Pushkin develops an interesting thought about this executioner-writer: "Vidocq in his notes calls himself a patriot ... He goes berserk, reading the unfavorable recall of journalists ... He ... writes denunciations of his enemies, accuses them of immorality and freethinking, and interprets (not in a joke) on the independence of opinion ... " Another brilliant insight! All these supporters of liberal freedoms trumpeting their patriotism! Not about piety, but about, allegedly, care for the state and the people, which they shoot with their "independent opinions". Only today they accuse their opponents not of “immorality and free-thinking”, but of extremism and fascism.
Further, Pushkin asks us: “An important question is proposed: the writings of the spy Vidok, the executioner Samson and so on. They do not insult the mainstream religion, the government, or even morality; with all that, they cannot but be considered an extreme insult to public decency. wise attention to the temptation of a new kind? " . Why do we need a state that does not protect its citizens from "insulting public decency"? If the money was stolen - a prison, and if the truth, purity and honor - a reward?
Our Pushkin did not bypass even the vaunted United States, and managed to devote a few lines to a new democratic state. "With amazement, they saw democracy in its disgusting cynicism, - writes Alexander Sergeevich, - in its cruel prejudices, in its intolerable tyranny. Everything is noble, unselfish, everything elevates the human soul - suppressed by inexorable selfishness and passion for contentment; the majority, brazenly oppressing society; black slavery in the midst of education and freedom; on the part of voters, greed and envy; on the part of governors, timidity and subservience; talent, out of respect for equality, forced to voluntarily ostracism; rich, over a ragged caftan, in order not to insult the arrogant poverty on the street, which they secretly despise: this is the picture of the American States. "
USE and SCHOOL
And even such a fruit of democracy as the Unified State Examination, Pushkin pre-empted in the upcoming ideology of liberalism. “The decree on examinations, the measure is too democratic and erroneous,” he writes, “because it dealt a final blow to education ... And since everything is corrupt in Russia, the exam has become a new industry for professors. It sounds like a bad customs gate in which old people with disabilities pass for money those who did not know how to pass by. " Here is a classic opinion, gentlemen!
Pushkin paid much attention to education and school issues. As always, striking modernity of his views. “What is Latin or Greek?” He asks a school that does not want to learn the basics of his faith. “Is luxury allowed where there is a lack of the necessary?” . Yes, the poet did not see our school programs scored by the “luxury” of economics, law, life cycle, squeezing “necessary” —the knowledge of Russia in the middle of Russia. "Russia is too little known to the Russians ... The study of Russia will have to predominantly occupy the minds of the young, preparing to serve the fatherland with faith and truth ..." (7; 48), Pushkin appeals to our programmers. But, alas, the liberals are death ...
Another anecdote from the times of the rising dawn of liberalism. Bright and instructive. "In one newspaper (almost official), it was said," Pushkin discusses the modern media to him, "that my great-grandfather, godson and pupil of Peter the Great, his breastplate, general-comfé, etc., was bought by the skipper for a bottle of rum. My great-grandfather was bought, it was probably cheap, but it went to the skipper, whose name every Russian says with respect and not in vain. It is forgiven for the immigrant not to love neither Russians, nor Russia, nor her history, nor her glory. mud the sacred pages of our chronicles, vilify the best citizens and, content contemporaries mock coffins forefathers "- menacing voice of a Russian poet of the strata ages. Well, it seems to add to these heartfelt lines? How else can we explain to our citizens who vote for democratic Russia (against Pushkin) that false patriotism of "mocking the graves of the forefathers", "smearing with mud", "the sacred pages" of Holy Russia has nothing to do with love for God and neighbor? As we have come to the point that “people's choices” promote juvenile justice, sex education in schools, they can do nothing with debauchery on TV and for ten years (!) Discussed the need for the Fundamentals of Orthodox culture in school, still defending the subject "Religion of the World "? What do the Public Chamber of the State Duma, as boys, articulate to the professors of Moscow State University for propaganda in the textbook "Russia and its glory", by the way, much more modest than Pushkin ?!
DISARMAMENT - THE TOOL OF LIBERALISM
"An immoral essay is that whose purpose or action is the shock of the rules on which social or human dignity is based. Poems whose purpose is to excite imagination with lascivious descriptions humiliate poetry, turning it into ... disgusting ...". Attach this definition to today's TV, books are all immoral! In another place, the poet says bluntly: “Immoral books are those who… preach debauchery.” Not taking action on our part is criminal. Pushkin’s logic is: “Seeing the robber anosyaschego knife on his victim, Shall you wait calmly for the murder, so to judge a criminal! "Today, this knife is brought in every home, and all quietly waiting, helplessly watching as the right and left in this invisible war fall killed the young fellow ...
"Both honest and kind writers were the cause!" - concludes Pushkin.
And today, our killers are in dress coats, "honest and kind," and not horrible Mongols on horses. Their weapon - pen and screen. Their support is mobile. They win. The silence of the lambs is surprising. But we do not despair: God is with us. And the Russian poet Pushkin bowing before the Creator with his curly head. Democrats hated Pushkin, in the end, just killing him for it. Already DI Pisarev suggested forgetting Pushkin, mocking "little and pretty Pushkin", "bryazatel", "stidedeletel", even "idiot", who devotes us "to the sad secrets of his inner emptiness ". And this is understandable, because the poet did not complain about their vaunted democracy, so they in impotent rage and attacked him.
But this is not about Pushkin - he made his choice. It is always about us. Who are we, the descendants of Pushkin or the followers of Abraham Lincoln?
- N. Lobastov