Pyotr Chaadaev's maternal grandfather is Prince M.M. Shcherbatov (+ 1790), a famous historian, associate of N.I. Novikova. Mother - Princess Natalya Mikhailovna Shcherbatova (+ 1797). Father - Yakov Petrovich Chaadaev (+ 1794), adviser to the Nizhny Novgorod Criminal Chamber.
His teachers were professors F.G. Bauze (one of the first collectors of Old Russian writing), K.F. Mattei (researcher of manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures, lives of saints), T. Bulle. The latter singled out Chaadaev as one of the most gifted students.
A characteristic shortcoming of the entire educational system in Russia at that time was that lectures were given only in foreign languages. They didn’t study Russian at all. Later Chaadaev spoke about himself: " ...It’s easier for me to express my thoughts in French than in Russian".
WITH early years Chaadaev amazed those around him with his extraordinary intelligence, erudition, and desire for self-education. He was a book collector and had a rich library. One of the “pearls” of Chaadaev’s library was “The Apostle,” published in the year by Francis Skorina - there were only 2 copies of this book in Russia. Chaadaev was not a bibliographer (“book buryer”) and willingly shared books with professors and other students.
At the university, Chaadaev develops a friendship with A.S. Griboyedov and I.D. Yakushkin.
Contemporaries noted the refined aristocracy and panache in the clothes of Pyotr Chaadaev. M. Zhikharev, who knew him closely and later became a biographer, wrote that “ Chaadaev raised the art of dressing to almost a degree historical significance " Chaadaev was known as the most brilliant of the young people in Moscow; he also enjoyed the reputation of one of the best dancers. The obvious reverence for his personality impressed Pyotr Chaadaev himself and developed in him the traits of hard-hearted selfishness. Intellectual development and secular education were not filled with heartfelt education. In the future, this will turn out to be one of the sources of the originality and mobility of his philosophical reflections.
Military service
He went on a bayonet attack at Kulm.
The trip abroad made significant changes in Chaadaev’s spiritual life and influenced the formation of his philosophy of history. He continued to expand his library. Pyotr Yakovlevich's close attention was attracted to works in which attempts were made to harmonize socio-scientific progress with Christianity. In the year in Carlsbad, Chaadaev met Schelling.
Despite the fact that he was constantly undergoing treatment, his health only worsened. In June of this year, Chaadaev left for his homeland.
Homecoming. "Philosophical Letters"
Moscow Metropolitan Filaret also recognized the “Letter” as crazy.
From a year until his death, Chaadaev lived in Moscow in an outbuilding on Novaya Basmannaya Street, which is why he received the nickname “Basmannaya philosopher.”
Philosophical ideas
Chaadaev undoubtedly considered himself a Christian thinker.
It should be emphasized that his Christian philosophy is unconventional: it does not talk about the sinfulness of man, or the salvation of his soul, or the sacraments, or anything like that. Chaadaev made a speculative “extract” from the Holy Scriptures and presented Christianity as a universal force that, on the one hand, contributes to the formation historical process and sanctioning, on the other hand, its good completion.
Such a force, according to Chaadaev, was most clearly manifested in Catholicism, where it developed and formulated social idea of Christianity, which determined the sphere in which Europeans live, and in which alone, under the influence of religion, the human race can fulfill its ultimate destiny, i.e. establishment of earthly paradise. In Catholicism, he emphasized the dual unity of the religious-social principle, its “recession” into history.
G.V. Plekhanov wrote: " Public interest comes to the fore even in Chaadaev’s religious reflections".
Chaadaev's interpretation of Christianity as a historically progressive social development, and his identification of the work of Christ with the final establishment of the earthly kingdom, served as the basis for his sharp criticism of Russia and its history.
"First wild barbarism, then crude superstition, then foreign dominion, cruel and humiliating, the spirit of which the national government subsequently inherited, this is the sad story of our youth<...>We live only in the most limited present without a past and without a future, among flat stagnation".
Chaadaev saw the fundamental reason for this situation in Russia in the fact that it had isolated itself from the Catholic West during the period of church schism " we were mistaken about the real spirit of religion", choosing Orthodoxy. Chaadaev considered it necessary for Russia not only to blindly and superficially assimilate Western forms, but, having absorbed the social idea of Catholicism into its blood and flesh, to repeat all stages of European history from the beginning.
These are the conclusions of the First Philosophical Letter.
Despite all his sympathies for Catholicism, Chaadaev remained Orthodox all his life, regularly confessed and received communion, before his death he took communion from an Orthodox priest and was buried according to the Orthodox rite. Literary critic M.O. Gershenzon writes that Chaadaev committed a strange inconsistency by not accepting Catholicism and not formally converting, so to speak, “to the Catholic faith,” in compliance with the established ritual.
In other “Philosophical Letters” Chaadaev, reflecting on the parallelism of the material and spiritual worlds, on the ways and means of knowing nature and man, develops philosophical and scientific evidence of his main idea: in the human spirit there is no other truth than that which God put into it with His own hand when He extracted it from non-existence. It is therefore wrong to explain man's actions solely in terms of his own nature, as philosophers often do, " and all the movement of the human spirit, - the author emphasizes, - is the result of an amazing combination of initial concepts thrown by God himself with the influence of our mind...".
Written by Chaadaev in response to accusations of lack of patriotism "Apology for a Madman"(1837) remained unpublished during the thinker’s lifetime. In it, Chaadaev revised his point of view on Russia, noting that " ...we are called upon to solve most of the problems of social order... to answer the most important questions that occupy humanity, "...perhaps it was an exaggeration to be saddened, even for a moment, for the fate of the people from whose depths came the mighty nature of Peter the Great, the all-encompassing mind of Lomonosov and the graceful genius of Pushkin".
Chaadaev Pyotr Yakovlevich (27.05 (7.06).1794, Moscow, - 14 (26).04.1856, ibid.) - Russian thinker, philosopher and publicist, born into a noble family (mother is the daughter of the historian Prince M. M. Shcherbatov).
Chaadaev’s maternal grandfather was the famous historian and publicist Prince M.M. Shcherbatov. After the early death of his parents, Chaadaev was raised by his aunt and uncle. In 1808 he entered Moscow University, where he became close to the writer A.S. Griboyedov, the future Decembrists I.D. Yakushkin and N.I. Turgenev and other prominent figures of their time. In 1811 he left the university and joined the guard. Participated in Patriotic War 1812, during the foreign campaign of the Russian army. In 1814 in Krakow he was admitted to the Masonic lodge.
Without blind faith in abstract perfection, it is impossible to take a step along the path to perfection realized in practice. Only by believing in an unattainable good can we get closer to an achievable good.
Chaadaev Pyotr Yakovlevich
Returning to Russia, Chaadaev continued military service as a cornet of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment. His biographer M. Zhikharev wrote: “A brave officer, tested in three gigantic campaigns, impeccably noble, honest and amiable in private relations, he had no reason not to enjoy the deep, unconditional respect and affection of his comrades and superiors.” In 1816, in Tsarskoe Selo, Chaadaev met lyceum student A.S. Pushkin and soon became the beloved friend and teacher of the young poet, whom he called “a graceful genius” and “our Dante.” Three poetic messages of Pushkin are dedicated to Chaadaev; his features are embodied in the image of Onegin. Pushkin characterized the personality of Chaadaev with his famous verses To the portrait of Chaadaev: “He was born by the highest will of heaven / Born in the shackles of the royal service; / He would be Brutus in Rome, Pericles in Athens, / But here he is a hussar officer.” Constant communication between Pushkin and Chaadaev was interrupted in 1820 due to Pushkin’s southern exile.
However, correspondence and meetings continued throughout their lives. On October 19, 1836, Pushkin wrote a famous letter to Chaadaev, in which he argued with the views on the destiny of Russia expressed by Chaadaev in his Philosophical Letter.
In 1821, Chaadaev unexpectedly abandoned his brilliant military and court career, retired and joined the secret society of the Decembrists. Not finding satisfaction in his spiritual needs in this activity, in 1823 he went on a trip to Europe. In Germany, Chaadaev met the philosopher F. Schelling, with representatives of various religious movements, including adherents of Catholic socialism. At this time, he was experiencing a spiritual crisis, which he tried to resolve by assimilating the ideas of Western theologians, philosophers, scientists and writers, as well as becoming familiar with the social and cultural structure of England, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy.
In 1826, Chaadaev returned to Russia and, settling in Moscow, lived as a hermit for several years, reflecting on what he had seen and experienced during his years of wandering. Started to be active social life, appearing in social salons and speaking out on topical issues history and modernity. The enlightened mind, artistic sense and noble heart Chaadaev earned him unquestioned authority. P. Vyazemsky called him “a teacher from a moving pulpit.”
One of the ways Chaadaev disseminated his ideas was through private letters: some of them were passed around, read and discussed as journalistic works. In 1836, he published his first Philosophical Letter in the Telescope magazine, work on which (the original was written in French in the form of a response to E. Panova) began back in 1828. This was Chaadaev’s only lifetime publication.
In total, he wrote eight Philosophical Letters (the last in 1831). Chaadaev outlined his historiosophical views in them. He considered the peculiarity of the historical fate of Russia to be “a dull and gloomy existence, devoid of strength and energy, which was enlivened by nothing except atrocities, nothing softened except slavery. No captivating memories, no graceful images in the memory of the people, no powerful teachings in their tradition... We live only in the present, within its narrowest confines, without a past or future, in the midst of dead stagnation.”
"He would be Brutus in Rome"
160 years ago, in April 1856, Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev died in Moscow. A participant in the Battle of Borodino and a former hussar, a philosopher declared crazy, and the spiritual forerunner of the Slavophiles and Westerners, he simply could not help but fall into history. He fell into it as soon as he published the first of his “Philosophical Letters”...
Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev (1794–1856). Portrait by Rakov from an original by Cosim from 1842–1845. 1864
In the autumn of 1836, in the Mother See and in the capital, the sheets of the 15th book of the “Telescope” were cut with bone, wooden or metal knives, where, among other things, the first of “Philosophical Letters to Mrs. ***” was placed in the “Science and Art” section » . Placed without indicating the author's surname, only indicating the place and time of creation: “Necropolis. 1829, December 17" and with an editorial note:
“These letters were written by one of our compatriots. A number of them constitute a whole, imbued with one spirit, developing one main idea. The sublimity of the subject, the depth and breadth of views, the strict sequence of conclusions and the energetic sincerity of expression give them a special right to the attention of thoughtful readers. In the original they are written in French. The proposed translation does not have all the advantages of the original regarding external decoration. We are pleased to inform readers that we have permission to decorate our magazine with others from this series of letters.”
The author was looking forward to the reaction from the “thinking readers,” believing that the prevailing state of mind of his compatriots would be amazement and delight. The epistole, on which he had such hopes, was ready, as noted in the note, back in 1829, but there was still no opportunity to convey it to a wide audience and thereby attract the attention of the first reader in Russia - the Emperor himself. With this in mind, the author handed over the manuscript Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin and, having received no answer, bombarded him in 1831 with letters of complaint:
“Well, my friend, what happened to my manuscript? There has been no news from you since the very day of your departure”... “Dear friend, I wrote to you asking you to return my manuscript; I’m waiting for an answer”... “Well, my friend, where did you put my manuscript? Cholera took her, or what?”
However, Pushkin at that time had no time for the retired captain of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment, who was languishing from idleness in Moscow. He himself had already sharpened the pen of a political journalist (remember the composition of the patriotic poem “To the Slanderers of Russia”) and was busy with the head of the Third Department Alexander Benkendorf about permission to publish a newspaper, as well as access to state archives to write “The History of Peter I,” which would turn him into a historiographer - a historian at court.
"It's very good to be a colonel"
However, the retired captain and author of the letters also underwent no less amazing metamorphoses Petr Chaadaev. Inflamed by youthful dreams of a brilliant uniform, in the spring of 1812 he joined the Semenovsky Life Guards Regiment as an ensign, participated in the Battle of Borodino and in a foreign campaign - for his military exploits he was awarded the Order of St. Anne, III degree and the Kulm Cross. This was followed by a transfer to the Akhtyrsky Hussar Regiment, and in 1816 - to the Life Guards Hussar Regiment.
Private and chief officer of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment. Pyotr Chaadaev served in the ranks of this regiment in 1816–1820
In 1820, fortune turned away from the hussar: sent to inform the emperor about the unrest in the Semenovsky regiment, he was late with his message. The Emperor greeted him coldly, Chaadaev's blood boiled, and he soon submitted his resignation, which was accepted. As a result, he retired without receiving a rank. It was the latter, according to the testimony of his nephew and first biographer Mikhail Ivanovich Zhikharev, that hurt the hussar’s pride:
“I don’t remember whether Chaadaev regretted his uniform, but he had a rather funny weakness to grieve about his rank until the end of his life, claiming that it was very good to be a colonel, because, they say, “colonel is a very clear rank.”
So, Pierre is just a retired captain, and in the salons there are gossip and rumors that he was late with the report due to his hobby at bus stops... with a mirror. And indeed, Chaadaev had a weakness for tweezers, files, powder, eau de toilette and other things, thanks to which he can impress others.
Having divided property with his brother and decided never to return to Russia, on July 6, 1823, Pyotr Chaadaev left for Europe. He visited England, France, Switzerland, Italy and Germany and, not finding a place for himself anywhere, as well as not getting rid of the bodily suffering that befell him, in June 1826 - in a bad mood - returned to his homeland.
And then another fly in the ointment was added to his barrel of bile: in the border town of Brest-Litovsk he was subjected to a “detailed interrogation”, the purpose of which was to establish the degree of closeness with the convicted Decembrists, and he was also taken to sign an undertaking not to participate in any secret societies. It turned out, by the way, that he was not only spiritually nourished in the Masonic lodge of Krakow, which he joined in 1814 and where he received the first two degrees, but “whose name he forgot,” but also, “belonging to the Russian East since 1815, he received the next six degrees "
N.I. Nadezhdin is a professor at Moscow University, editor and publisher of the Telescope magazine, in which the first of Chaadaev’s Philosophical Letters was published
Subsequently, Chaadaev lived alone, sometimes in Moscow, sometimes outside the city, occasionally paying visits to acquaintances. Anastasia Vasilievna Yakushkina informed her exiled Decembrist husband in a letter dated October 24, 1827 that Pierre Chaadaev spent the whole evening with them.
She found him “very strange”: he, like all those who “have only recently become pious,” “extremely exalted and completely imbued with the spirit of holiness,” claims that “the word “happiness” should be erased from the vocabulary of people who think and reflect,” promises to bring a chapter from Montaigne, “the only one who can be read with interest,” and at the same time “every minute he covers his face, straightens up, does not hear what is being said to him, and then, as if by inspiration, begins to speak.” ...
Stepan Petrovich Zhikharev, writer and theatergoer, now known mainly for his memoirs “Notes of a Contemporary,” in a letter to A.I. I told Turgenev on July 6, 1829 that Chaadaev “sits alone locked up, reading and interpreting the Bible and the church fathers in his own way.” And another observer, already mentioned by us Mikhail Ivanovich Zhikharev noted that Chaadaev was unbearable for all the doctors who were tired of him, and only Professor A.A. Alfonsky decided to prescribe appropriate treatment for him - entertainment, and in response to the “patient’s” complaints:
“Where will I go, who should I see, how, where should I be?” - promised to take him to the English Club... Only after visiting the club and seeing that society did not reject him, but, on the contrary, was honoring him with attention, Chaadaev “began to quickly and noticeably recover, although he never returned to perfect health.”
“I wrote to the Russian Tsar not in Russian...”
Having perked up, Chaadaev soon began promoting his philosophical epistles, hoping with their help to attract even more public attention. In the spring of 1831, he handed over the manuscript of two letters to Pushkin, who tried to print them in French from the book publisher F.M. Bellizara in St. Petersburg, but to no avail. Therefore, in the spring of next year, Chaadaev tried to publish at least excerpts from them in Moscow, but spiritual censorship did not allow the publication to pass.
Meanwhile, in 1833, through Benckendorf, the emperor expressed the wish that Chaadaev serve in the Ministry of Finance for the benefit of the Fatherland. In an explanation dated July 15, addressed to Benckendorf, the retired captain apologized for the fact that he wrote “to the Russian Tsar not in Russian and was ashamed of it himself,” because he could not fully express his thoughts in Russian, in which he had not written before, but in the very In a message to the emperor, he offered his services in another department - public education, since he “thought a lot about the situation of education in Russia.”
Pushkin and his friends listen to Mickiewicz's recitation in the salon of Princess Zinaida Volkonskaya. Hood. G.G. Myasoedov. On the left side of the picture, near the column - Pyotr Chaadaev
However, the head of the Third Department drew up a resolution:
“If I had sent him back that for his benefit I did not dare to submit a letter to his sovereign, he would have been surprised at the dissertation on the shortcomings of our education, where he would have been looking only for expressions of gratitude and a modest readiness to educate himself on matters completely unknown to him, Chaadaev, for one service, and long-term, can give the right and a way to judge state affairs, otherwise he gives an opinion about himself that, following the example of the frivolous French, he judges what he does not know.”
Thus, Benckendorff expressed the general opinion of the managers of that time: it is easy to give advice to the government without being in the public service, and if the emperor begins to listen to every wise man who has gained wisdom not on the basis of long-term practice and exercise, but by reading books, then things will very soon in the empire will take on a perverse character.
Tarasov B.N. Chaadaev. M., 1990 (series “ZhZL”)
ULYANOV N.I.“Basmanny Philosopher” (thoughts about Chaadaev) // Questions of Philosophy. 1990. No. 8. P. 74–89
Nadezhdin's tricks
Left without service, inactive, but confident in the saving power of a reasonable word, Chaadaev continued to work for the publication of his epistles. Thanks to Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev Around 1835, the contents of the first of the Philosophical Letters became known in Paris, but even there the matter did not reach publication. At the beginning of 1836, the sixth and seventh letters were transferred by the Chaadaevs to the Moscow Observer V.P. Androsov, who refrained from publishing them.
But then fate sent the “Basmannian philosopher” the editor of the Telescope magazine, a professor at Moscow University Nikolai Ivanovich Nadezhdin, shortly before returning from a trip abroad. Nadezhdin was educated at a theological school - a seminary and a theological academy, and already there he more than once demonstrated the playfulness of imagination and cunning of the mind, so widespread in the Bursat environment.
This time the university rector A.V. became the victim of his deceit. Boldyrev, aka the censor, who on September 29, half-listening (drinking wine and playing cards), listened to Nadezhdin read the proof sheets aloud. Moreover, the editor of “Telescope” omitted certain passages during recitation, thanks to which he received permission to print the 15th issue.
And soon readers cut up the pages of the magazine and from the anonymous “Philosophical Letter” learned all sorts of hitherto unheard of things. That “what other nations have is simply a habit, an instinct,” we “have to drive into our heads with a hammer blow.”
That “we move through time so amazingly that as we move forward, what we have experienced disappears for us irrevocably.”
That “we have no internal development at all, natural progress; old ideas are swept away by new ones, because the latter do not come from the former, but appear to us from nowhere.”
That “we perceive only completely ready-made ideas” and that “we grow, but do not mature, we move forward along a curve, that is, along a line that does not lead to a goal.”
That “we are like those children who were not forced to reason for themselves, so that when they grow up, there is nothing special about them; all their knowledge is superficial, their whole soul is outside them.”
That “in our best heads there is something even worse than frivolity,” and “the best ideas, devoid of connection and consistency, like fruitless delusions, are paralyzed in our brain.”
Finally, that “alone in the world, we gave nothing to the world, took nothing from the world, we did not contribute a single thought to the mass of human ideas, we did not contribute in any way to the forward movement of the human mind, and everything that we got from this movement, we have distorted."
“A libel against the Russian nation”
According to Mikhail Ivanovich Zhikharev, “for about a month there was hardly a house in the whole of Moscow in which they did not talk about the “Chaadayev article” and about the “Chaadayev story”.”
“Even people who have never been involved in any literary work,” noted Chaadaev’s biographer, “are complete ignoramuses; ladies, by degree intellectual development little different from their cooks and henchwomen; clerks and officials, bogged down and drowned in embezzlement and bribery; stupid, ignorant, half-crazed saints, fanatics or bigots, turned gray and wild in drunkenness, debauchery or superstition; young lovers of the country and old patriots - everything united in one common cry of curse and contempt for the person who dared to insult Russia.”
As St. Petersburg University professor A.V. wrote in his diary. Nikitenko, there was a suspicion that the article was published “with the intention,” namely, “so that the magazine would be banned and that it would make a fuss,” and that all this was “the work of a secret party”... As a result, Boldyrev was dismissed from service, Nadezhdin sent into exile, and Chaadaev was placed under house arrest, declared “crazy” and assigned to a doctor for weekly examination.
November 23, 1836 Denis Davydov answered Pushkin to a letter he received with the opportunity:
“Are you asking about Chedayev? As an eyewitness I cannot tell you anything about him; I didn’t go to him before and I don’t go now.<…> Stroganov told me his entire conversation with him; all - from board to board! How he, seeing the inevitable misfortune, confessed to him that he wrote this libel against the Russian nation immediately upon returning from foreign lands, during a period of madness, in the fits of which he encroached on his own life; how he tried to blame all the trouble on the journalist and the censor... But this is simply disgusting, and what is funny is his grief over what his famous friends, the scientists Balanche, Lamené, Guisot and some German Schusters, will say about recognizing him as insane. Metaphysicians!
Denis Davydov also expressed his vision of the role and significance of Chaadaev in “Modern Song”, where the “Basmanny philosopher” was presented in the hussar manner as “ The confessor of old ladies, // The little abbot, // That he’s used to beating in the living rooms // On the little alarm».
"Apology for a Madman"
And Chaadaev soon began writing “Apology for a Madman,” where he tried to present all the shortcomings of Russia as its advantages. Now he believed that “we came after others in order to do better than them, so as not to fall into their mistakes, into their delusions and superstitions.” Anyone who is inclined to assert that “we are doomed to somehow repeat the whole long series of follies committed by peoples who were in a less favorable position than us, and to go through again all the disasters they experienced,” will find, in the eyes of Chaadaev, “ a deep misunderstanding of the role that befalls us.”
Chaadaev considers the situation of Russians “happy” - if only they are able to correctly assess the situation. From now on, he finds that Russia has a great advantage - “to have the opportunity to contemplate and judge the world from the full height of thought, free from unbridled passions and pathetic self-interest, which in other places cloud a person’s gaze and distort his judgment.”
“Moreover,” Chaadaev continues, “I have a deep conviction that we are called upon to solve most of the problems of the social order, to complete most of the ideas that arose in old societies, to answer the most important questions that occupy humanity. I have often said and willingly repeat: we are, so to speak, destined by the very nature of things to be a real conscience judge in many lawsuits that are fought before the great tribunals of the human spirit and human society.”
But the “Apology” remained unfinished, cut off mid-sentence. Soon the “Basmannian philosopher” lived again for his own pleasure, amusing himself with the thought that no one understands ways to solve problems better than him, but if his compatriots listen to his opinion, they will be saved and live their lives happily, and not they, but certainly their descendants . And so again salons, conversations, trips to the English Club, where Chaadaev usually sat on the sofa in a small fireplace room; when his favorite place was occupied by someone else, he showed obvious displeasure, and during the Crimean War he called such persons - in the spirit of the times - “bashi-bazouks”.
Imagination game
He died in 1856; A little earlier, the emperor who offended him also passed away. Later, Chaadaev will be raised on a shield, presented as a victim of the tsarist regime, and all his “Philosophical Letters” will be published. True, the overwhelming number of people will read exclusively the first epistole, postponing the others for later. But someone who read them all might wonder: what if the publication sequence had changed then?
For example, in “Telescope” the letter (third) would appear first, where Chaadaev reflects on the relationship between faith and reason, coming to the conclusion that, on the one hand, faith without reason is a “dreamy whim of the imagination,” but reason without faith is also cannot exist, for “there is no other mind than the mind of the subordinate,” and this subordination consists in serving the good and progress, which consists in the implementation of the “moral law.”
Or if his reflection on the two forces of nature had been published first - gravity and “rotation” (fourth letter) or the next letter, where he contrasts consciousness and matter, believing that they have not only individual, but also world forms and that “the world consciousness" is nothing more than the world of ideas that live in the memory of mankind.
Chaadaev's office in his apartment on Novaya Basmannaya. Photo-tint engraving from a painting by K.P. Beaudry
How would readers react in this case? Some of them would probably yawn, their acquaintances would praise out of politeness, little understanding the meaning of what was written (“too much metaphysics”). And before giving permission, the censor Boldyrev, perhaps, would have asked Nadezhdin: what kind of scientist is this, Chaadaev, who, without a degree, talks about such abstruse matters?
And, if this time he had at his disposal that letter containing Chaadaev’s reflections on the course and meaning of our history, he would have asked first to listen to the opinion of the professor of philosophy... And then it would have become clear that not a single judgment of Chaadaev contained any indication of confirming sources and that his philosophical writing is just a play of the imagination, a fantasy on the theme of Russia, which he represents either as a stupid woman or an idiotic man, for whom he is ashamed in front of the collective “Princess Marya Aleksevna” living in England, Germany and France.
Not only officials, but also thoughtful contemporaries treated Chaadaev’s published epistole as a kind of “libel.” It is well written, in the best traditions of essayism, where everything is entirely metaphors and aphorisms, but the author’s conceit is as if behind his every judgment is a scientific tome he previously wrote. But in fact, instead of doing science, he reads, underlines and writes out the most successful places where thoughts are expressed that correspond to his dreams. Instead of serving in the Temple of Science - sitting in a tendentiously selected home library.
View of Novaya Basmannaya Street in Moscow. Here in the wing of E.G.’s house. Levasheva lived from 1833 to 1856 P.Ya. Chaadaev. This is where he died
Valet Ivan Yakovlevich
Chaadaev’s thoughts turned out to be consonant with many, and whoever did not then use the first of his “Philosophical Letters”: both the liberal public of the early 20th century and the ideologists of the Soviet era. All of them represented the inhabitant of the outbuilding on Basmannaya as a victim of the regime, and he was just a deluded figment of his own imagination, which helps reason, but is not able to replace it. As a result, he surprised everyone with his flowery reasoning. Finding himself unable to serve the state in a military capacity, and then not wanting to enter the field of civilian service, he preferred to lead the life of a private person, teaching his compatriots about the past, present and future.
Chaadaev also amazed his contemporaries by the fact that everywhere he took with him his valet Ivan Yakovlevich, who seemed to be created “in the model and likeness” of his master - always elegantly dressed, like Pyotr Yakovlevich himself, practically his double. But this similarity was only external, the “double” was not able to sit down at the table and write a philosophical letter... And we have had plenty of such “Ivanov Yakovlevichs”, who are likenesses of the master, at all times. There are many of them in philosophy (this one resembled Derrida, that one Heidegger, and the other almost like Wittgenstein), the same abundance of simulacra in art and politics. However, looking at the outfits of the “Ivanov Yakovlevichs”, one should not forget that these are only valets, not gentlemen.
CHAADAYEV’S PHILOSOPHICAL LETTER – A GAME OF IMAGINATION, FANTASY ON THE TOPIC OF RUSSIA, whom he represents either as a stupid woman or an idiotic man, for whom he is ashamed in front of the collective “Princess Marya Aleksevna” living in England, Germany and France
Chaadaev turned out - wanting to be a master of minds - just the author of a pamphlet, readily available for quotes. But you won’t correct your life with epistles, you won’t create a system, but you will remain only an example of a brilliant expression of a private opinion, which you yourself are not able to bring to life. And that is why his letter is so fond of being quoted by those who are incapable of working together, “noble” dreamers with stacks of books...
One of the comedy characters Denis Fonvizin“The Brigadier” (1769) stated that only in body he was born in Russia, but his spirit belongs to the “French crown.” And today Chaadaev is willingly re-read by those who are forced to “suffer” in Russia, not finding a place here “worthy” of their self-esteem, who are not capable of either service or science, but are filled with fantasies about the best structure of the world. At the same time, it also turns out that none of them is particularly needed by the French, German, British or American “crown”.
As a result, their heads are like a crown of thorns, the faces on their avatars are similar to the faces of Malvina and Pierrot - eternally detached, sad; and only in their dreams, not ashamed of our past and present, they make up the Necropolis - “ City of dead" Only, unlike Pyotr Yakovlevich, they are not able to create a philosophical letter, daily filling social media with their “tales from the crypt”, which the collective “Princess Marya Aleksevna” living outside of Russia is so eager for.
Vasily Vanchugov, Doctor of Philosophy
Coming from the family of the author of the 7-volume “Russian History from Ancient Times,” Mikhail Shcherbatov, Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev was born for a brilliant government career. Before the War of 1812, he attended lectures at Moscow University for 4 years, where he managed to become friends with several representatives of the growing secret societies, future participants in the Decembrist movement - Nikolai Turgenev and Ivan Yakushkin. Chaadaev actively participated in hostilities against Napoleon, fought at Borodino, Tarutino and Maloyaroslavets (for which he was awarded the order Saint Anne), took part in the capture of Paris. After the war, this “brave officer, tested in three gigantic campaigns, impeccably noble, honest and amiable in private relationships” (as a contemporary described him) met 17-year-old Alexander Pushkin, on whose views he had a significant influence.
In 1817, he entered military service in the Semenovsky regiment, and a year later he retired. The reason for such a hasty decision was the harsh suppression of the uprising of the 1st Life Guards battalion, the participants of which Chaadaev was very sympathetic to. The sudden decision of a promising young 23-year-old officer caused a considerable scandal in high society: his action was explained either by being late to the emperor with a report on the riot that had occurred, or by the content of the conversation with the king, which caused an angry rebuke from Chaadaev. However, the biographer of the philosopher M. O. Gershenzon, citing reliable written sources, gives the following explanation in the first person: “I found it more amusing to neglect this mercy than to seek it. It was pleasant for me to show disdain for people who disdain everyone... It is even more pleasant for me in this case to see the anger of an arrogant fool.”
Be that as it may, Chaadaev leaves service with the status of one of the most famous characters of the era, an eligible bachelor and the main social dandy. One of the philosopher’s contemporaries recalled that “in his presence it was somehow impossible, it was awkward to give in to daily vulgarity. When he appeared, everyone somehow involuntarily looked around morally and mentally, tidied up and preened themselves.” The most authoritative historian of Russian culture, Yu. M. Lotman, characterizing the peculiarities of Chaadaev’s public dandyism, noted: “The area of extravagance of his clothes lay in the daring absence of extravagance.” Moreover, unlike another famous English dandy - Lord Byron, the Russian philosopher preferred appearance discreet minimalism and even purism. Such a deliberate disregard for fashion trends distinguished him very favorably from other contemporaries, in particular, Slavophiles, who associated their costume with ideological guidelines (wearing a beard for show, recommending that ladies wear sundresses). However, the general attitude towards the title of a kind of “trend setter”, an example of a public image, made Chaadaev’s image similar to his foreign dandy colleagues.
In 1823, Chaadaev went abroad for treatment, and even before leaving, he drew up a deed of gift for his property to two brothers, clearly intending not to return to his homeland. He will spend the next two years in London, then in Paris, then in Rome or Milan. It was probably during this journey through Europe that Chaadaev became acquainted with the works of French and German philosophers. As the historian of Russian literature M. Velizhev writes, “the formation of Chaadaev’s “anti-Russian” views in the mid-1820s took place in a political context associated with the transformation of structure and content Holy Alliance European monarchs." Following the results of the Napoleonic wars, Russia undoubtedly thought of itself as a European hegemon - “the Russian tsar, the head of tsars” according to Pushkin. However, the geopolitical situation in Europe almost a decade after the end of the war was rather disappointing, and Alexander I himself had already moved away from previous constitutional ideas and, in general, had somewhat cooled down to the possibility of spiritual unity with the Prussian and Austrian monarchs. Probably, the joint prayer of the victorious emperors during the Aachen Congress in 1818 was finally consigned to oblivion.
Upon returning to Russia in 1826, Chaadaev was immediately arrested on charges of belonging to the secret societies of the Decembrists. These suspicions are aggravated by the fact that back in 1814 Chaadaev became a member of the Masonic lodge in Krakow, and in 1819 he was accepted into one of the first Decembrist organizations - the Union of Welfare. Three years later, by an imperious decree, all secret organizations - both Freemasons and Decembrists - were banned without regard to their ideology and goals. The story with Chaadaev ended happily: having signed a document stating that he had no relationship with freethinkers, the philosopher was released. Chaadaev settles in Moscow, in the house of E. G. Levasheva on Novaya Basmannaya and begins work on his main work, “Philosophical Letters.” This work instantly returned Chaadaev to the glory of the main oppositionist of the era, although in one of his letters to A.I. Turgenev the philosopher himself complains: “What have I done, what have I said so that I can be counted among the opposition? I don’t say or do anything else, I just repeat that everything strives towards one goal and that this goal is the kingdom of God.”
Even before publication, this work was actively circulated among the most progressive part of society, but the appearance of “Philosophical Letters” in the Telescope magazine in 1836 caused a serious scandal. Both the editor of the publication and the censor paid for the publication of Chaadaev’s work, and the author himself, by order of the government, was declared crazy. It is interesting that many legends and controversies arose around this first known case in Russian history of the use of punitive psychiatry: the doctor, who was supposed to conduct a regular official examination of the “patient,” at the first meeting told Chaadaev: “If it weren’t for my family, my wife and six children, I would show them who is really crazy.”
In his most important work, Chaadaev significantly rethought the ideology of the Decembrists, which he, being a “Decembrist without December,” largely shared. After a careful study of the main intellectual ideas of the era (besides the French religious philosophy de Maistre, also Schelling’s works on natural philosophy), the conviction arose that the future prosperity of Russia is possible on the basis of worldwide enlightenment, the spiritual and ethical transformation of humanity in search of divine unity. In fact, it was this work by Chaadaev that became the impetus for the development of the national Russian philosophical school. A little later his supporters would call themselves Westerners, and his opponents - Slavophiles. Those first “damned questions” that were formulated in the “Philosophical Letters” interested Russian thinkers in the future: how to realize a global universal utopia and the search for one’s own national identity, a special Russian path, directly related to this problem.
It is curious that Chaadaev himself called himself a religious philosopher, although further reflection of his heritage formed into a unique Russian historiosophy. Chaadaev believed in the existence of a metaphysical absolute Demiurge, who reveals himself in his own creation through the games of chance and the will of fate. Without denying the Christian faith as a whole, he believes that the main goal of humanity is “the establishment of the kingdom of God on Earth,” and it was in Chaadaev’s work that such a metaphor for a just society, a society of prosperity and equality first appeared.
Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev
In 1836, the first letter from the “Philosophical Letters” of P.Ya. was published in the Telescope magazine. Chaadaeva. This publication ended in a big scandal. The publication of the first letter, according to A. Herzen, gave the impression of “a shot that rang out on a dark night.” Emperor Nicholas I, having read the article, expressed his opinion: “... I find that its content is a mixture of daring nonsense, worthy of a madman.” Result of the publication: the magazine was closed, the publisher N. Nadezhdin was exiled to Ust-Sysolsk (modern Syktyvkar), and then to Vologda. Chaadaev was officially declared crazy.
What do we know about Chaadaev?
Of course, first of all we remember the poem addressed to him by A.S. Pushkin, which everyone learns at school:
Love, hope, quiet glory
Deception did not last long for us,
The youthful fun has disappeared
Like a dream, like morning fog;
But the desire still burns within us,
Under the yoke of fatal power
With an impatient soul
Let us heed the calling of the Fatherland.
We wait with languid hope
Holy moments of freedom
How a young lover waits
Minutes of a faithful date.
While we are burning with freedom,
While hearts are alive for honor,
My friend, let's dedicate it to the fatherland
Beautiful impulses from the soul!
Comrade, believe: she will rise,
Star of captivating happiness,
Russia will wake up from its sleep,
And on the ruins of autocracy
They will write our names!
A commentary on this poem is usually the words that Chaadaev is Pushkin’s elder friend, whom he met during his lyceum years (in 1816). Perhaps that's all.
Meanwhile, 3 poems by Pushkin are dedicated to Chaadaev, his features are embodied in the image of Onegin.
Pushkin wrote about the personality of Chaadaev in his poem “To the Portrait of Chaadaev”:
He is the highest will of heaven
Born in the shackles of royal service;
He would be Brutus in Rome, Pericles in Athens,
And here he is a hussar officer.
Pushkin and Chaadaev
In 1820, Pushkin's southern exile began, and their constant communication was interrupted. But correspondence and meetings continued throughout my life. On October 19, 1836, Pushkin wrote a famous letter to Chaadaev, in which he argued with the views on the destiny of Russia expressed by Chaadaev in the first “ Philosophical writing».
From the biography of P.Ya. Chaadaeva (1794-1856)
Portrait of P.Ya. Chaadaeva
Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev - Russian philosopher and publicist, in his writings sharply criticized the reality of Russian life. IN Russian Empire his works were banned from publication.
Born into an old noble family. On his mother’s side, he is the grandson of the historian M. M. Shcherbatov, the author of the 7-volume edition of “Russian History from Ancient Times.”
P.Ya. Chaadaev was orphaned early, he and his brother were raised by his aunt, Princess Anna Mikhailovna Shcherbatova, and Prince D.M. Shcherbatov became his guardian; in his house, Chaadaev received an excellent education.
Young Chaadaev listened to lectures at Moscow University, and among his friends were A. S. Griboyedov, the future Decembrists N. I. Turgenev, I. D. Yakushkin.
He took part in the War of 1812 (including the Battle of Borodino, went into a bayonet attack at Kulm, was awarded the Russian Order of St. Anne and the Prussian Kulm Cross) and subsequent military operations. Then serving in the Life Hussar Regiment, he became close friends with the then-student Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum young Pushkin.
V. Favorsky “Pushkin the Lyceum Student”
He greatly contributed to the development of Pushkin, and later to the salvation of the poet from the threat of exile to Siberia or imprisonment in the Solovetsky Monastery. Chaadaev was then an aide-de-camp to the commander of the Guards Corps, Prince Vasilchikov, and secured a meeting with Karamzin to convince him to stand up for Pushkin. Pushkin paid Chaadaev with warm friendship and greatly valued his opinion: it was to him that Pushkin sent the first copy of “Boris Godunov” and was looking forward to a response to his work.
In 1821, unexpectedly for everyone, Chaadaev abandoned his brilliant military and court career, retired and joined the secret society of the Decembrists. But even here he did not find satisfaction of his spiritual needs. Experiencing a spiritual crisis, in 1823 he went on a trip to Europe. In Germany, Chaadaev met the philosopher F. Schelling, absorbed the ideas of Western theologians, philosophers, scientists and writers, and became acquainted with the social and cultural structure of Western countries: England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy.
Returning to Russia in 1826, he lived as a hermit in Moscow for several years, comprehending and experiencing what he had seen during his years of wandering, and then began to lead an active social life, appearing in secular salons and speaking out on topical issues of history and modernity. Contemporaries noted his enlightened mind, artistic sense and noble heart - all this earned him unquestioned authority.
Chaadaev chose a unique way of disseminating his ideas - he expressed them in private letters. Then these ideas became public knowledge and were discussed as journalism. In 1836, he published his first “Philosophical Letter” in the Telescope magazine, addressed to E. Panova, whom he calls Madame.
In total, he wrote 8 “Philosophical Letters” in French. , the last of them - in 1831. In “Letters” Chaadaev outlined his philosophical and historical views on the fate of Russia. It was this view of his that was not recognized by the ruling circles and part of contemporary public opinion; the public outcry was enormous. “After “Woe from Wit” there was not a single literary work, which would make such a strong impression,” said A. Herzen.
Some even declared that they were ready to stand up with arms in their hands for Russia, which had been insulted by Chaadaev.
He considered the peculiarity of the historical fate of Russia to be “a dull and gloomy existence, devoid of strength and energy, which was enlivened by nothing except atrocities, nothing softened except slavery. No captivating memories, no graceful images in the memory of the people, no powerful teachings in their tradition... We live only in the present, within its narrowest confines, without a past or future, in the midst of dead stagnation.”
The appearance of the first “Philosophical Letter” became the reason for the division of thinking and writing people into Westerners and Slavophiles. Disputes between them continue today. Chaadaev, of course, was a convinced Westerner.
The Minister of Public Education Uvarov presented a report to Nicholas I, after which the emperor officially declared Chaadaev crazy. He was doomed to hermitage in his house on Basmannaya Street, where he was visited by a doctor who reported monthly to the Tsar about his condition.
In 1836-1837 Chaadaev wrote an article “Apology for a Madman,” in which he decided to explain the features of his patriotism, his views on the high destiny of Russia: “I did not learn to love my homeland with my eyes closed, with my head bowed, with my lips closed. I find that a man can only be useful to his country if he sees it clearly; I think that the time of blind love has passed, that now we first of all owe the truth to our homeland... I have a deep conviction that we are called upon to solve most of the problems of the social order, to complete most of the ideas that arose in old societies, to answer the most important questions, what occupy humanity."
Chaadaev died in Moscow in 1856.
"Philosophical Letters"
Philosophical letters" by P. Chaadaev
First letter
Chaadaev was concerned about the fate of Russia, he was looking for ways to guide the country towards a better future. To do this, he identified three priority areas:
“first of all, a serious classical education;
the liberation of our slaves, which is a necessary condition any further progress;
an awakening of religious feeling, so that religion may emerge from a certain kind of lethargy in which it now finds itself.”
Chaadaev’s first and most famous letter is imbued with a deeply skeptical mood towards Russia: “One of the most regrettable features of our unique civilization is that we are still discovering truths that have become hackneyed in other countries and even among peoples much more backward than us. The fact is that we have never walked together with other peoples, we do not belong to any of the known families of the human race, neither to the West nor to the East, and we have no traditions of either one. We stand, as it were, outside of time; the universal education of the human race has not extended to us.”
“What has long been a reality among other peoples,” he further writes, “for us is still only speculation, theory... Look around you. Everything seems to be on the move. It's like we're all strangers. No one has a definite sphere of existence, there are no good customs for anything, not only rules, there is not even a family center; there is nothing that would bind, that would awaken our sympathies and dispositions; there is nothing permanent, indispensable: everything passes, flows, leaving no traces either in appearance or in yourself. At home we seem to be stationed, in families we are like strangers, in cities we seem to be nomadic, and even more so than the tribes wandering across our steppes, because these tribes are more attached to their deserts than we are to our cities.”
Chaadaev sets out the history of the country as follows: “First wild barbarism, then crude superstition, then foreign rule, cruel and humiliating, the spirit of which the national government subsequently inherited - this is the sad story of our youth. The times of overflowing activity, the seething play of the moral forces of the people - we had nothing like that.<…>Look around all the centuries we have lived, all the spaces we have occupied, and you will not find a single arresting memory, not a single venerable monument that would speak powerfully about the past and paint it vividly and picturesquely. We live only in the most limited present without a past and without a future, in the midst of flat stagnation.”
“What other nations have is simply a habit, an instinct, we have to hammer into our heads with a hammer blow. Our memories go no further than yesterday; We are, as it were, strangers to ourselves.”
“Meanwhile, stretched between two great divisions of the world, between East and West, leaning with one elbow on China, the other on Germany, we should have combined two great principles of spiritual nature - imagination and reason, and united history in our civilization the entire globe. This is not the role that Providence has given us. On the contrary, it seemed that it was not at all concerned with our fate. Denying us its beneficial influence on the human mind, it left us entirely to ourselves, did not want to interfere in our affairs in any way, did not want to teach us anything. The experience of time does not exist for us. Centuries and generations have passed fruitlessly for us. Looking at us, we can say that in relation to us the universal law of humanity has been reduced to nothing. Alone in the world, we gave nothing to the world, took nothing from the world, we did not contribute a single thought to the mass of human ideas, we did not contribute in any way to the forward movement of the human mind, and we distorted everything that we got from this movement . From the very first moments of our social existence, nothing suitable for the common good of people has come from us, not a single useful thought has sprouted in the barren soil of our homeland, not a single great truth has been brought forward from our midst; We did not give ourselves the trouble to create anything in the realm of imagination, and from what was created by the imagination of others, we borrowed only deceptive appearances and useless luxury.”
But Chaadaev sees the meaning of Russia in the fact that “we lived and are still living in order to teach some great lesson to distant descendants.”
Second letter
In the second letter, Chaadaev expresses the idea that the progress of humanity is directed by the hand of Providence and moves through the medium of chosen peoples and chosen people; the source of eternal light never faded among human societies; man walked along the path determined for him only in the light of truths revealed to him by a higher mind. He criticizes Orthodoxy for the fact that, unlike Western Christianity (Catholicism), it did not contribute to the liberation of the lower strata of the population from slavery, but, on the contrary, consolidated serfdom during the times of Godunov and Shuisky. He also criticizes monastic asceticism for its indifference to the blessings of life: “There is truly something cynical in this indifference to the blessings of life, which some of us take credit for. One of the main reasons slowing down our progress is the absence of any reflection of grace in our home life.”
Third letter
In the third letter, Chaadaev develops the same thoughts, illustrating them with his views on Moses, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Epicurus, Homer, etc. He reflects on the relationship between faith and reason. On the one hand, faith without reason is a dreamy whim of the imagination, but reason without faith also cannot exist, for “there is no other reason except the mind of the subordinate. And this submission consists in serving the good and progress, which consists in the implementation of the “moral law.”
Fourth letter
The image of God in man, in his opinion, is contained in freedom.
Fifth letter
In this letter, Chaadaev contrasts consciousness and matter, believing that they have not only individual, but also world forms. So “world consciousness” is nothing more than a world of ideas that live in the memory of humanity.
Sixth letter
In it, Chaadaev sets out his “philosophy of history.” He believed that human history should include the names of such figures as Moses and David. The first “showed people the true God,” and the second showed “an image of sublime heroism.” Then, in his opinion, comes Epicurus. He calls Aristotle “the angel of darkness.” Chaadaev considers the ascent to the Kingdom of God to be the goal of history. He calls the Reformation a “sorry event” that divided a united Christian Europe.
Seventh letter
In this letter, Chaadaev acknowledges the merit of Islam and Muhammad in the eradication of polytheism and the consolidation of Europe.
Eighth letter
The goal and meaning of history is the “great apocalyptic synthesis,” when a “moral law” will be established on earth within the framework of a single planetary society.
Conclusion
Reflections...
In “Apology for a Madman,” Chaadaev agrees to admit some of his previous opinions are exaggerated, but caustically laughs at the society that attacked him for his first philosophical letter out of “love for the fatherland.”
So, in the person of Chaadaev we see a patriot who loves his homeland, but puts love for truth higher. He contrasts the patriotism of the “Samoyed” ( common name indigenous small peoples of Russia: Nenets, Enets, Nganasans, Selkups and the already disappeared Sayan Samoyeds, who speak (or spoke) the languages of the Samoyed group, forming, together with the languages of the Finno-Ugric group, the Uralic language family) to his yurt and the patriotism of an “English citizen”. Love for the homeland often feeds national hatred and “dresses the land in mourning.” Chaadaev recognizes true progress and European civilization, and also calls for getting rid of “remnants of the past.”
Chaadaev highly values the activities of Peter the Great in bringing Russia to Europe and sees in this the highest meaning of patriotism. According to Chaadaev, Russia underestimates the beneficial influence that the West has had on it. All Slavophilism and patriotism are almost swear words for him.
