Keepers and the Prophet

“The content is inconceivable without its form, because in this case it will no longer be content, but only by the idea that strives to result in form; Such an idea will be something indefinable, volatile, not determined outside, therefore not existing real. <...> But since the idea wanted to become an essence, i.e. Live, she immediately pours into a form corresponding to her. This, as you said, is “a form is a despotism of the inner idea that prevents matter to scatter”. ”

O. I. Fodel - K.N. Leontiev , 2.IV.88.

“Consistency from the Fathers”: Konstantin Leontyev and Joseph Fudel: Correspondence. Articles. Memories / comp., Entered. Art., preparation of text and comment. O.L. Fetisenko. - St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dahl, 2012. - 750 p. - (Appendix to the complete works and letters of K.N. Leontyev: in 12 vols. Prince 1).

The St. Petersburg philosopher Vladimir Mikhailovich Kaminev entitled his recently published book about Russian conservatism “Keepers and Prophets” [1] . The name, with a small correction, ideally suitable for the characterization of only published in the publishing house “Vladimir Dal” the first in the planned series “Applications” to the already legendary complete collected works of Konstantin Nikolayevich Leontyev. If, according to the “prophecies” of Leontiev, he himself, according to the testimony of one of the students, called himself a “prophet” [2] , then the Guardians are characters, usually less noticeable, but in this relative invisibility, they do the fundamental importance that constantly “effort”, without which nothing else has a meaning. O. Joseph Foodel not only retained a significant part of the Leontievsky archive, not only verbally and printedly reminded the society of the existence of a wonderful Russian writer and thinker, but also managed to organize the publication of the first (unfortunately, by coincidence that it turned out to be incomplete) collected works of his mentor and friend.

However, in addition to the two names volumes made into the subtitles, the book has two more important characters. Firstly, this is Sergey Nikolaevich Durylin, who became the successor of Fr. I. Fudel in the preservation of the literary heritage of Leontiev. According to the copies made by him, a number of letters are published, the originals of which were not preserved, explanations and notes made by Durylin are preserved in the comments - and the pearl of the publication is a memoir essay on Leontiev, written by Fr. I. Fudel, at the request of Durylin (Fr. Joseph himself, was alien to the memoir genre, noting: “It was always difficult for me to describe , and to describe my everyday meetings and acquaintances, especially with such a person like K. Leontiev, it means to talk about myself that I was always organically disgusted”, p. 433). This essay was the last work of Fr. Joseph, written in the form of a letter to Durylin in September 1918 - October 2 (15) of the same year, he died of the terrible epidemic "Spanish". Perhaps one of the reasons that prompted Fr. Joseph to step through his dislike for memoirism, began the memories of his own letter to Leontyev, written six months before the death of the last, in which he asked Konstantin Nikolaevich to “tell <...> again the main moments of your life - only in writing. <...>

Why do you need this autobiography (at least brief), I will not speak; After all, you yourself call me your “literary heir” ”(Foodel - Leontiev, 26.III.91, p. 311). Then Leontyev could not fulfill the requests, explaining the refusal of extreme workload with business that did not leave time for such leisure (Leontiev - Fudel, 3.IV.91, pp. 312 - 313); 27 years later, Fudel did not refuse his “literary heir”, realizing all the value of such a certificate.

The second most important, unnamed in the subtitle, the character is Olga Leonidovna Fetisenko, who took on all the works to prepare this publication - one of the modern guardians of the memory of Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontyev, which continues the cares and efforts of Fr. I. Fudel and S.N. Durylin. Actually, a tradition of such an effort is formed-not by concern for the current day, that it is momentarily considered important and relevant, but in that it has a value for you, the value for you obvious and indisputable, no matter how strange and unnecessary to others. S.N. Durylin in the 1920s-30s, engaged in Leontyev, preserving and hurrying to save particles of the Leontievsky archive, begging, for example, E.V. Greniev rewrite Leontyev who fell into his hands at the time of a letter to his niece, asks himself - whether he is mistaken, seeing valuable where only the worthless past - and the texts preserved by him are published decades after his own death: the texts preserved by him because for him (and for a few of the same madmen as he) was obvious their value. This seems to be a weak, almost hopeless effort, it turns out to be imbued with the faith that allows you to move the mountains - contrary to all the obviousness, the works of only a few enthusiasts, the case is being promoted to publish the academic complete collected works of Leontiev, and at the same time related work comes out, recreating that “dense environment” in which the understanding of Leontiev thought is possible [3] .

There are strange authors in the Russian tradition-it seems to everyone recognized, appreciated, but with some awkward fate: praise, invariably accompanied by protective reservations, threatening to almost cancel the original favorable review; whose name is by hearing, but at the same time always with some shade of uncertainty - they say, "yes, but ...". Like Leskov - an indisputable genius, an incredible miracle that happened in Russian literature then and where it seemed to have not been to wait for it at all - but at the same time everything is safe, nothing succeeds the first time. Leontyev - just one of them. He himself complained about a strange Fatum, which extends not only to himself, but also to everything connected with him. Even the authors, quite sympathetic to him, were usually limited to the expressions of sympathy and recognition only in a personal order. Vl. Soloviev, highly appreciated by Leontiev, promised to write about him - and did it only by his death, writing a sensed necrologist, while Leontiev needed a living response during his lifetime:

“My position, or my role in Russian <as> literature is very special and even incomprehensible. - there and there are flashing (just flickering ) very encouraging words like: “Great mind, great thought; - amazing syllable; amazing remarks; - original thinker; subtle artist; - deep; - witty; - brilliant presentation; - exemplary language ...” (all this - I even remember who said and where .) In the aggregate, these small flowers can make up such a bouquet. What the most demanding pride would be satisfied ... But no one wants to connect and collect this bouquet <...>. - Perhaps - this is also from the fact that they do not know what “cage” to put me in? ” (Leontiev - Foodle, 18.VI.90, p. 224 - 225).

Leontyev is not so spoiled by printed attention to his person that even an insignificant article of about. Joseph in the Blagoven [4] causes concerns and discussions stretching on a number of letters. Actually, genuine attention, respect and at the same time a serious and hard mind found in the young interlocutor turned out to be what Leontyev urgently needed - so easily, with amazing openness and trust, responding to the first letters of Fudel at first with a voluminous letter (about the disappearance of which in the memoirs written for S.N. Durylin, it was bitterly regretted for. “A huge letter [5] in 30 pages of small compressed handwriting on a double format postal paper. This is amazing. There is so much to write to an unfamiliar student, so lovingly and the most important in his beliefs is amazing. This is the same letter about the Slavophiles and about the aesthetics of life, which I was twice published in the press (although not completely) [6] . It concentrates everything characterizing K. Leontyev in the very sources of his worldview and find out him, and even more so to judge him and write about him without reading this letter. But the very fact of an intimate gift of such a letter that stands a literary work, to a young man, tells me about the personality of the writer much more than many pages of his biography ”(my acquaintance with K. Leontyev ..., p. 440).

Leontiev quickly and deeply attached himself to his young acquaintance - almost immediately made his friend, having loved both him and his young wife (who, in turn, will keep the warm memory of K.N., captured “in its corner” by S.N. Durylin), making him his interlocutor on the main issues at that time issues. The idea of ​​the importance and intensity of communication is already given by the fact that, not counting the four personal meetings, in three and a half years, who passed from the first, in absentia to the death of K.N., they exchanged at least 135 letters [7] . The value of the correspondence of K. Leontyev with about. I. Fudel was evaluated for a long time - in 1912 for the publication (in reduction) about. Joseph of two letters Leontiev V.V. Rozanov responded, for example, so:

“It is quite amazing and worthy of reproach, how is the Holy. Foodel could keep such a meaningful document for so long, due to the awakened interest in the smallest variations of the ideas of this excellent thinker of the 19th century ” [8] .

Indeed, in this correspondence, Leontiev is revealed with the amazing completeness of his intellectual interests: in about. I. Fudel, he found a rare interlocutor for himself, who is attentive to the same circle of problems, ready to study and, at the same time, having quite strong personal views and beliefs, to give the favorable emphasis of the thought of K.N.:

“Varya, seeing that I am writing this to you, and not an article for“ Grades <Anina>, ”she scolds me:“ As you, right, are tired of me - there is no money in the house; you have to pay in the bank, and instead of the article, you write all Osip Ivanovich! ... ”Alas! From a “utilitarian” point of view, she is absolutely right. - I haven’t received all this winter for the literature, and 400 ruble <her "ebrom> from Berg and Kerelev [9] scored ahead. - But what to do - if I have a private conversation with you incomparably more pleasant than the conversation with the “public” of our ”(Leontyev - Fudel, 19.I.91, p. 281).

But the communication between Leontiev and Fudel is by no means intellectual: Leontiev shares with him much more important, his spiritual experience, listening to the interlocutor, who chose the path of the priesthood (K.N. Helped greatly in the troubles associated with dedication to the rank), with him - one of the few - Leontyev will share the news of the adoption of the monastic tonsure.

Foodel did not become for Leontyev a “a student who went further than the teacher”; However, fate did not give Leontiev such students at all. Over the years, he rather “stepped aside” from the views of the teacher - he did not “leave”, but slightly moved away. Son about. Joseph, Sergey, recalled that in the pre -war years of his life, the father “gives a lot of time to the publication of the collected works of Leontyev, but this is more the duty of a grateful student than the creative work of the heart” [10] . However, as O.L. Fetisenko, the judgment of his son is painted by the “Anti-Leonty” look, inherent in him-Sergei Iosifovich, apparently, was inclined to exaggerate the degree of removal of his father from the opinions of Konstantin Nikolaevich (p. 51). But in any case, it is difficult to deny that over the years, the enthusiasm-focus of Leontyev at Fr. Joseph passed. There was no deep affection, love about. Joseph, as a whole man, is a few dry, to Leontiev - a duty of memory, gratitude for everything he made, love for him as a person and at the same time care for a beautiful writer, admiration for his literary gift - the desire to convey the memory of him to others, to introduce this wealth, which is not valued, but is simply unknown.

Notes:

[1] Kamnev V.M. Keepers and prophets: religious and philosophical content of Russian conservatism. - St. Petersburg: Science, 2010. - 470 p. - (Series: "The word about the existing").

[2] Zamaraev I.G. Memory of K.N. Leontyeva // K.N. Leontyev: Pro et contra. The personality and work of Konstantin Leontyev in the assessment of Russian thinkers and researchers of 1891 - 1917. Anthology. Prince. 1.-St. Petersburg: Publishing House of RHGI, 1995. P. 200.

About the concept of "prophecy" with K.N. Leontiev see: Fetisenko O.L. “Heptastilists”: Konstantin Leontyev, his interlocutors and students: (ideas of Russian conservatism in literary, artistic and journalistic practices of the second half of the 19th-the first quarter of the 20th century). - St. Petersburg: Pushkin’s house, 2012. S. 28 - 32.

[3] In addition to the previously named work O.L. Fetisenko “Heptastilists” (see A.E. Kotov’s review “Aesthetic academicism” published on the website of Gifter http://gefter.ru/archive/4815 ), we also note (calling only the most vivid and noticeable): (1) the most valuable selection of materials, the collection of K.N. Leontyev: Pro et contra. The personality and work of Konstantin Leontyev in the assessment of Russian thinkers and researchers of 1891 - 1917. Anthology. In 2 book. / Ed. Prep. A.P. Kozyrev, A.A. Korolkov-St. Petersburg: Publishing House of RHGI, 1995; (2) a collection of journalism K.N. Leontyeva, who included the most valuable archival publications: Leontyev K.N. East, Russia and Slavic / Ed. Prep. V.I. Kosik, G.B. Kremnev. - M.: Republic, 1996; (3) Prophets of Byzantism: Correspondence of K.N. Leontyeva and T.I. Filippova (1875 - 1891) / compilation, introductory article, preparation of texts and comments by O.L. Fetisenko. -St. Petersburg: Pushkin Publishing House, 2012.

[4] “Blagovest” is a pan -Slavic magazine published under the unofficial editing of Athanasius Vasilievich Vasiliev (1851 - 1929).

[5] from 6-23.VII.88-p. 75-96.

[6] For the first time from this letter, extensive extracts were given in the article Fr. I. Fudel "Cultural ideal of K. Leontyev" (Russian Review. 1891. T. 1, January). In 1912, it was published with abbreviations Fr. Joseph in the brochure "K. Leontyev about Vladimir Soloviev and aesthetics of life. (For two letters). "

[7] Probably, a number of letters are lost: the last preserved letter of Fudel dates from 19.VIII.91, Leontiev - 11.x.91. O.L. Fetisenko comments: “There were more than three weeks before Leontiev’s illness, therefore, there was an opportunity to exchange several more letters. It is hard to imagine that about. Joseph did not react to the news of the death of the elder Ambrose or that Leontyev did not ask about the opinion of Fr. Joseph about the “abstract” of Vl. Solovyova* <...>, but any information about the existence or location of letters from the second half of October 1891 could not be found ”(p. 644).

* "On the decline of medieval worldview", 1891.

[8] Rozanov V.V. Collected works. <t. 22:> signs of time (articles and essays of 1912) / under the general. Ed. A.N. Nikolyukin. Comp. and comment. V.N. Dyadicheva and A.N. Nikolyukin. - M.: Republic, Algorithm, 2006. S. 46.

[9] Fedor Nikolaevich Berg (1839-1909), in 1887-1895-editor-editor-publisher of the magazine "Russian Bulletin"; Prince. Dmitry Nikolaevich Nertelev (1852 - 1911), in 1890 - 1891 - editor of the Russian Review magazine.

[10] Fudel S.I. Memories. - M.: Russian Path, 2012. S. 53.