The fate of the Russian intelligentsia abroad

Introduction

1. Formation of centers of Russian emigration

1.1 Reasons for leaving abroad and the main directions of emigrant flows

1.2 Cultural centers of the Russian foreign community

2. Life and activities of representatives of the Russian intelligentsia abroad

2.1 Military intelligentsia

2.3 Technical intelligentsia

2.4 Cultural mission of the Russian Abroad

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The concept of intelligentsia comes from the word intelligens, which means “understanding”, “thinking”, “reasonable”. In modern developed countries, the concept of “intelligentsia” is used quite rarely. In the West, the term “intellectuals” is more popular, which denotes people professionally engaged in intellectual (mental) activity, who, as a rule, do not claim to be the bearers of “highest ideals.”

In Russia, the intelligentsia was not treated so one-sidedly. According to Academician N.N. Moiseev, “an intellectual is always a seeker, not confined to his narrow profession or purely group interests. An intelligent person tends to think about the fate of his people in comparison with universal human values. He is able to go beyond the narrow horizons of philistine or professional limitations.”¹

Having become students of the medical academy, we will have to join the ranks of Russian intellectuals. Thus, we have a responsibility for the future of Russia.

We are lucky or unlucky, but we live in difficult times. The political system of the state is changing, political views and economic conditions are changing, and a “revaluation of values” is taking place.

How to succeed in this difficult world, how to find your place, and not crumble into dust in the merciless millstones of reality?

You can find answers to these questions by tracing the fates of people who lived during difficult, “turning-point” periods of our history.

The purpose of my work is to comprehend the place of a creative personality on the steep turns of history.

Since creative activity necessarily presupposes a critical attitude towards prevailing opinions, intellectuals have always acted as bearers of “critical potential.”

It was the intellectuals who created new ideological doctrines (republicanism, nationalism, socialism) and propagated them, thereby ensuring the constant renewal of the system of social values.

For the same reason, the intelligentsia was the first to come under attack during revolutions.

This is how a significant part of the Russian intelligentsia ended up abroad at the beginning of the twentieth century.

1. Formation of centers of Russian emigration

1.1 Reasons for leaving abroad and the main directions of emigrant flows

The Russians who found themselves outside the former Russian Empire after 1919 were refugees in the full sense of the word. The main reason for their flight was military defeat and the associated threat of captivity and reprisals, as well as hunger, deprivation, and the danger looming over life and freedom as a result of the prevailing political circumstances.

Unconditional rejection of the Soviet regime, and in most cases, the revolution itself, and the hope of returning home after the fall of the hated system were inherent in all refugees. This influenced their behavior and creative activity, awakening, despite all political differences, a sense of unity, belonging to a “society in exile”, awaiting the opportunity to return. However, the Soviet regime showed no signs of collapse, and hopes of a return began to fade. Soon, however, they became emigrants in the full sense of the word. A Russian emigrant is a person who refused to recognize the Bolshevik regime that had established itself in his homeland. For most of them, the refusal became irrevocable after the RSFSR decree of 1921, confirmed and supplemented in 1924, depriving them of citizenship and turning them into stateless persons or stateless persons (this French word was included as an official term in the documents of the League of Nations).

The peculiarities of emigration also determined the uniqueness of various groups of emigrants in their new places of residence. With the exception of a few who left Russia during 1917, and a few (mostly residents of St. Petersburg) who left immediately after the Bolshevik seizure of power in October 1917, emigration from Russia was a direct consequence of the course and results of the civil war. Military personnel who were defeated by the Red Army and went abroad or were evacuated by sea made up the main contingent of the first wave of refugees. They were followed by their loved ones and other civilians who managed to join them. In a number of cases, crossing the border or evacuation by sea was a temporary and necessary moment to regroup forces before a new battle with the Soviet regime and receive help from the allies.

It is possible to trace three main routes of Russian emigration abroad. The most important area was the Black Sea coast (Novorossiysk, Crimea, Odessa, Georgia). Therefore, Constantinople (Istanbul) became the first significant settlement point for emigrants. Many refugees were in dire physical and moral condition and were temporarily housed in former military camps and hospitals. Since the Turkish authorities and the Allied commissions, which provided the main material assistance, did not intend to forever shoulder the burden of maintaining the refugees, they were interested in their further relocation to where they could find work and firmly settle. It should be noted that a large number of refugees from Russia have accumulated in Istanbul and on nearby islands. The refugees themselves created voluntary societies to help women, children and the sick. They founded hospitals, nurseries and orphanages, collected donations from wealthy compatriots and the Russian foreign administration (diplomatic missions, Red Cross branches), as well as from foreign philanthropists or simply from sympathizers.

Most of the Russians, who by the will of fate ended up in Istanbul, found shelter in the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (KHS), the future Yugoslavia. Existing vacancies were filled by technical specialists from the former White Army, civilian refugees with experience in scientific and administrative work. The proximity of languages ​​and common religion contributed to the rapid assimilation of Russians. Here we only note that Yugoslavia, especially Belgrade, became a significant cultural center of the Russian Abroad, although not as diverse and creatively active as Paris, Berlin or Prague.

The second route of Russian refugees ran northwest of the Black Sea. It was formed as a result of the general chaos that reigned in this region during a period of turbulent political events. In the revived Poland and East Germany, many Russian prisoners of war were concentrated (from the First World War and the Soviet-Polish War and the accompanying conflicts of various Ukrainian regimes with Germany). Most of them returned to their homeland, but many chose to remain in territory not controlled by the Soviets and became emigrant refugees. The core of the Russian Abroad in this region, therefore, consisted of prisoners of war camps. At first there were only men of military age, but later they were joined by women and children - those who managed to reunite with their husbands, fathers, and sons. Taking advantage of the confusion at the border, many refugees crossed the border into Poland, and from there headed further to Germany. The Soviet authorities gave permission to leave for those who owned property or lived in the territory that was transferred to the newly formed nation-states. Subsequently, after briefly living in the mentioned states as representatives of the Russian ethnic minority, these people also became part of the Russian Abroad. The most ambitious and active intellectuals and specialists, young people who sought to complete their education, did not stay long among this national minority, moving either to the capitals of these states or to the countries of Central and Western Europe.

The last important route for refugees from Soviet Russia was in the Far East - to the Manchurian city of Harbin. Harbin, from its very foundation in 1898, was a Russian city, the administrative and economic center of the Russian Chinese Eastern Railway, from where some of the emigrants then moved to the USA and Australia.

Thus, after the October Revolution, during the Civil War, over one and a half million people left Russia. Mainly people of intellectual work.

In 1922, on the instructions of V. Lenin, preparations began for the deportation of representatives of the old Russian intelligentsia abroad.

The real reason for the expulsion of the intelligentsia was the lack of confidence among the leaders of the Soviet state in their ability to retain power after the end of the Civil War. Having replaced the policy of war communism with a new economic course and allowing market relations and private property in the economic sphere, the Bolshevik leadership understood that the revival of petty-bourgeois relations would inevitably cause a surge in political demands for freedom of speech, and this posed a direct threat to power until a change in the social system. Therefore, the party leadership, first of all V.I. Lenin, decided to accompany the forced temporary retreat in the economy with a policy of “tightening the screws” and mercilessly suppressing any opposition speeches. The operation to expel intellectuals became an integral part of measures to prevent and eradicate social movements and dissent in the country.

The idea for this action began to mature among the Bolshevik leaders in the winter of 1922, when they were faced with mass strikes by university teaching staff and a revival of the social movement among the intelligentsia. In the article “On the significance of militant materialism,” completed on March 12, 1922, V.I. Lenin openly formulated the idea of ​​expelling representatives of the country's intellectual elite.

In the summer of 1922, up to 200 people were arrested in Russian cities. - economists, mathematicians, philosophers, historians, etc. Among those arrested were stars of the first magnitude not only in domestic but also in world science - philosophers N. Berdyaev, S. Frank, N. Lossky, etc.; rectors of Moscow and St. Petersburg universities: zoologist M. Novikov, philosopher L. Karsavin, mathematician V.V. Stratonov, sociologist P. Sorokin, historians A. Kiesewetter, A. Bogolepov and others. The decision to expel was made without trial.

In total, about 10 million Russians found themselves outside the boundaries of the USSR formed in 1922. In addition to refugees and emigrants, these were Russians who lived in the territories of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bessarabia that seceded from Russia, employees of the CER and their families.

In emigration, difficulties immediately arose with the structure of life. Most Russians found themselves in dire straits. Diamonds sewn into the lining of a coat were most often just “emigrant folklore”, which later successfully moved onto the pages of Soviet “revelatory” fiction. Of course, there were diamonds, and auntie’s necklaces, and pendants, but they did not determine the general tone of the everyday life of the emigration. The most accurate words to describe the first years of life in emigration would, perhaps, be poverty, squalor, and lack of rights.

1.2 Cultural centers of the Russian foreign community

In the first years after the end of the civil war and the exodus from Russia of those who did not accept the revolution, several large emigrant centers emerged in Europe. In 1920–1924, Berlin was considered the “capital” of the Russian diaspora, or at least its intellectual center, although all the major political forces of emigration settled in Paris from the very beginning. The emigrant life in Belgrade and Sofia was intense. In Prague, the then Czechoslovak government widely opened the doors of its educational institutions to Russian students and professors.

Despite the fact that the activities of pro-monarchist groups of Russian emigrants in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia caused fair protests from the local left-wing public (newspapers of those years reported numerous cases of outrages and debauchery by demoralized and degenerate Wrangel soldiers and officers), in general, the passage of Russian emigration through these countries left a good and Long memory. Russian emigrant architects took an active part in the restoration of Belgrade, which was badly damaged during the 1914–1918 war. The famous Russian architect Lukomsky built a new Palace in Topchidera, guards barracks, and the House of Memory of Tsar Nicholas II. Under the leadership of Professor Stanislavsky, a magnificent Museum of Local Lore was created. Russian specialists compiled a geological map of Macedonia and opened a large surgical hospital in the town of Pancev near Belgrade. A large influx of highly qualified Russian professors made it possible to raise the level of higher education in the country.

Russian doctors who found themselves in exile made a significant contribution to the creation of a modern medical care system, and in particular surgical services, in Bulgaria. They enjoyed great love and respect among the Bulgarian population. However, for Russians, accustomed to the vibrant intellectual and cultural life of Moscow and St. Petersburg before the outbreak of the First World War, the very modest cultural life of that time in Sofia and Belgrade seemed boring and monotonous. Russians were drawn to large European centers - Berlin, Paris. They most often preferred a modest, sometimes very poor life in these capitals to a relatively prosperous existence in the Slavic countries. Little by little, emigrant life moved to Paris. A number of factors contributed to this. The factor is linguistic, because the French language was more widespread among the Russian intelligentsia than German; the political factor, because the political center of the Russian emigration was in Paris; and, finally, the material factor, for in Paris there turned out to be a large number of all kinds of funds, associations, mutual aid societies, Russian bank accounts, which at first, before impoverishment set in, could financially support that part of the Russian intelligentsia that did not have any profession, who would provide food in a foreign land.

The life of the Russian emigration, at least in France, during this period began to resemble the life of Russia, shrunk to a tiny size. It was like a smaller copy of the former Russian Empire with all its contradictions, illnesses, its greatness and its poverty. In Paris one could live, study, love, quarrel, make peace, fight, baptize children, work or be unemployed, get sick and, finally, receive unction before death - and all this without leaving the Russian social circle.

2. Life and activities of representatives of the Russian intelligentsia abroad

2.1 Military intelligentsia

The fate of the emigrant officers was more unfortunate than that of other refugees. A significant part of the officers who left Crimea eventually moved to Paris after wandering around Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Romania. There they ended their days.

Unlike civilians, they ended up abroad without a family and without a profession. Most officers knew how to fight well, but were poorly adapted to civilian life. Many were probably harmed by the officer's ambition, which prevented them from finding a business, albeit modest, but still generating some income. Nervous wear and tear also played a role. and vodka, and cocaine, and everyday disorder. All these circumstances, put together, did not in any way contribute to the creation of strong families in a foreign land. Many former officers lived as bachelors and died without family and friends. This is probably why there are neither fresh nor withered flowers on their graves.

2.2 Literary and artistic figures

Life under an artificial sky created among the emigration a feeling of inferiority, inferiority of existence, its limitation in space and time.

Former Russian celebrities, finding themselves in exile, discovered with surprise and confusion that their halo had faded surprisingly quickly, that outside Russia they were not prophets, but wanderers.

Igor Severyanin, whose mere appearance on the streets of St. Petersburg caused the crowd to rejoice, once abroad, grew dim, shrank, and could not find a place for himself. When Severyanin gave a concert in Moscow in 1915, the spacious hall of the Polytechnic Museum could not accommodate everyone. The public stood in the aisles, in the lobby, and crowded on the street near the entrances. Each new poem was greeted with frantic applause, roses and gillyflowers flew from the hall. Once in St. Petersburg, when the crowd on Nevsky recognized Severyanin riding in a carriage, enthusiastic admirers unharnessed the horses and enthusiastically gave their beloved poet a ride. In emigration, in order to feed himself, the poet had to endure humiliation.

Only pale shadows remain of its former glory

When Severyanin came to Berlin in 1922 to take part in a “poetry concert,” he was an aged, poorly dressed man with a long, pale face. Those who knew him during this period recall how, walking through the streets of Berlin, he was constantly afraid that someone he met would recognize him and remember his poems of 1914:

On that terrible day, on that murderous day,

When the last giant falls,

Then your gentle one, your only one,

I will take you to Berlin!

The northerner feared that one of the former white officers whom he “brought to Berlin” would simply beat him up.

The fate of Sasha Cherny (Alexander Mikhailovich Glikberg), who arrived in Berlin in 1921, is typical of a number of Russian writers and poets of the “middle-class”, widely popular in Russia, but who quickly faded in emigration and did not find a place for themselves. The democratic youth of Russia became engrossed in Sasha Cherny’s witty, striking satires. But in emigration he quickly wilted; Fate drove him from one city to another, and nowhere did he find refuge; the poet was oppressed by creative emptiness. He repeatedly made attempts to establish literary cooperation with emigrant newspapers and magazines, but everything he wrote now was far below the level of the satirical poetry for which he was famous in his homeland. “I think A.M. Glikberg must be classified as one of the people completely crushed by the revolution,” Roman Gul writes about him in his memoirs. “….Apparently, Sasha Cherny’s satirical talent had nothing to rely on”…….

To earn money, he tried to write children's poems. But this role was not enough for Sasha Cherny’s creative temperament. He rushed about in search of a place in foreign culture. He lived in Italy and tried to settle in Paris, where before the war a strong group of Russian poetic youth gathered. But among them Sasha Cherny felt like a stranger. He lived in the past; Montparnasse Russian youth, who grew up in exile, wanted to live in the present and the future. She did not understand his “fiery hatred of Bolshevism,” which surpassed even the most poisonous assessments of I. Bunin. S. Cherny was skeptical about his poetic past and did not like it when people remembered his former Russian glory: “All this is gone, and these poems were of no use...”

In the end, he settled with his wife Maria Ivanovna Vasilyeva in the tiny French town of Borm, where he died on August 5, 1932. His death actually went unnoticed by the Russian emigration.

The success of Soviet poets and writers who came to Berlin in those years - Mayakovsky, Yesenin, Pilnyak, Ehrenburg, Fedin, Pasternak (at that time in the relations between Soviet Russia and emigration there was not yet that alienation, that mutual repulsion that began to creep in at the end of the 20 1930s - early 30s) - was determined not only by the quality of prose and poetry being born in the country at that time, but also by the very fact that those who came were from Russia. This Russia, standing behind the visiting poets and prose writers, instilled fear, admiration, bewilderment, and delight in the souls of the emigrants. Everyone understood that the main, real life was there, and not here, in “Russian” Berlin. And I wanted to justify why Russia is there and “we” are here.

Among the poets whose work developed in Russia, I. Severyanin, S. Cherny, D. Burliuk, K. Balmont, Z. Gippius, Vyach went abroad. Ivanov. They made a minor contribution to the history of Russian poetry in exile, losing the palm to young poets - G. Ivanov, G. Adamovich, V. Khodasevich, M. Tsvetaeva, B. Poplavsky, A. Steiger and others.

The main motive of the literature of the older generation was the motive of nostalgic memory of the lost homeland. The tragedy of exile was opposed by the enormous heritage of Russian culture, the mythologized and poeticized past. The topics most often addressed by prose writers of the older generation are retrospective: longing for “eternal Russia,” the events of the revolution and civil war, the historical past, memories of childhood and youth.

The older generation of writers includes: Iv. Bunina, Iv. Shmelev, A. Remizov, A. Kuprin, Z. Gippius, D. Merezhkovsky, M. Osorgin. The literature of the “elders” is represented mainly by prose. In exile, prose writers of the older generation created great books: “The Life of Arsenyev” (Nobel Prize 1933), “Dark Alleys” by Iv. Bunin; “Sun of the Dead”, “Summer of the Lord”, “Pilgrim of Iv. Shmeleva"; “Sivtsev Vrazhek” by M. Osorgin; “The Journey of Gleb”, “Reverend Sergius of Radonezh” by B. Zaitsev; “Jesus the Unknown” by D. Merezhkovsky. A. Kuprin publishes two novels, “The Dome of St. Isaac of Dalmatia and Juncker,” and the story “The Wheel of Time.” A significant literary event was the appearance of the book of memoirs “Living Faces” by Z. Gippius.

Despite the diversity of the creations of cultural figures of the Russian emigration, their work had a unifying basis, a “core” that makes all the numerous works in the field of literature and art a phenomenon designated as “the culture of the Russian diaspora.”

This common basis was national identity.
The fact that emigrant writers continued to create in their native language is due, first of all, to national identity, pride in belonging to the Russian nation, and the desire to remain Russian. At the same time, national self-awareness is impossible without a native language, since “language is the name of the nation.”

Along with writers, many outstanding figures of musical art found themselves abroad after the revolution: composers, conductors, pianists, violinists, cellists, opera singers, dancers. I will name only the most famous: composers - A.K. Glazunov, A.T. Grechanikov, S.S. Prokofiev, S.V. Rachmaninov, I.F. Stravinsky, N.N. Cherepnin; pianists - V. Horowitz, A. Brailovsky, A. Borovsky, B. Markevich, N. Orlov, A. Cherepnin, Irina Eperi; cellist G. Pyatigorsky, leading Russian ballet dancers - Anna Pavlova, V.F. Nijinsky, V. Coralli, M. Knisinskaya, A. Danilova, led by S.P. Diaghilev, G.M. Balanchine (Balanchivadze) and L.M. Lifarem; and of course F.I. Chaliapin.

The greatest influence in the West was enjoyed by Igor Fedorovich Sigravinsky, who in the 20s and 30s was an unquestioned authority in the musical world and introduced a number of innovations in music. The concerts of S.V. were exceptionally successful. Rachmaninov, who in emigration showed himself more as a pianist than a composer. But S.S. It was in emigration that Prokofiev revealed his gift as a composer, creating during 15 years of emigration (in 1933 he returned to his homeland) the opera “The Love for Three Oranges,” three ballets, two symphonies, three concertos for piano and orchestra and other works.

Even before his emigration, Sergei Aleksandrovich Koussevitzky, who had proven himself to be an outstanding conductor, gained worldwide fame abroad. For almost a quarter of a century he led the famous Boston Symphony Orchestra. In Taglewood, he founded a music center, where there was opera, drama, and a school of conductors. The center held annual "seasons" that attracted tens of thousands of listeners.

Fyodor Ivanovich Chaliapin also performed triumphantly abroad. He passionately dreamed of singing in his homeland, but could not come to terms with the ideological dictate in art from Soviet officials and, despite repeated invitations, never came to the Union. Alexander Vertinsky, Vadim Kozin, and other singers performed successfully in concerts.

Russian choral art has become a musical phenomenon of a special kind, gaining recognition throughout the world. In emigration, a choir of Don Cossacks, a choir under the direction of S. Zharov and N. Kostryukov, a choir named after Ataman Platonov and others were created. Concerts of choral music attracted huge audiences. But what is surprising is that, under the influence of Russian choral music, choirs began to be created in France, Germany, and Austria, consisting almost entirely of foreigners, performing a Russian musical program compiled as if from a church program. Same with secular music.

Russian ballet enjoyed particular success abroad. Since 1907 E.P. Diaghilev organized annual performances abroad by Russian artists - the so-called Russian seasons abroad. After the revolution, leading ballet dancers Anna Pavlova, V.F. Nijinsky and others did not return to their homeland, preferring the fate of emigrants. Their performances abroad cemented the glory of Russian ballet as an exceptional phenomenon in art. After the death of S.P. Diaghilev in 1929. Sergei Mikhailovich Lifar became his “heir”, who continued the best traditions of Russian ballet. Lifar created not only ballet performances, but also theoretical works. In particular, he wrote an essay about the contribution of Russians to the development of world ballet art.

The impact of Russian ballet was not limited to ballet performances. In all major cities of the world, Russian artists opened ballet schools and studios, in which the art of Russian ballet was passed on to foreign students. Among the leaders of these schools and studios were such famous ballet dancers as Kshesinskaya, Coralli, Korsavina, Preobrazhenskaya, Balazheva, Egorova, etc. And finally, Russian ballet workers created the science of dance - choreography, which became an academic discipline in one of the oldest universities Europe - the Sorbonne, where S.M. Lifar received a chair and lectured on ballet.

The post-revolutionary emigration also included a large group of Russian actors and theater workers, who organized several theater troupes that gave performances around the world. In 1923, the Russian Romantic Theater was founded in Berlin. In Paris in 1927, the “Russian Intimate Theater” was opened, as well as the “Foreign Chamber Theater” and the “Theater of Comedy and Drama”; in 1935, the “Russian Drama Theater” arose. Russian theaters were also founded in London, other European cities and the Far East. Among the most famous actors, the names of Mikhail Chekhov, I.I. Mozzhukhina, E.N. Roshchina-Insarova, V.M. Grecha, P.A. Pavlova, A.A. Vyrubova. Among theater theorists and directors, Nikolai Nikolaevich Evregenov should be singled out, who had a great influence on the Western European theatrical world, as well as Fyodor Fedorovich Komissarzhevsky (brother of Vera Komissarzhevskaya). Many theater researchers compared their theatrical productions and theoretical works on theater with the works of K.S. Stanislavsky, Evgeny Vakhtangov, Vsevolod Meyerhold and A.Ya. Tairov.

Representatives of the fine arts made a great contribution to Russian and world culture. After the revolution, several hundred Russian artists, sculptors, and architects found themselves abroad. Modern art museums and private collections abroad contain hundreds of thousands of paintings, sculptures, and drawings made by Russian masters in exile and representing the greatest artistic value. It is enough to name just a few names to really imagine the significance of their work for the development of world fine art. This is, first of all, Nikolai Konstantinovich Roerich, to whom an entire museum is dedicated in New York. Not only his paintings are of great importance, but also his social activities, since he was the author of the draft international agreement on the protection of cultural monuments during the war, called the “Roerich Pact”, thanks to which Anglo-American aviation did not touch ancient cathedrals in Europe during the bombings.

The work of the Benois dynasty gained worldwide fame. Among the three Benois brothers, Alexander Nikolaevich especially stood out, whose paintings enjoyed enormous success. He also became the most famous theater artist. In general, among Russian artists there were a lot of talented theater artists and decorators, for example, L.S. Bucket, B.C. Bilinsky, K.A. Korovina, A.B. Serebryakov and many others.

Russian abstract artists, especially V.V., had a significant influence on Western art. Kandinsky, A. Lanskoy, S. Polyakov, each of whom has their own style. No less famous were the genre painter Philip Malyavin, one of the pillars of modernism Marc Chagall, portrait painter Nikolai Miliotti and many, many others. To imagine the influence that Russian artists enjoyed abroad, it is enough to say that, for example, at the International Exhibition in Brussels in 1928 the works of 58 Russian artists, sculptors and architects were presented, and at the exhibition in Paris in 1932 - already 67. The artists who found themselves in exile, with all their creativity, proved that they were Russian not only by origin, but also by the spirit of their work, by their way of thinking, and by theme.

If Russian foreign literature testified to the unfading flowering of Russian culture abroad, then Russian music and fine art created in emigration literally shocked the world.

2.3 Technical intelligentsia

Our compatriot, one of the largest aircraft designers of the 20th century, Igor Ivanovich Sikorsky, before the eyes of one generation, lived several amazing lives and was great in each of them. His name is associated with various and, moreover, unexpected achievements of design thought, each time taking world aviation to a new level.

However, overseas, as in post-war Europe, the aircraft industry was rapidly declining. Sikorsky, who arrived in New York, found himself without a livelihood and was forced to work as an evening school teacher. In 1923, he managed to put together a company of Russian emigrants involved in aviation - engineers, workers and pilots. They formed the backbone of the small aircraft manufacturing company Sikorsky Aeroengineering Corporation established in New York. Life somehow got better. Two sisters and a daughter came from the USSR. His wife refused to emigrate, and Igor Ivanovich entered into a second marriage with Elizaveta Alekseevna Semyonova. The marriage was happy. One after another, four sons appeared: Sergei, Nikolai, Igor and Georgiy.

The first Sikorsky S-29 aircraft built in exile was assembled in 1924 in a chicken coop that belonged to one of the founders of Russian naval aviation, V.V. Utgof. Many of our emigrants provided assistance to the “Russian company”. S.V. Rachmaninov at one time was even listed as vice president of the corporation. Sikorsky's Russian company became a Mecca for emigrants. Here, many people from the former Russian Empire who had previously had no connection with aviation found work and received a specialty. Career naval officers such as S. de Bosset, V. Kaczynski and V. Ofenberg, having worked as workers and draftsmen, headed various divisions of the company. A simple worker at the company was Admiral B.A. Blokhin. The famous historiographer of the white movement, Cossack general S.V. Denisov prepared his historical research while working for the Sikorsky Corporation as a night watchman. Some of the Russian emigrants subsequently left the company and glorified their names in other enterprises and in other areas. Famous aviation scientists - teachers of American universities N.A. - came from Sikorsky's company. Alexandrov, V.N. Gartsev, A.A. Nikolsky, I.A. Sikorsky and others. Baron Soloviev created his own aviation company on Long Island. Sergievsky founded a helicopter design company in New York. Meirer organized production at another “Russian” aircraft manufacturing company, Seversky. V.V. Utgof became one of the organizers of the US Coast Guard aviation. The first priest of the factory church, Father S.I. Antonyuk received the post of Archbishop of Western Canada. The head of the company's mock-up shop, Sergei Bobylev, founded a large construction company. Cavalry General K.K. Agoev organized a stable of breeding horses known throughout America in Stratford.

2.4 Cultural mission of the Russian Diaspora

Emigrants were always against the authorities in their homeland, but they always passionately loved their homeland and fatherland and dreamed of returning there. They preserved the Russian flag and the truth about Russia. Truly Russian literature, poetry, philosophy and faith continued to live in Foreign Rus'. The main goal was for everyone to “bring a candle to the homeland”, to preserve Russian culture and the unspoilt Russian Orthodox faith for the future free Russia.

“Thank God,” G. Adamovich rejoiced, “that hundreds and thousands of Russian people in these tragic years for Russia used their strengths, talents and the freedom that became their lot for creativity, which could not dissipate in the air without a trace and which will someday enter into “golden fund” of Russian culture! Thank God that these people did not fall into despondency, were not seduced by quixoticism, noble, but ultimately fruitless, and continued to work in the area where they managed to both prove themselves and serve the development of the Russian, and therefore the universal human spirit!

Of course, one can understand the bitterness, frustration, impatience of another indomitable fighter for “violated ideals”, indignant that emigrants, instead of rushing to imaginary barricades, write poetry, compose symphonies or decipher half-decayed ancient records, it is possible at times, under the direct impression of some Some newspaper news from there, from behind the “Iron Curtain”, even to share these feelings, but when you remember everything that was created by the Russian emigration - and sometimes in what conditions it was created! – you feel satisfied” ¹

The Russian emigration had many misconceptions and false hopes. She also paid tribute to political illusions. But emigration was by no means blind, meekly following the lead of hatred. Condemning, and rightly condemning, anti-democratic and anti-legal tendencies in Soviet Russia, the emigration was also aware that the future of Russian culture was being smelted in the new Russia. With controversy, but also with passionate interest, the emigration perceived any more or less noticeable phenomenon in Russian culture, admired these phenomena, and envied them.

Literary magazines arriving from Russia were read to the gills and passed from hand to hand. Theater troupes coming from Moscow on tour attracted crowds of enthusiastic emigrant fans. The Russian post-revolutionary avant-garde in painting, poetry, and music was both the pride and envy of the artists who found themselves in exile. But as totalitarian, dogmatic tendencies in literature and art intensified, and the sphere of free creativity narrowed, emigrant cultural figures became increasingly aware that they were the heirs of the great and free Russian culture. The emigration understood that the main cultural and creative forces remained in Russia and continued, despite all oppression, to preserve the sacred flame of Russian culture. But she also understood that in the conditions of the collapse of democracy, Soviet artists were forced to pay a heavy rent to violence, conformism, and opportunism. The emigration watched with pain how, under the blows of the growing apparatus of spiritual violence, the intelligentsia gave up one position after another.

The tragedy of the Soviet intelligentsia increased the responsibility of foreign cultural figures for the fate of the fatherland. Left without roots, without soil, peering into the “artificial sky of emigration,” these cultural figures, unlike their brothers in their homeland, continued to enjoy such important artist rights as the right to choose, doubt, search, deny, the right to disagree and independence thoughts. And these rights of free creativity allowed the emigration to create such creations in painting, and in literature, and in music, and in philosophy, without which the picture of Russian artistic and cultural life of the 20th century would have had major flaws.

Conclusion

Thus, Russian culture in emigration continued the traditions of pre-revolutionary culture.

Political motives did not always play a decisive role in leaving. Many fled from unbearable living conditions, others followed friends and relatives, and others considered it impossible to continue their professional activities in Soviet Russia. Most expected a quick return to their homeland.
Despite the diversity of destinies, views, intentions, social and property status, Russian emigrants gravitated towards communication. The emigrant environment was dominated by the idea of ​​the high cultural mission of Russian emigration - the preservation and reproduction of national culture. ``Preservation of Russian culture'', the Russian language, the Orthodox faith and Russian traditions'' - this is how the emigrants saw their task.

Physically separated from their native soil and finding themselves in exile, the emigrant intelligentsia remained with Russia in heart and soul.

Through the efforts of Russian emigrants abroad, an outstanding branch of our national culture was created, covering many areas of human activity (literature, art, science, philosophy, education) and enriching European and entire world civilization. Nationally unique values, ideas and discoveries have taken their rightful place in Western culture in general, in specific European and other countries where the talent of Russian emigrants was applied.

There is no doubt that the Russian intelligentsia culturally enriched Europe. Peoples always benefit from the contact of cultures.

But looking back at the events of the twentieth century from the twenty-first century, it seems to me that, having enriched foreign culture, Russian culture gradually dissolved in it. And today the great-grandchildren of Russian emigrants do not even know Russian. Maybe this is the mission - having enriched, dissolve.

Indicate the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The fate of the Russian intelligentsia abroad

Introduction

1.2 Cultural centers of the Russian foreign community

2. Life and activities of representatives of the Russian intelligentsia abroad

2.1 Military intelligentsia

2.2 Literary and artistic figures

2.3 Technical intelligentsia

2.4 Cultural mission of the Russian Abroad

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The concept of intelligentsia comes from the word intelligens, which means “understanding”, “thinking”, “reasonable”. In modern developed countries, the concept of “intelligentsia” is used quite rarely. In the West, the term “intellectuals” is more popular, which denotes people professionally engaged in intellectual (mental) activity, who, as a rule, do not claim to be the bearers of “highest ideals.”

In Russia, the intelligentsia was not treated so one-sidedly. According to Academician N.N. Moiseev, “an intellectual is always a seeker, not confined to his narrow profession or purely group interests. An intelligent person tends to think about the fate of his people in comparison with universal human values. He is able to go beyond the narrow horizons of philistine or professional limitations.”¹

Having become students of the medical academy, we will have to join the ranks of Russian intellectuals. Thus, we have a responsibility for the future of Russia.

We are lucky or unlucky, but we live in difficult times. The political system of the state is changing, political views and economic conditions are changing, and a “revaluation of values” is taking place.

How to succeed in this difficult world, how to find your place, and not crumble into dust in the merciless millstones of reality?

You can find answers to these questions by tracing the fates of people who lived during difficult, “turning-point” periods of our history.

The purpose of my work is to comprehend the place of a creative personality on the steep turns of history.

Since creative activity necessarily presupposes a critical attitude towards prevailing opinions, intellectuals have always acted as bearers of “critical potential.”

It was the intellectuals who created new ideological doctrines (republicanism, nationalism, socialism) and propagated them, thereby ensuring the constant renewal of the system of social values.

For the same reason, the intelligentsia was the first to come under attack during revolutions.

This is how a significant part of the Russian intelligentsia ended up abroad at the beginning of the twentieth century.

1. Formation of centers of Russian emigration

1.1 Reasons for leaving abroad and the main directions of emigrant flows

The Russians who found themselves outside the former Russian Empire after 1919 were refugees in the full sense of the word. The main reason for their flight was military defeat and the associated threat of captivity and reprisals, as well as hunger, deprivation, and the danger looming over life and freedom as a result of the prevailing political circumstances.

Unconditional rejection of the Soviet regime, and in most cases, the revolution itself, and the hope of returning home after the fall of the hated system were inherent in all refugees. This influenced their behavior and creative activity, awakening, despite all political differences, a sense of unity, belonging to a “society in exile”, awaiting the opportunity to return. However, the Soviet regime showed no signs of collapse, and hopes of a return began to fade. Soon, however, they became emigrants in the full sense of the word. A Russian emigrant is a person who refused to recognize the Bolshevik regime that had established itself in his homeland. For most of them, the refusal became irrevocable after the RSFSR decree of 1921, confirmed and supplemented in 1924, depriving them of citizenship and turning them into stateless persons or stateless persons (this French word was included as an official term in the documents of the League of Nations).

The peculiarities of emigration also determined the uniqueness of various groups of emigrants in their new places of residence. With the exception of a few who left Russia during 1917, and a few (mostly residents of St. Petersburg) who left immediately after the Bolshevik seizure of power in October 1917, emigration from Russia was a direct consequence of the course and results of the civil war. Military personnel who were defeated by the Red Army and went abroad or were evacuated by sea made up the main contingent of the first wave of refugees. They were followed by their loved ones and other civilians who managed to join them. In a number of cases, crossing the border or evacuation by sea was a temporary and necessary moment to regroup forces before a new battle with the Soviet regime and receive help from the allies.

It is possible to trace three main routes of Russian emigration abroad. The most important area was the Black Sea coast (Novorossiysk, Crimea, Odessa, Georgia). Therefore, Constantinople (Istanbul) became the first significant settlement point for emigrants. Many refugees were in dire physical and moral condition and were temporarily housed in former military camps and hospitals. Since the Turkish authorities and the Allied commissions, which provided the main material assistance, did not intend to forever shoulder the burden of maintaining the refugees, they were interested in their further relocation to where they could find work and firmly settle. It should be noted that a large number of refugees from Russia have accumulated in Istanbul and on nearby islands. The refugees themselves created voluntary societies to help women, children and the sick. They founded hospitals, nurseries and orphanages, collected donations from wealthy compatriots and the Russian foreign administration (diplomatic missions, Red Cross branches), as well as from foreign philanthropists or simply from sympathizers.

Most of the Russians, who by the will of fate ended up in Istanbul, found shelter in the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (KHS), the future Yugoslavia. Existing vacancies were filled by technical specialists from the former White Army, civilian refugees with experience in scientific and administrative work. The proximity of languages ​​and common religion contributed to the rapid assimilation of Russians. Here we only note that Yugoslavia, especially Belgrade, became a significant cultural center of the Russian Abroad, although not as diverse and creatively active as Paris, Berlin or Prague.

The second route of Russian refugees ran northwest of the Black Sea. It was formed as a result of the general chaos that reigned in this region during a period of turbulent political events. In the revived Poland and East Germany, many Russian prisoners of war were concentrated (from the First World War and the Soviet-Polish War and the accompanying conflicts of various Ukrainian regimes with Germany). Most of them returned to their homeland, but many chose to remain in territory not controlled by the Soviets and became emigrant refugees. The core of the Russian Abroad in this region, therefore, consisted of prisoners of war camps. At first there were only men of military age, but later they were joined by women and children - those who managed to reunite with their husbands, fathers, and sons. Taking advantage of the confusion at the border, many refugees crossed the border into Poland, and from there headed further to Germany. The Soviet authorities gave permission to leave for those who owned property or lived in the territory that was transferred to the newly formed nation-states. Subsequently, after briefly living in the mentioned states as representatives of the Russian ethnic minority, these people also became part of the Russian Abroad. The most ambitious and active intellectuals and specialists, young people who sought to complete their education, did not stay long among this national minority, moving either to the capitals of these states or to the countries of Central and Western Europe.

The last important route for refugees from Soviet Russia was in the Far East - to the Manchurian city of Harbin. Harbin, from its very foundation in 1898, was a Russian city, the administrative and economic center of the Russian Chinese Eastern Railway, from where some of the emigrants then moved to the USA and Australia.

Thus, after the October Revolution, during the Civil War, over one and a half million people left Russia. Mainly people of intellectual work.

In 1922, on the instructions of V. Lenin, preparations began for the deportation of representatives of the old Russian intelligentsia abroad.

The real reason for the expulsion of the intelligentsia was the lack of confidence among the leaders of the Soviet state in their ability to retain power after the end of the Civil War. Having replaced the policy of war communism with a new economic course and allowing market relations and private property in the economic sphere, the Bolshevik leadership understood that the revival of petty-bourgeois relations would inevitably cause a surge in political demands for freedom of speech, and this posed a direct threat to power until a change in the social system. Therefore, the party leadership, first of all V.I. Lenin, decided to accompany the forced temporary retreat in the economy with a policy of “tightening the screws” and mercilessly suppressing any opposition speeches. The operation to expel intellectuals became an integral part of measures to prevent and eradicate social movements and dissent in the country.

The idea for this action began to mature among the Bolshevik leaders in the winter of 1922, when they were faced with mass strikes by university teaching staff and a revival of the social movement among the intelligentsia. In the article “On the significance of militant materialism,” completed on March 12, 1922, V.I. Lenin openly formulated the idea of ​​expelling representatives of the country's intellectual elite.

In the summer of 1922, up to 200 people were arrested in Russian cities. - economists, mathematicians, philosophers, historians, etc. Among those arrested were stars of the first magnitude not only in domestic but also in world science - philosophers N. Berdyaev, S. Frank, N. Lossky, etc.; rectors of Moscow and St. Petersburg universities: zoologist M. Novikov, philosopher L. Karsavin, mathematician V.V. Stratonov, sociologist P. Sorokin, historians A. Kiesewetter, A. Bogolepov and others. The decision to expel was made without trial.

In total, about 10 million Russians found themselves outside the boundaries of the USSR formed in 1922. In addition to refugees and emigrants, these were Russians who lived in the territories of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bessarabia that seceded from Russia, employees of the CER and their families.

In emigration, difficulties immediately arose with the structure of life. Most Russians found themselves in dire straits. Diamonds sewn into the lining of a coat were most often just “emigrant folklore”, which later successfully moved onto the pages of Soviet “revelatory” fiction. Of course, there were diamonds, and auntie’s necklaces, and pendants, but they did not determine the general tone of the everyday life of the emigration. The most accurate words to describe the first years of life in emigration would, perhaps, be poverty, squalor, and lack of rights.

... “Criticism of Love”, published in Diaghilev’s magazine “World of Art” (1901. No. 1), Gippius posed a question with which, in fact, she expressed the main, anti-Nietzschean task in the religious and philosophical quest of the Russian intelligentsia of the Silver Age: “We want "Is it God's death? No. We want God. We love God. We need God. But we also love life. That means we need to live. How can we live?" ...

For example, Bunin saw that in the lost war with Japan, the peasants suffered the most. And the first Russian revolution even more senselessly passed the scythe of death across the Russian peasantry. A definite result of difficult thoughts about the fate of Russia was the writer’s story “The Village”. It was written in 1910 and was, as it were, a counterweight to “Antonov Apples.” The author disputes in "The Village" what...

Work in your specialty. Russian professorship at the beginning of the century was highly rated in the West. The bleeding of Russia's intellectual elite defied any reasonable explanation. Intelligentsia in the Soviet period. The first events carried out by the Soviet government in the field of culture provided it with the support of the lower social classes and helped attract part of the intelligentsia, inspired by the idea...

Due to the diverse influence on this process of Chaadaev and Khomyakov, Herzen and Bakunin, Slavophiles and Westerners, populists and Marxists. He explores how the character and type of the Russian intelligentsia changes during the transition from a predominantly noble composition (40s of the 19th century) to a raznochinsky one (60s), talks about the emergence of an “intelligent proletariat” in Russia (remember Beranger), etc. ..

: concern for the fate of one’s fatherland (civil responsibility); the desire for social criticism, for the fight against what hinders national development (the role of a bearer of social conscience); the ability to morally empathize with the “humiliated and offended” (a sense of moral involvement).

Thanks to a group of Russian philosophers of the “Silver Age”, authors of the acclaimed collection “Milestones. Collection of articles about the Russian intelligentsia” (1909), the intelligentsia began to be defined primarily through opposition to official state power. At the same time, the concepts of “educated class” and “intelligentsia” were partially separated - not any educated person could be classified as an intelligentsia, but only one who criticized the “backward” government. A critical attitude towards the tsarist government predetermined the sympathy of the Russian intelligentsia for liberal and socialist ideas.

The Russian intelligentsia, understood as a set of intellectuals opposed to the authorities, turned out to be a rather isolated social group in pre-revolutionary Russia. Intellectuals were viewed with suspicion not only by the official authorities, but also by the “ordinary people,” who did not distinguish intellectuals from “gentlemen.” The contrast between the claim to messianism and isolation from the people led to the cultivation of constant repentance and self-flagellation among Russian intellectuals.

I started this book a long time ago, after the first revolution of the fifth and sixth years, when intelligentsia, which considered itself revolutionary - it actually took some actual part in organizing the first revolution - began to move sharply to the right in the seventh and eighth years. Then the cadet collection “Vekhi” and a whole series of other works appeared, which indicated and proved that the intelligentsia was not on the same road with the working class and the revolution in general. I had a desire to give a figure of what, in my opinion, is a typical intellectual. I knew them personally and in quite a large number, but, in addition, I knew this intellectual historically, literary, I knew him as a type not only of our country, but also of France and England. This type of individualist, a person of necessarily average intellectual abilities, devoid of any bright qualities, is found in literature throughout the 19th century. We had this guy too. The man was a member of a revolutionary circle, then entered bourgeois statehood as its defender. You probably don’t need to be reminded that the intelligentsia who live in exile abroad, slander the Union of Soviets, organize conspiracies and generally engage in villainy, this intelligentsia in the majority consists of the Samgins. Many of the people who are now slandering us in the most cynical way were people whom I was not the only one who considered very respectable... You never know there were people who turned around and for whom the social revolution was organically unacceptable. They considered themselves a supra-class group. This turned out to be wrong, because as soon as what happened happened, they immediately turned their backs to one class and their faces to the other. What else can I say? I wanted to portray Samghin as an intellectual of average value who goes through a whole series of moods, looking for the most independent place in life, where he would be comfortable both financially and internally.

in culture

Ratings and opinions

Literature

• Miliukov P. N. From the history of the Russian intelligentsia. Collection of articles and sketches. - St. Petersburg, 1902.
• Lunacharsky A. V. Rec.: P. N. Milyukov. From the history of the Russian intelligentsia // Education. 1903. No. 2.
• Milestones. Collection of articles about the Russian intelligentsia (1909).
• Struve P. Intelligentsia and revolution // Milestones. Collection of articles about the Russian intelligentsia. M., 1909.
• Milyukov P. N. Intelligentsia and historical tradition // Intelligentsia in Russia. - St. Petersburg, 1910
• Intelligentsia in Russia: Collection of articles. - St. Petersburg, 1910. - 258 p.
• Letter from N. P. Ogarev to T. N. Granovsky, 1850 // Links [: collection] M. - L., 1932. - T. I. - P. 101.
• Leikina-Svirskaya V. R. Intelligentsia in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. - M.: Mysl, 1971.
• Milestones. From the depth . M.: Pravda Publishing House, 1991.
• Davydov Yu. N. Clarification of the concept of “intelligentsia” // Where is Russia going? Alternatives for social development. 1: International Symposium December 17-19, 1993 / Edited by. ed.

The Russian intelligentsia stands at a great ideological and volitional crossroads. At the cliff, at the abyss, her former path was cut off: she could not go further in the same direction. There is only a sharp turn to the side, onto new, saving paths; and there are slippery paths that fall to the bottom... We must understand and choose; decide and go. But you can’t choose for a long time: the deadlines are short, and time is running out. Or don't you hear Russia calling? Or do you not see how the global crisis is unfolding and maturing? Understand: Russia must be liberated and cleansed before the world crisis matures and breaks out!..

It is not thought that is dangerous, but lack of will; not self-absorption, but indecision. The Russian intelligentsia has something to think about; and without religious and spiritual self-deepening, she will not find the right outcome. Honestly and courageously, she must tell herself that the revolutionary collapse of the Russian state is, first of all, her own collapse: it was she who led and she led Russia to revolution. Some led by conscious will, agitation and propaganda, assassinations and expropriations. Others preached non-resistance, simplification, sentimentality and equality. Still others - unprincipled and deadening reactionism, the ability to intrigue and put pressure and the inability to educate, the reluctance to spiritually feed, the inability to ignite free hearts... Some spread and poured the poison of the revolution; others prepared their minds for him; still others did not know how (or did not want) to cultivate and strengthen spiritual resistance among the people...

Here everything must be courageously thought through to the end and honestly spoken out. Woe to the stubborn and cowardly! Shame on the self-righteous hypocrites! An impartial history will brand them as blind and destroyers, and the restoration of Russia will be conditioned by the extinction of their generation...

Nowadays the Russian intelligentsia is either suppressed and weakened in the country, or expelled from Russia, or destroyed by revolutionaries. The point is not in judging her, although each of us is always called to judgment over ourselves. We should not blame each other, although only those who can find their own guilt in events can see the light and be renewed. We are not looking for "blame"; but we cannot hush up the truth, because truth is now necessary for Russia, like light and air...

A keen and honest diagnosis is the first basis of treatment. But this diagnosis should not be stigmatizing, but explanatory. And those who are now especially prone to stigma and malice, let them remember, firstly, that they themselves are in the dock; secondly, that mental and spiritual currents develop slowly and are stable, like psychosis, so that only exceptionally strong natures can disobey them and swim against the current; and thirdly, that now we have been given a new historical experience that our fathers did not have. People should be rejected not for their past failures or delusions, but for their current malicious reluctance to see the light...

I'm not talking about "fathers" and "sons" at all. And before the revolution there were wise and strong fathers; We still have them - this is our storehouse of state experience, a guarantee and guarantee that we are following the right path. And even before the revolution, young people screamed that they “understood everything better than their fathers”; and now - she got drunk... Only the blind and possessed do not grow wiser over the years; only a genius is given, immediately, from his young nails, seven spans of space in his forehead. And it has always been so, and it will always be so, that youthful self-confidence is fraught with disaster.

So, I'm not talking about "fathers" and "sons" at all...

Yes, one of the reasons for the revolution is the mood of the mind and the direction of the will of the Russian intelligentsia. The whole trouble is that the Russian intelligentsia misunderstood its destiny and its task in the life of Russia and therefore did not find its organic place and did not do its organic work in the country. We are not talking about the service, military and civilian cadres, which have always been rich in strong and loyal people, but about party (left and right) “politicians” and the philistine masses infected by them. This intelligentsia did the opposite of its calling and not only did not build a healthy spirit of Russian statehood, but put its efforts and its pathos into its decomposition. Hence her organic powerlessness in the hour of trial and trouble, her confusion, her defeat and collapse.

In the hour of trial and trouble, in the hour of exhaustion, despondency and temptation, the mass of the ordinary Russian people followed not the Russian intelligentsia, but the international half-intelligentsia; she went not to save Russia, but to destroy it; went not to the national-state goal, but to private enrichment; betrayed the Russian and Orthodox idea and indulged in an absurd and blasphemous chimera. This is a historical fact that cannot be erased from the history of Russia, but which our generation is obliged to comprehend to the end; comprehend and draw strong-willed conclusions from it for the future...

This indisputable historical fact is a verdict in itself. Not at all because the common people are supposedly “always right in everything” or that the job of the intelligentsia is only to listen to their desires and please them; all these are false and flattering, corrupt words, perverting the matter at the very root; but because the task of the intelligentsia is precisely to lead their people behind the national idea and towards the state goal; and the educated stratum incapable of this will always be historically condemned and overthrown. But at the same time, the intelligentsia does not dare to abdicate the blame and place it on the common people. For if the people are “obscure”, then this is not their “fault”, this is a creative, but not yet resolved task of the national intelligentsia; and if bad passions live and boil among the people, then the national educated layer is called upon to ennoble and direct them. A teacher who complains about his pupil must start with himself; and it is not for a Russian intellectual, even in irritation and confusion, to vilify the kind, patient and gifted soul of the Russian common man...

If the mass of ordinary Russian people followed not their national educated stratum, but foreign, international adventurers, then the Russian intelligentsia must look for the reason for this, first of all, in itself. This means that she was not up to the task and did not cope with her task. Let the left and right parties now mutually accuse each other; let them argue about who killed the patient - the economic manager, who forced him to overexert himself at work with a bad diet, or the half-educated paramedic who poisoned him with poisons and infected him with bacteria. We, who are looking for truth and correct solutions for the future, need to establish that both sides followed false paths, both led to destruction, and that henceforth it is necessary to do the opposite in both respects.

The Russian intelligentsia failed in its task and brought matters to a revolution because it was groundless and devoid of state sense and will.

This groundlessness was both social and spiritual: the intelligentsia did not have healthy and deep roots in the Russian people, but it did not have them because it had nothing to say to the Russian common people that could ignite their heart, captivate their will, illuminate and conquer his mind. The Russian intelligentsia for the most part was religiously dead, nationally-patriotically cold and stateless. Her “enlightened” mind, devastated by Voltairianism and materialistically poisoned for several generations, was drawn to abstract doctrinaire and turned away from religion; he forgot how to see God, he did not know how to find the Divine in the world, and that is why he stopped seeing the Divine in his homeland, in Russia. Russia has become for the Russian intelligentsia a heap of accidents, peoples and wars; it ceased to be for her a historical national prayer, or a living house of God. Hence this fading of national well-being, this patriotic coldness, this distortion and impoverishment of state feeling and all the associated consequences - internationalism, socialism, revolutionism and defeatism. The Russian intelligentsia stopped believing in Russia; she stopped seeing Russia in God's ray, Russia, which was suffering martyrdom for its spiritual identity; she stopped hearing the sacred verbs of Russia, her sacred singing throughout the centuries. Russia has ceased to be a religious problem for her, a religious-volitional task. Who could she educate and where could she lead? Having lost faith and God, she lost the sacred meaning of her homeland, and at the same time the homeland itself in its true and great meaning; because of this, her state understanding became empty, flat and unprincipled. It has lost the religious meaning of state building and thus radically distorted its sense of justice. Her soul became spiritually groundless.

But it was precisely from here that her groundless position within her own people arose.

From God and from nature, the Russian people are gifted with a deep religious feeling and a powerful political instinct. The riches of his spiritual depths can only be compared with the riches of his external nature. But these spiritual riches of his remain latent, undisclosed, as if virgin soil had not been lifted and sown. For centuries, Rus' was created and built by instinct, in all its unconsciousness, lack of formality and, most importantly, easy-to-understand. Passion, not secured by the strength of character, is always capable of stirring up, becoming clouded, being seduced and rushing down the wrong path. And the only thing that can save it, according to the profound words of Patriarch Hermogenes, is “immovable standing” in the truth of the people’s leaders.

The Russian people, due to the charge of passions and talents given to them and due to the lack of strength of their character, have always needed strong and faithful leaders, religiously motivated, vigilant and authoritative. He himself always vaguely sensed this peculiarity of his own, and therefore he always looked for strong leaders for himself, believed in them, adored them and was proud of them. He always had a need to find support, a limit, a form and peace in the strong and good will of the ruler called to power. He always valued strong and firm authority; he never condemned her for being strict and demanding; he always knew how to forgive her everything if the healthy depth of political instinct told him that behind these thunderstorms there was a strong patriotic will, that behind these harsh compulsions there was hidden a great national-state idea, that these unbearable taxes and fees were caused by a nationwide misfortune or need. There are no limits to the self-sacrifice and endurance of a Russian person if he feels that he is being led by a strong and inspired patriotic will; and vice versa - he has never and will never follow lack of will and idle talk, even to the point of contempt, to the temptation to shy away from the power of a strong-willed adventurer.

The Russian pre-revolutionary intelligentsia did not have in its soul what could awaken and lead this healthy state instinct of the common people. Deprived of spiritual soil in itself, it could not acquire socio-political soil among the masses; divorced from God, having forgotten how to build and maintain a monarchical sense of justice, applied to class interests and thereby losing the national-state meaning, it did not have a great national idea capable of igniting hearts, charging the will and conquering minds; she did not know how to stand correctly, walk cheerfully and lead firmly; it has lost access to the sanctuary of the people's conscience and people's patriotism; and, fussing about on the “political” surface, it was only capable of undermining the people’s faith in the salvation of the monarchy, law and order and private property. Before the revolution, we did not have an intelligentsia capable of volitionally educating the people; we had only “teaching teachers” who supplied students with “information”; and along with this, demagogues on the left, who successfully mobilized the mob around themselves for a coup, and demagogues on the right, who were unable to do even this.

What the intelligentsia said to the common people aroused in them not conscience, but dishonesty; not patriotic unity, but a spirit of discord; not legal consciousness, but the spirit of arbitrariness; not a sense of duty, but a sense of greed. And could it have been otherwise, when the intelligentsia had no religious perception of the homeland, no national idea, no state sense and will. The key to the deep and healthy instinct of the Russian common people, the key to their living spirit, was lost; and access to his base, greedy and ferocious desires was open and easy.

It so happened that the instinct of national self-preservation dried up in the Russian intelligentsia and therefore it turned out to be unable to awaken the instinct of national self-preservation in the Russian masses and lead them along. The Russian educated stratum swallowed European culture without checking its inventions and “discoveries” - neither by the depth of religious, Christian conscience, nor by the depth of the national instinct of self-preservation. The mental chimeras and unnatural utopias of the West captivated his groundless soul, not restrained by the saving inner emphasis of a healthy instinct, this great teacher in matters of life realism and political expediency, and the blind trust in reason and the stock of fanaticism released in the irreligious soul turned these utopias and chimeras into some kind of that unnatural and godless “gospel” for the masses. And all this fornication and nonsense needed only will for the volitional obsession of the Bolshevik revolution to arise.

In such a state, the Russian intelligentsia could not conduct Russian affairs, could not build Russia.

Having lost a living relationship with God, she distorted her understanding of Christianity, reducing everything to animal sentimentality, to socialism and the denial of the national principle. By this she lost an organ for the Russian cause, for the Russian cause is at once a religious, national and state matter; and whoever misses at least one of these sides misses everything at once.

At the same time, following reason, materialism and Western theories, she distorted her understanding of human nature and people's life. It is as if she has become blind and deaf to what the voice of instinct, the voice of organic expediency, the voice of spirit, the voice of personality, the voice of nationality speaks. Everything fell apart for her into mechanical components and mechanical laws. The secret of living, organic unity and creativity left her, became inaccessible to her: the people disintegrated for her into self-interested “atoms” and “classes”, into “oppressors” and “oppressed”; and the meaning of the great, national, organic and spiritual totality, which built itself over the centuries and called Russia, became a dead sound for it...

It so happened that the Russian intelligentsia, by instinct and understanding, separated itself from the Russian common people and consciously opposed itself to them. She ceased to feel that he was her people, and herself that she was her intelligentsia. She ceased to feel that she was a single national “we” with him; she has forgotten how to see in herself the national-volitional body of the united Russian people, called upon to educate and obliged to lead; she measured and assessed herself with the flat standard of socialist morality and, having measured, condemned; she believed in physical labor and lost faith in the sanctity of spiritual creativity, and, feeling her imaginary “guilt” before the common people, she went to “broadcast” to them the corpse-like “wisdom” of godlessness and socialism. She brought to him the principles of spiritual decay and decay, the religion of discord and revenge, the chimera of equality and socialism. And all this nonsense and fornication was waiting only for a strong will so that the Bolshevik revolution would take over the country...

The essence of the Russian revolution is that the Russian intelligentsia handed over its people to spiritual corruption, and the people handed over their intelligentsia to desecration and torn to pieces. And the end of the revolution will come when the Russian intelligentsia and the Russian people revive in themselves the true depth of the religious-national instinct and reunite, when the intelligentsia proves that not only has it not changed its will with the national idea, but that it knows how to die for it and for national power, and the people will be convinced that they need the intelligentsia precisely as the bearer of the national idea, as the builder of a healthy and great national state.

We see and believe that this hour is approaching. We believe and know that the spiritual wanderings of the Russian intelligentsia are over, that volitional accomplishments and spiritual achievements lie ahead of them, for a great people is great primarily in its leaders and creators. Russian people will find each other in selfless love for national Russia; through this love they will recognize each other and restore their trust and unity...

In cultural countries that have long been involved in the development of world progress, the intelligentsia, i.e. the educated and thinking part of society, creating and disseminating universal spiritual values, is, so to speak, an indisputable figure, clearly defined, aware of its significance, its vocation. There the intelligentsia does its job, working in all fields of public life, thought and creativity and not asking (except accidentally and in passing) tricky questions like: “what is the intelligentsia and what is the meaning of its existence?” “Disputes about the intelligentsia” do not arise there, or, if sometimes they arise, they do not receive even a hundredth of the importance that they have in our country. There is no need to write books on the topic: “history of the intelligentsia »... Instead, in those happy countries they write books on the history of sciences, philosophy, technology, art, social movements, political parties...

The situation is different in backward and belated countries. Here the intelligentsia is something new and unusual, not an “indisputable”, undefined quantity: it is being created and strives for self-determination; It is difficult for her to understand her paths, to get out of the state of fermentation and to settle on a solid basis of varied and fruitful cultural work, for which there would be a demand in the country, without which the country not only could not do, but would also be aware of it.

And therefore, in backward and belated countries, the intelligentsia continually interrupts its work with perplexed questions like: “what is the intelligentsia and what is the meaning of its existence,” “who is to blame for the fact that it does not find its real business,” “what to do?”

It is precisely in such countries that the “history of the intelligentsia” is written, that is, the history of these perplexing and tricky questions. And such a “story”, of necessity, turns into psychology.

Here we are - en pleine psychologie... We have to clarify the psychology of the intelligentsia's "grief" that stems from the intelligentsia's "mind" - from the very fact of the appearance of this mind in a belated and backward country. We have to reveal the psychological foundations of Onegin’s boredom, explain why Pechorin wasted his rich strength, why Rudin wandered and languished, etc.

The psychology of quest, languor of thought, mental anguish of ideologists, “renegades”, “superfluous people”, their successors in post-reform times - “repentant nobles”, “commoners”, etc. comes to the fore of study.

This psychology is a real “human document”, in itself highly valuable, interesting for a foreign observer, and for us Russians, it has deep vital significance - educational and educational.

Here a number of questions are outlined, of which I will dwell on only one - not, of course, in order to solve it in these pages of the “Introduction”, but only in order to, having outlined it, immediately introduce the reader inmediasres- to the circle of those basic ideas which I based this feasible work on the “history of the Russian intelligentsia.”

This is a question about the sharp, striking contrast between the wealth of mental and generally spiritual life of our intelligentsia from the 20s of the last century to the present day and the comparative insignificance of what has been achieved.

good results in the sense of the direct influence of the intelligentsia on the course of things in our country and on the rise of general culture in the country.

This is the antithesis of the richness of our ideologies, which often reached the point of sophistication, the luxury of our literary and, in particular, artistic treasures, on the one hand, and our all-Russian backwardness, on the other, our cultural (to use Gogol’s catchphrase) “poverty and poverty.”

As a direct consequence of this glaring contradiction, special sentiments characteristic of our intelligentsia arose and continue to emerge - sentiments that I will call “Chaadaevsky”, because their herald was Chaadaev, who gave them the first and, moreover, the most harsh and extreme expression in his famous “philosophical letters” .

Let us remember the curious episode associated with them and the impression they made.

Nikitenko wrote the following in his “Diary” on October 25, 1836: “A terrible turmoil in censorship and literature. In the 15th issue of “Telescope” (vol. XXXIV) an article was published under the title: “Philosophical Letters.” The article is written beautifully: its author is (P. Ya.) Chaadaev. But in it our entire Russian life is presented in the darkest form. Politics, morality, even religion are presented as wild, ugly exceptions to the general laws of humanity. It is incomprehensible how the censor Boldyrev missed it. Of course, there was an uproar among the audience. The magazine is prohibited. Boldyrev, who was both a professor and rector of a Moscow university, has been removed from all positions. Now he, together with (N.I.) Nadezhdin, the publisher of Telescope, is being brought here for an answer.”

Chaadaev, as is known, was declared crazy and subjected to house arrest 1 .

The impression made by Chaadaev’s article on thinking people of that time can be judged by Herzen’s memoirs in “The Past and the Duma”: “...Chaadaev’s letter shocked all thinking Russia... It was a shot that rang out on a dark night... In the summer of 1836 years ago, I was sitting calmly at my desk in Vyatka when the postman brought me the latest book of “Telescope...”

“A Philosophical Letter to a Lady, Translation from French” did not at first attract his attention; he moved on to other articles. But when he began to read the “letter,” it immediately deeply interested him: “from the second, from the third page, the sad-serious tone stopped me: every word smelled of long suffering, already cooled, but still embittered. Only people who have thought for a long time, thought a lot and experienced a lot with life, and not with theory, write this way... I read further - the letter grows, it becomes a gloomy indictment against Russia, a protest of a person who, for everything he has endured, wants to express part of what has accumulated in his heart. I stopped twice to rest and let my thoughts and feelings subside, and then I read and read again. And this was printed in Russian by an unknown author... I was afraid that I had gone crazy. Then I reread the “letter” to Vitberg, then to S., a young teacher at the Vyatka gymnasium, then again to myself. It is very likely that the same thing happened in different provincial and district cities, in capitals and Lord's houses. I learned the author’s name a few months later” (“Works of A. I. Herzen,” vol. II, pp. 402 - 403).

Herzen formulates the main idea of ​​the “letter” as follows: “Russia’s past is empty, the present is unbearable, and there is no future for it at all, this is “a gap in understanding, a terrible lesson given to peoples - what alienation and slavery can lead to 2. It was repentance and accusation...” (403).

1 About Chaadaev we have the excellent pages of P. N. Milyukov in his book “The Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought” (3rd ed. 1913, pp. 323 - 342) and the wonderful work of M. Ya. Gershenzon - “P . Ya. Chaadaev” (1908), where Chaadaev’s works were also republished.

2 Original expressions of Chaadaev.

Chaadaev’s philosophical and historical construction captivates with the harmony and consistency of the development of the main idea, which cannot be denied either in relative originality 1 or in depth, but it unpleasantly strikes with its extreme exaggeration of the characteristics of everything Russian, the clearly unfair and sharp one-sidedness of the mystical-Christian, Catholic view. Re-reading the famous “letters”, we involuntarily think about the author: here is an original and deep thinker who suffered from some kind of color-blindness of thought and does not reveal - in his judgments - any sense of proportion, no tact, no critical caution.

I will cite some passages - among the most paradoxical - in order to then subject them to some kind of “operation”: discarding the extremes, softening the harshness, it is not difficult to discover hidden in the depths of Chaadaev’s ideas the grain of some sad truth, which easily explains the “Chaadaev sentiments” of our intelligentsia, but Chaadaev’s conclusions and paradoxes are by no means justified.

Chaadaev’s denial is aimed primarily at Russia’s historical past. We, in his opinion, did not have a heroic period, “a fascinating phase of “youth”, “turbulent activity”, “the vigorous play of the spiritual forces of the people.” Our historical youth is the Kiev period and the time of the Tatar yoke, which Chaadaev speaks of; “first - wild barbarism, then gross ignorance, then ferocious and humiliating foreign domination, the spirit of which was later inherited by our national power - such is the sad story of our youth...” (Gershenzon, 209). This era did not leave “neither captivating memories, nor graceful images in the memory of the people, nor powerful teachings in its tradition. Look around all the centuries we have lived through, all the space we occupy, - you will not find a single attractive memory, not a single venerable monument that would powerfully speak to you about the past, that would recreate it vividly and picturesquely...” (ibid.).

The sharp exaggeration is striking - and already Pushkin, in a letter to Chaadaev, reasonably objected to him, pointing out that his colors were too thick. Our historical past, of course, does not shine with bright colors and, in comparison with the Western European Middle Ages, seems dull, gray, nondescript - but the picture drawn by Chaadaev only testifies to the fact that its author did not have the makings of a historian, was not called to a calm and objective historical contemplation, but was a typical impressionist in history and in the philosophy of history. It is impossible to build any correct historical view on impressionism, especially if the starting point is a preconceived narrow idea, like the one that inspired Chaadaev.

But, however, if we discard the extremes (“not a single attractive memory,” “not a single venerable monument,” etc.) and inappropriate demands (for example, some “graceful images”), if we filter Chaadaev’s retrospective philippics, then in the sediment you will get the completely possible and natural mood of a thinking person who, having tasted European culture, endures from the contemplation of our past sorrowful thoughts about its relative scarcity, about oppressive and dulling living conditions, about some kind of national weakness. Subsequently, the historian Shchapov (it seems, independently of Chaadaev’s ideas) in a number of studies made an attempt to document this sad fact of our historical poverty. The attempt was not entirely successful, but it showed the psychological possibility of such a mood and view, no longer at all conditioned by a biased mystical doctrine or any predilections for the Catholic West.

Let's read again, moving from the past to the present:

1 P. N. Milyukov points to Bonald’s essay “Legislation primitive, considereparla Raison”, as well as the ideas of J. de Maistre as the source of Chaadaev’s historical and philosophical views.

“Look around you. Don't we all feel like we can't sit still? We all look like travelers. No one has a defined sphere of existence (?), no one has developed good habits for anything (?), no rules for anything (?); there is not even a home (??)... In our homes we seem to be stationed, in the family we look like strangers, in the cities we seem to be nomads, and even more so than those nomads who graze their herds in our steppes, for they are stronger tied to our deserts than we are to our cities...” (p. 208).

All this is obviously exaggerated almost to the point of absurdity, and the colors are condensed to the point of clumsiness. But nevertheless, there is a grain of deep truth hidden here.

Lack of cultural bearing, upbringing, alienation from the environment, melancholy of existence, “mental wandering”, lack of what can be called “cultural settledness” - all these traits are too well known, and in this book we will talk about them in detail. But here’s what you should pay attention to and what, I hope, will become clear at the end of this “psychological story” of our intelligentsia. The traits that Chaadaev, as usual, pointed out, greatly exaggerating his colors, began to decline - as the numerical growth of our intelligentsia and the progressive development of its ideology. Chatsky simply ran - “to search the world where there is a corner for an offended feeling,” Onegin and Pechorin were bored, “wasted their lives” and wandered, Rudin “wandered with his soul,” toiled and died in Paris on the barricades. But Lavretsky already “sat down on the ground” and, after all, “plowed it” and found “shelter.” Then came the “nihilists”, “raznochintsy”, “repentant nobles”, and they all more or less knew what they were doing, what they wanted, where they were going - and were more or less free from “Chaadaev sentiments” and from spiritual yearnings of people of the 40s.

The gap between the thinking, progressive part of society and the surrounding wider social environment filled and disappeared. In the 70s and subsequent years, the intelligentsia came close to the masses...

Nevertheless, “Chaadayev sentiments” are far from being eliminated; the possibility of their emergence, in a more or less mitigated form, has not been eliminated. We can only say that we are moving towards eliminating them in the future and that after the great turn of our history in the 60s they have lost their former sharpness.

“Chaadaev sentiments” were, in pre-reform times, a psychologically inevitable product of the alienation of the advanced part of society from the wider social environment and from the people.

The reforms of the 60s, the success of democratization, the spread of education, the numerical growth of the intelligentsia made it impossible for these bleak moods to return to their former severity - in the form of that “national pessimism” or “national despair” to which people of the 30s and 40s, who sympathetically listened to Chaadaev’s philippics, but did not share his views and conclusions.

Even the balanced Russian patriot Pushkin, who so cleverly and aptly objected to Chaadaev, was not alien to “Chaadaev’s sentiments.” “After so many objections,” the great poet wrote to the Moscow thinker, “I must tell you that there are many things of deep truth in your message. It must be admitted that our social life is very sad. This lack of public opinion, this indifference to all duty, to justice and truth, this cynical contempt for thought and human dignity, truly leads to despair. You did well to “say it out loud...”

Pushkin, like many, approved of Chaadaev’s philippics in that part of it that was aimed at modern Russia, at the Russian reality of that time, but did not recognize Chaadaev’s sweeping attacks on the historical past of Russia and his negative, deeply pessimistic attitude towards its future as valid.

Both Westerners and advanced Slavophiles had the same negative attitude towards modern Russian reality. But neither one nor the other lost faith in the future of Russia and were very far from the national self-denial and self-abasement of which Chaadaev was the exponent.

And much of what they changed their minds, felt, what they created, what the noblest minds of the era expressed - Belinsky, Granovsky, Herzen, K. Aksakov, Iv. and P. Kireevskys, Khomyakov, then Samarin and others - was, as it were, an “answer” to the question raised by Chaadaev. As if to refute Chaadaev’s pessimism, a generation of remarkable figures appeared, whose mental and moral life marked the beginning of our further development. To Chaadaev, the whole of Russian history seemed like some kind of misunderstanding, a senseless vegetation in alienation from the civilized world moving forward - Slavophiles and Westerners sought to understand the meaning of our historical past, believing in advance that it existed and that Russian history, like Western European history, can and should have your own “philosophy”. Diverging in their understanding of the meaning of our historical life, they agreed in a mournful denial of the present and in the desire to look into the future, in hope for the future, which Chaadaev seemed insignificant and hopeless 1.

The history of the Russian intelligentsia throughout the 19th century has been moving in the direction, as stated above, of the decline of “Chaadayevism” in its various forms, and it can be foreseen that in the near future we will achieve its complete elimination.

Finding out the socio-psychological foundations of “Chaadayev sentiments”, their consistent softening, their temporary (in different eras) aggravation, and finally, their inevitable abolition in the future will be the task of the proposed work.