Russian philosopher, thinker and publicist Ancestor of the Russian religious

philosophy The main works are "Philosophical Letters" (1836), "Works and Letters" (vols. 1-2, ed. 1913-1914) He expressed thoughts about Russia's excommunication from

world history, spiritual stagnation and national complacency,

hindering the realization and fulfillment by it of the historical

missions. In the Apology of a Madman (1837), written in response to the accusations,

expressed faith in the historical future of Russia

The history of original Russian social thought, according to Berdyaev, begins in 1829.

year, when the message of P Chaadaev E Panova was written, later published in

magazine "Telescope" "This is the cry of despair of a man who loves his homeland" Chaadaev

believes that the Russians, as it were, are not part of humanity, but exist only

then to teach him (mankind) a lesson

takes care of publishing what he has written. In the meantime, what he has created is read in lists.

Since 1831, he settled forever in the wing of the large house of E.G. Levasheva on

Novo-Basmannaya. Here he lives for some time with M. Bakunin, gets acquainted with

V. Belinsky. From here he travels not only to the English Club, but also to where

people gather who are deeply concerned about the fate of Russia - Herzen in "The Past and Thoughts"

recalls very long disputes and debates, until 2 a.m. two or three times a day.

week: Chaadaev (Monday), Sverbeev (Friday), A.P. Elagina

(Sunday), etc.

Chaadaev obviously did not belong to any of the circles formed at that time. And

This is not surprising. He constantly felt the secret surveillance established over him, from

who was not spared even by five years of "exemplary" behavior in the countryside.

Moreover, he, as "convicted of having connections with the Decembrists", by virtue of the ban

to engage in social activities, any official

forms of manifestation of their democratic convictions. He could not, like

Granovsky, to express his credo from the university department, could not

publishing activities. Should it not be assumed that the appeal to

Vasilchikov, Benkendorf and Nikolai with a request to be appointed to the state

service was an attempt to somehow legalize their position? Is it possible and worth it

explain humiliating letters to ruling persons only with difficult material

position or, even more so, the desire to join the bureaucratic class?

1833, the censorship committee did not give permission for the publication of the presented

Chaadaev books.

Chaadaev is persistently looking for an opportunity to make public what

suffered by him in the silence of the office, Finally he succeeds. Magazine editor

liberal direction "Telescope" Nadezhdin took the liberty of publishing

the first philosophical letter in the fifteenth issue for 1836. From

accompanying the publication of Nadezhdin's remark, it is clear, firstly, that the article

designed for "thinking readers", secondly, that it is only a link in a series of letters,

imbued with the same spirit, developing one main idea (Nadezhdin, of course,

does not say which one), thirdly, that there is "permission to decorate our magazine and

others from this series of letters", and, finally, fourthly, all this is reported

"with pleasure", because one can see "the sublimity of the subject, the depth and

vastness of views, strict sequence of conclusions and energetic

sincerity of expression...

It should be noted that before the official reaction, Chaadaev not only did not complain about the publishers,

but was very encouraged by the fact of the appearance of the article. In a letter to Princess S.

when repressions had not yet fallen on Chaadaev, he writes "

"They say that there is a lot of noise; I am not at all surprised by this. However, I

it is known that my article has earned some favor in a well-known layer

society. Of course, it was not with that that she was written to go to the blessed

to the population of our living rooms, indulging in the glorious life of whist and reversi.

You know me too well and, of course, you have no doubt that all this hubbub

takes me very little. You know that I never thought about the public that I

I could never even comprehend how one could write for an audience like ours:

still refer to the fish of the sea, to the birds of the air. Be that as it may, if

what I said is true, it will remain, if not, there is no need for it to remain."

The noise from the first - and only lifetime - publication of Chaadaev was

really big. Herzen very figuratively likened the "Philosophical Letter"

shot in the middle of the night. According to biographer M Zhikharev, no event

excluding the death of Pushkin, did not make such an impression: "Even people, never

not engaged in any literary business; round ignoramuses; ladies, by degree

intellectual development, not much different from their cooks and henchmen,

clerks and officials, bogged down and drowned in embezzlement and bribery;

stupid, ignorant, half-mad saints, bigots or bigots, gray-haired

and wild in drunkenness, debauchery or superstition, young paternal lovers and old

patriots - all combined in one common cry of cursing and contempt for a person,

who dared to offend Russia"

In the first of his philosophical letters, Chaadaev advises his correspondent

(implies Panova) adhere to all church rites, exercise in

humility, which, in his words, "strengthens the mind." According to Chaadaev, only

"measured way of life" corresponds to spiritual development In relation to Russia

Chaadaev speaks out very critically, believing that alone in the world, we are nothing

we didn’t give the world, we didn’t teach it anything, we didn’t add a single idea to the mass of ideas

human. We have lived and continue to live only to serve some

an important lesson for distant generations

At the same time, he exalts Western Europe in every possible way, believing that there ideas

duty, justice, law, order were born from the very events that formed

there society, are a necessary element in the social contribution. Chaadaev saw in

Catholic Church, dominant in the West, champion of enlightenment and freedom.

At the same time, Chaadaev criticized serfdom in Russia.

The tone for the persecution was set by the head of the Department of Religious Affairs of Foreign

draws pastoral attention to the fact that in the "blameless article, there is no line,

which would not be the most terrible slander against Russia, there is no word that would not be

the most severe insult to our people's honor "Further, quite clearly

the accusation of criminal belonging to a revolutionary party is formulated:

"Among the horrors of the French Revolution, when the greatness of God and kings was trampled,

this has never been seen Never, nowhere, in any country, no one

I did not allow myself to be impudent." And, finally, the cry "And where? in Moscow, in

our capital city ... this crime And

there is a publisher who extols her with praises and threatens with other similar

letters! And there is censorship that lets it all through. Oh my God! what we've come to."

From a letter from Benckendorff to the Tsar" "Everything that is sacred for us Russians is desecrated,

destroyed, slandered with incredible prejudice, and with cruel insult as

for our people's honor, so for the government, and even for the professed by us

Orthodox Faith".

The next is known. The king's resolution followed, according to which

Chaadaev was declared insane. He was ordered not to leave the house.

Police supervision was hardened by open coercive measures.

Chaadaev himself reacted to his fate with his characteristic sad irony. AT

In a letter to his brother, he writes: “According to the highest command, papers were taken from me, and I myself

It's been three months since I've lost my mind Now the publisher has been exiled to Vologda, the censor

dismissed from office, and I continue to be crazy. Now I think it's clear to you

it is clear that everything happened in a legal order, and that there is nothing and no one to ask for.

Most of all, he is depressing by the non-return of the selected papers, "because they contain

are the works of my whole life, everything that was its goal.

There was something to fall into despair. But, although many ties collapsed, although it is necessary

to be content with one walk a day and "to see gentlemen

physicians" (at first - an arrogant and drunken staff doctor), Chaadaeva is encouraging

the consoling friendship of lovely hosts and the frequent visits of comrades.

In communication with those in power and in correspondence open to censorship "crazy"

continues to play the man loyal to the government, and in

his passionate voice of an educator and a fighter sounds in uncensored works.

The pinnacle of Chaadaev's political thought, together with the proclamations of the 1840s -

"A Madman's Apology" (1837), written in 1837 and published only

after his death in 1862 in Paris by Prince Gagarin. Chaadaev is already more sober

evaluates the history of Russia. He writes that the barrenness of historical development

Russia in the past is in a sense a boon, since the Russian

the people are not bound by petrified forms of life and therefore have the freedom of spirit to

fulfill the great tasks of the future that lie before him. At the same time, he gave

great importance to Orthodoxy, which, in his opinion, is able to revive the body

catholic church. He acknowledged that in the future Russia will become the center

intellectual life of Europe, if, of course, it assimilates all the most valuable

in Europe and will carry out the mission destined for her by God. In these thoughts

Chaadaev echoes the ideas of the Slavophiles.

It is easy to make a mistake if we consider the life of Chaadaev and, in particular, the mood

recent years, in isolation from specific historical conditions and the essence of life in general, in

separation from the level of self-consciousness of the philosopher. Let's take a look at his own words:

"A joyless spectacle presents us with an outstanding mind, beating between

striving to anticipate too slow progressive development

humanity... and the squalor of infant civilization, which thus

involuntarily thrown into the power of all sorts of whims

imagination, ambitious ideas, and sometimes - we have to admit it - and

deep delusions.

Chaadaev and at the end of his life remained true to his principle, to seek

the truth despite the official ban, contrary to the official opinion of the authorities,

despite the existence of these authorities, but not at any cost, not at the cost of one’s own head, but

being careful, fawning over the powers that be, assuring her of full

devotion It is difficult now to say to what extent and whether everyone believed in

Moscow Governor-General Prince D.V. Golitsyn on the termination of "treatment"

Chaadaev imposed the following resolution: "Release from medical supervision under

condition not to dare to write anything. " Chaadaev was allowed to go for walks,

but do not pay visits. He continued to be "crazy", he was feared

Chaadaev was doomed to loneliness (the prophecies of youth, obvious

became the meaninglessness of the fuss of the surrounding Russian life) And if someone else

hoped for changes in connection with the accession of Alexander II, then Chaadaev remained

true to himself: "Look at him, it's just scary for Russia. This is a stupid expression,

those pewter eyes..." If Chaadaev could connect with anyone the realization

his ideals, then only with the masses of the people He addresses them in the now

now known proclamation. It contains propaganda of European revolutionary

events, a call for the unity of peoples against autocratic oppression. soulful

the lines are addressed to the peasant masses. In other words, in the 1840s Chaadaev

turned out to be more to the left of those European socialists who, in solving social

contradictions counted on the nobility and other virtues of the ruling classes

Moreover, when the revolutionary movement of 1848-1850 failed and,

it would seem that the last hope collapsed, Chaadaev, it can be assumed, did not lose

faith in the omnipotence of educational activities among the broad masses, Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev died as a tenant in a strange house on April 14, 1856, according to the old style.

Through all the vicissitudes of his personal life, Chaadaev carried a deep and extraordinary love for

Fatherland, to the Russian people. Love for the Fatherland for him is far from the same thing.

the same as love for the reigning house and the "public", mired in whims and lusts

During the heyday of the thinker's creative powers, his faith in the bright ideal was strengthened.

such a social structure and such a path of development in which all peoples

gain enlightenment and freedom. With faith in the coming hour of Russia, Chaadaev passed his

Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev (1794-1856) - Russian religious thinker, philosopher, publicist. He was born in Moscow into a well-born noble family. His father Ya.P. Chaadaev, a retired lieutenant colonel of the guard, served as an adviser to the Nizhny Novgorod Criminal Chamber, and in his spare time was engaged in literary activities. Peter's mother, Natalya Mikhailovna, came from an ancient and noble family of princes Shcherbatovs. Little Peter and his older brother Mikhail were left orphans early. In 1795, their father died, and two years later, their mother. The brothers ended up in the care of their own uncle and aunt, who replaced their parents.

In 1808 P.Ya. Chaadaev entered and four years later graduated from Moscow University. At this time, he is reputed to be one of the most brilliant young people of the Moscow "big world", enjoys a reputation as a social dandy and handsome. In 1812, in the rank of ensign P.Ya. Chaadaev begins military service in the Semyonovsky Guards Regiment, then in the Akhtyrsky Hussar Regiment. He participates in the Patriotic War of 1812, in the battle of Borodino and foreign campaigns of the Russian army. After the war, in 1816. Chaadaev began his service at the imperial court, in 1819 he received the rank of captain. During these years, he makes a close acquaintance with N.M. Karamzin, young A.S. Pushkin, many future Decembrists. In 1820, he was sent with a report to the emperor, who was then abroad, about the unrest in the Semyonovsky regiment. Highly appreciating the concept of noble honor, Chaadaev considered this order offensive, because he had to deal with denunciation. Faithful to the oath, Chaadaev fulfilled the order, but immediately submitted his resignation.

Since 1821 P.Ya. Chaadaev lives a private life - he never served anywhere else. In the summer of 1821 he agreed to join the Decembrist Society, but in 1823 he went abroad. Three years of travel coincided with the most severe spiritual crisis, when Chaadaev critically reconsiders his entire worldview. Chaadaev's visits to the lectures of the German philosopher Schelling, with whom the Russian thinker struck up friendly relations, also played a role in this.

Returning to Russia in 1826, P.Ya. Chaadaev leads a reclusive life. In 1828 - 1830. he writes his famous "Philosophical Letters" - a total of eight "Philosophical Letters" were written. Since 1831, Chaadaev settled in Moscow, became a permanent member of the English Club. In 1832, the first publication of P.Ya. appeared in the Telescope magazine. Chaadaev - his philosophical aphorisms and reflections on Egyptian and Gothic architecture. But the loudest publication took place in 1836 - in the fifteenth issue of the Telescope magazine, readers saw the "First Philosophical Letter" by P.Ya. Chaadaev. The author and the publisher intended to continue publishing the following letters, but this intention could not be realized.

The publication of the "First Philosophical Letter" turned out to be akin to a bomb explosion that shook the entire thinking Russian society. “For about a month, there was almost no house among the whole of Moscow where they would not talk about the “Chaadaev article” and about the “Chaadaev story” ... "- wrote one of his contemporaries. And the publisher of the magazine "Telescope" N.I. Nadezhdin wrote in one of his letters: "I am in great fear. Chaadaev's letter, placed in the 15th book, aroused a terrible uproar in Moscow ... Horror that they say ..." development, and the Russian people so far "constitutes a gap in the order of the rational existence of mankind." With serious criticism of the views of P.Ya. Chaadaev were presented by A.S. Pushkin, A.S. Khomyakov and many other Russian thinkers. True, this criticism was expressed in private letters, and not in the open press. Only a very few, such as A.I. Herzen, agreed with the conclusions of the author of the "Philosophical Letter".

The publication of the "First Philosophical Letter" brought the wrath of the authorities on Chaadaev. Already in October 1836, he was officially declared insane and was under constant medical and police supervision. The magazine "Telescope" was closed.

Such a sharp reaction from the authorities and almost unanimous public condemnation forced Chaadaev to significantly reconsider his views. In 1837, he wrote "A Madman's Apology", which contained a much more optimistic assessment of the future of Russia.

The last years of his life, Pyotr Yakovlevich lived in Moscow in a small outbuilding on Novaya Basmannaya Street, solitary and modest. Nevertheless, he was constantly well received not only in the Moscow English Club, but also in the circle of Westerners and Slavophiles. Moscow society looked at him as a strange eccentric, but at the same time feared his sharp tongue. Chaadaev died on April 14, 1856. He was buried in Moscow at the cemetery of the Donskoy Monastery.

When analyzing the philosophical views of P.Ya. Chaadaev must be borne in mind that they do not find full expression in any one of his works. For the most complete understanding of Chaadaev's philosophy, it is necessary to study the entire complex of his writings, including private correspondence. After all, deprived of the right to publish his works, Chaadaev often included philosophical discussions in letters to private individuals. And one more important point. Often the whole worldview of P.Ya. Chaadaev is reduced to his "First Philosophical Letter", in which his negative attitude towards Russia is especially highlighted. In fact, everything was much more complicated, and Chaadaev's assessment of Russia depended on his general philosophical position. In addition, Chaadaev's understanding of Russia's place in human civilization was far from unambiguous.

The main thing in the philosophical position of P.Ya. Chaadaeva - religious worldview. He said of himself: "I, thank God, am not a theologian or a lawyer, but simply a Christian philosopher." But his religious views were not included in the framework of any confession - Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism. P.Ya. Chaadaev, as a religious thinker, sought to give a religious understanding of the philosophy of history and the philosophy of culture from the standpoint of a unified Christian teaching. No wonder he wrote that his religion "does not coincide with the religion of the theologians," and even called his religious world "the religion of the future," "to which all fiery hearts and deep souls are now turned."

From Christian positions, Chaadaev builds his doctrine of being. Above the entire created world stands God, from whom creative radiation emanates. The core of the world is the universal human world consciousness, which receives this radiation. Below is an individual person who, due to original sin, has lost his connection with the whole of humanity and with God. And, finally, at the last step is the whole pre-human nature.

But the focus of the Russian thinker is not so much cosmological as historiosophical questions. The fact is that one of the main questions to which he was looking for an answer is the "mystery of time", in other words, the meaning of human history. Naturally, Chaadaev looked for answers to this question in Christianity.

According to him, the main idea of ​​mankind is the idea of ​​the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is "heaven on earth", "realized moral law". Thus, it is the Kingdom of God that Chaadaev turns into the main and only goal of all historical development. In fact, all human history leads to the fact that the Kingdom of God must be arranged. This is precisely the purpose of Divine Providence in relation to humanity. So, the meaning of history lies in one thing: history is the process of creating the Kingdom of God, and the historical process is driven by Divine Providence.

Proceeding from such an understanding of history, it is quite clear that for Chaadaev historical being cannot be understood outside of Christianity and its earthly history. Therefore, in historical reality, the Church is the embodiment of the Kingdom of God on earth for Chaadaev. Here it must be emphasized that Chaadaev was talking about a single Church, not divided into any confessions. "The vocation of the Church in the centuries," wrote Chaadaev, "was to give the world a Christian civilization."

Moreover, it is interesting that Chaadaev claims that the establishment of the Kingdom of God is possible on earth, in the process of real history: "This is the true meaning of the dogma of faith in a single Church ... in the Christian world, everything should contribute - and really contributes - to the establishment of a perfect order on earth - the Kingdom of God." Here it is worth recalling that in Orthodoxy the Kingdom of God is a mystical concept that arises after the end of real earthly history (after the Apocalypse).

If the Church appears to Chaadaev as the earthly incarnation of the Kingdom of God, then the main subject of history, creating history and culture, is man. Yes, the historical process is mysteriously driven by Divine Providence, but conduction is embodied in the free actions of people. No wonder Chaadaeva objected so sharply to the "superstitious idea of ​​God's daily intervention" in history.

In this regard, the anthropological teaching of P.Ya. Chaadaev. In his understanding, the essence of man, as a spiritual being, inevitably has a dual character: he belongs to nature and, at the same time, rises above it. The highest principle in man, of course, has its origin from God. But it is formed thanks to the social environment, because in human history the bearer of God is the all-human world consciousness, which receives the Divine creative radiation. Thus, it is the human society, as the carrier of the "universal mind" that forms the individual person and his mind: "If you do not agree that the thought of a person is the thought of the human race, then there is no way to understand what it is," wrote P.Ya. Chaadaev.

Chaadaev rather sharply condemns the ideas of individualism, which were becoming more and more popular in Russia. In his opinion, the "pernicious self", imbued with a "personal principle", "only separates a person from everything around and clouds objects." God grants the world and man a moral law - a person is dependent on the "universal mind" and must be aware of his dependence, because only by being imbued with the "universal" spiritual principle, a person can cognize the Divine laws. The goal of man is "the merging of our being with the universal being," wrote Chaadaev and argued that it was this complete merging that "promises a complete renewal of our nature, the last facet of the efforts of a rational being, the final destination of the spirit in the world." And in another place he emphasized: "The purpose of man is the destruction of personal being and its replacement by being completely social or impersonal." And Chaadaev resolutely asserts that humanity "is one person", and each of the people is "a participant in the work of (higher) consciousness." At the same time, the "higher consciousness" itself is a "set of ideas" and "the spiritual essence of the universe."

That is why individualism is pernicious - it does not correspond to the Divine Plan for man and the world. "Subjective reason," according to Chaadaev, is full of "deceptive arrogance" and leads to the isolation of the individual from his "universal being." It is in this false isolation from the "universal being" that man's damage lies, and it is this isolation that is the main consequence of original sin.

Based on such philosophical views, P.Ya. Chaadaev strove to find the most in real human history the forces capable of fulfilling Divine Providence - arranging the Kingdom of God on earth. In his opinion, the era of antiquity could not incarnate God in the world, because it was too material, obeyed the cult of the body. Islam, which is far from the truth, does not cope with this task either. Christianity and the one Christian Church are the true incarnation of God. But in real history, the united Church broke up into different confessions. Which of the denominations stands closest to the ideal of a single Church?

And in this regard, Chaadaev makes an unexpected conclusion - he admitted that only in the Christian West, namely in the Catholic Church, God's Providence was realized to the greatest extent. "Despite all the incompleteness, imperfection and depravity inherent in the European world, ... it cannot be denied that the Kingdom of God has been realized to a certain extent in it," wrote Chaadaev. It is in the Catholic Church that he finds "a visible sign of unity, and, at the same time, a symbol of reunification." And the main argument for such judgments Chaadaev calls the undoubted successes of the West in the development of culture, which for the Russian thinker was evidence of the realization of "universal consciousness" in history.

Proceeding from such an understanding of the essence and meaning of the real history of mankind, the attitude of P.Ya. Chaadaev to Russia and its place in the history of mankind. Chaadaev, one of the first Russian thinkers of the 19th century, who began to speak about the special position of Russia: "We do not belong to either the West or the East, and we have no traditions of either. Standing, as it were, outside of time, we were not affected by the worldwide upbringing of the human race." For Chaadaev himself, Russia's special position in the world is not a good deed, but a great tragedy. In the "First Philosophical Letter" he bitterly states: "We live in the present in its closest limits, without the past and the future ... We also did not perceive anything from the successive ideas of the human race ... We have absolutely no internal development, natural progress ... " According to Chaadaev, Russia has given nothing to the world, world culture, has not contributed anything to the historical experience of mankind. In other words, Russia has fallen away from the single body of world history and even, as he writes, "lost her way on earth." And finally, Chaadaev claims that Russia constitutes "a gap in the moral world order."

Pyotr Yakovlevich cannot understand the reasons for such a situation. He sees in this a riddle, a mystery, the guilt of "inscrutable fate." Moreover, Chaadaev suddenly claims that Divine Providence Itself "was not concerned about our fate": "Excluding us from its beneficial effect on the human mind, it (Providence. - S.P.) completely left on ourselves, refused, as it were, did not interfere in our affairs, did not want to teach us anything.

But not only "rock", the Russian people themselves are to blame for their own situation. And an attempt to determine the reasons for such an unenviable fate of Russia leads Chaadaev to a rather sharp conclusion - he sees this reason in the fact that Russia adopted Orthodoxy: "In obedience to our evil fate, we turned to ... Byzantium for the moral charter that was to form the basis of our upbringing". However, it should be noted here that Chaadaev’s condemnation of Orthodoxy is theoretical in nature, he himself remained a parishioner of the Orthodox Church all his life, and was outraged to the core when rumors arose about his conversion to Catholicism.

The thesis that Divine Providence "excluded" Russia from its "beneficial action" was flawed. The recognition of the truth of this thesis meant that the action of Providence is not universal, therefore, it infringed on the concept of the Lord as an all-encompassing force. Therefore, already in the "First Philosophical Letter" Chaadaev seeks to continue his reasoning. Therefore, he says: “We belong to the number of those nations that, as it were, are not part of humanity, but exist only in order to give the world some important lesson ... And in general, we lived and continue to live only in order to serve some important lesson for distant generations."

Recall that the "First Philosophical Letter" itself was written in 1829, and published only in 1836. So, even before the publication of the letter, P.Ya. Chaadaev developed his reflections on the fate of Russia. In 1835, in a letter to P.A. Vyazemsky, he states: "In relation to world civilization, we are in a completely special position, not yet appreciated ... I am convinced that we are destined to solve the greatest problems of thought and society, because we are free from the harmful pressure of prejudices and authorities that have enchanted the minds in Europe" . Then, in a letter to A.I. Chaadaev wrote to Turgenev: "I am of the opinion that Russia is called upon to undertake an immense mental task: its task is to resolve in due time all the questions that arouse disputes in Europe." And then Chaadaev deepens his thought even more, believing that Russia "received the task of giving in due time the solution of the human riddle." And, finally, in another letter to A.I. Turgenev (1835) P.Ya. Chaadaev comes to the conclusion that "Providence has created us too great to be selfish ... It has placed us outside the interests of nationalities and entrusted us with the interests of mankind." These thoughts were also confirmed in the work "A Madman's Apologia", written in 1837: "I have a deep conviction that we are called to solve most of the problems of the social order, to complete most of the ideas that have arisen in old societies, to answer the most important questions, which occupy humanity."

So, from the denial of at least some participation of Providence in the fate of Russia, Chaadaev gradually comes to the conclusion about the special plan of Providence for Russia, about the great destiny of Russia, which is intended for her by God Himself.

Summing up, it must be said that the appearance of the "First Philosophical Letter" and the controversy surrounding it were of great importance for the development of Russian social thought. It contributed to the beginning of the ideological and organizational formation of Slavophilism and Westernism, two currents that determined the development of Russian philosophical thought in the first half of the 19th century.

© All rights reserved

On the maternal side, the grandson of the academician, historian M. M. Shcherbatov, the author of the 7-volume edition of The History of Russia from Ancient Times. He was left an orphan early - his father died the next year after his birth, and his mother in 1797. He and his older brother Mikhail, very young, were taken from the Nizhny Novgorod province to Moscow by an aunt - Princess Anna Mikhailovna Shcherbatova, they lived with her in Moscow, in Serebryany Lane, next to the famous Church of St. Nicholas the Manifestation on the Arbat. Their uncle, Prince D. M. Shcherbatov, became the guardian of the Chaadaevs, in whose house Chaadaev received his education.

War of 1812,

Chaadaev in 1815

In May 1812, the Chaadaev brothers entered the Semyonovsky regiment as life ensigns, in which their guardian uncle had previously served. In 1813, Chaadaev moved from the Semyonovsky regiment, where his brother and friends remained, to the Akhtyrsky hussar regiment.

His biographer M. Zhikharev wrote:

Participated in the battle of Tarutino, at Maloyaroslavets, Lutsen, Bautzen, near Leipzig, took Paris. Throughout the war he went side by side with his university friend Yakushkin.

After World War II,

Foreign voyage

On July 6, 1823, in particular, due to deteriorating health, he left to travel around England, France, Switzerland, Italy, and Germany. Before leaving, in May 1822, Chaadaev shared his property with his brother, not intending to return to Russia.

Sailing on a ship from Kronstadt, he landed near Yarmouth, from where he went to London, where he stayed for 4 days, leaving it for the sea bathing of Brighton. From England he moved to Paris, from there to Switzerland. At the end of March 1825, he ends up in Rome, then goes to Carlsbad, where Nikolai Turgenev accompanies him and meets the leader. book. Konstantin Pavlovich. Despite the fact that he is constantly engaged in treatment, his health is only deteriorating. Chaadaev also visited Milan. In June 1826, Chaadaev left for his homeland.

Relations with Freemasons and Decembrists,

In 1826, after returning to Russia, he was arrested on suspicion of involvement with the Decembrists - in July, in the border Brest-Litovsk. “In letters to his relatives, Chaadaev said that he was leaving forever, and his close friend Yakushkin was so sure of this that during interrogation after the defeat of the rebels, he calmly named Chaadaev among the people he had recruited into an illegal organization.” On August 26, a detailed interrogation was taken from Chaadaev at the behest of Nicholas I. A signature was taken from Chaadaev about his non-participation in any secret societies, and he categorically denied his participation in the Northern Society. Released after 40 days.

Subsequently, he will speak negatively about the Decembrist uprising, arguing that, in his opinion, their impulse pushed the nation back half a century.

"Basman Philosopher",

The city estate of E. G. Levasheva on Novaya Basmannaya, where Chaadaev lived in 1833-1856 (it is likely that the wing in which he lived has not been preserved).

In early September, he arrives in Moscow. “On October 4, Chaadaev moved to permanent residence in the village of his aunt near Moscow in the Dmitrovsky district. Chaadaev lives alone, unsociable, reads a lot. A constant secret police supervision is established behind him here. At this time, Avdotya Sergeevna Norova, a neighbor on the estate, fell in love with him, in whom "the cult of Chaadaev arose, close to a kind of religious exaltation."

He lived in Moscow and in a village estate (with his aunt Shcherbatova in the Dmitrievsky district, then in the Levashevs' house on Basmannaya), creating in 1829-1831. his famous “Philosophical Letters” (“Letters on the Philosophy of History”, addressed to Mrs. E. D. Panova). Beginning in the spring of 1830, their lists began to go from hand to hand in Russian educated society. In May or June 1831, Chaadaev again began to appear in society.

The publication in 1836 of the first of the “Letters” caused a real scandal and made the impression of “a shot that rang out on a dark night” (Herzen), aroused the wrath of Nicholas I, who wrote: “After reading the article, I find that the content of it is a mixture of impudent nonsense, worthy ".

The Teleskop magazine, where the Letter was printed, was closed, the editor was exiled, and the censor was fired from his service. Chaadaev was summoned to the Moscow police chief and announced that, by order of the government, he was considered crazy. Every day a doctor came to see him for an examination; he was considered under house arrest, had the right to go for a walk only once a day. The supervision of the police doctor for the "sick" was removed only in 1837, under the condition that he "did not dare to write anything." There is a legend that the doctor, called to observe him, at the first meeting told him: "If it were not for my family, wife and six children, I would show them who is really crazy."

Tombstone, Donskoy Monastery-Necropolis

During this period, Chaadaev assumed the role (which was reinforced by the attitude of admirers towards him) as a prophet in his own country. In 1827, A. V. Yakushkina writes about him: “... he is extremely exalted and is completely saturated with the spirit of holiness (...). Every minute he covers his face, straightens up, does not hear what is said to him, and then, as if by inspiration, begins to speak. To communicate with his admirers, he actively used the epistolary genre.

Chaadaev's next work was The Madman's Apologia (not published during his lifetime; his nephew and archivist M. I. Zhikharev brought an unpublished manuscript to Chernyshevsky in Sovremennik in 1860). Until the end of his life, he remained in Moscow, took an active part in all ideological meetings in Moscow, which gathered the most remarkable people of that time (Khomyakov, Kireevsky, Herzen, K. Aksakov, Samarin, Granovsky, etc.).

Herzen wrote about him during this period:

The sad and original figure of Chaadaev is sharply separated by some kind of sad reproach against the clingy and heavy background of the Moscow nobility. I loved to look at him among this tinsel nobility, windy senators, gray-haired rake and honorable nonentity. No matter how thick the crowd, the eye found him at once. Summer did not distort his slender figure, he dressed very carefully, his pale, tender face was completely motionless when he was silent, as if made of wax or marble, “a brow like a naked skull”, gray-blue eyes were sad and with that together they had something good, thin lips, on the contrary, smiled ironically. For ten years he stood with folded arms somewhere by a column, by a tree on the boulevard, in halls and theaters, in a club, and - incarnated veto, in lively protest, looked at the whirlwind of faces that were senselessly circling around him, became capricious, became strange, alienated from society, could not leave it ... Again he appeared capricious, dissatisfied, irritated, again weighed on Moscow society and again did not leave it. The old and the young were uncomfortable with him, not at ease, they, God knows why, were ashamed of his motionless face, his straight-looking gaze, his sad mockery, his caustic indulgence ... Acquaintance with him could only compromise a person in the eyes of the government police.

“Almost all of us knew Chaadaev, many loved him, and, perhaps, he was not so dear to anyone as to those who were considered his opponents. An enlightened mind, an artistic sense, a noble heart - these are the qualities that attracted everyone to him; but at a time when, apparently, the thought plunged into a heavy and involuntary sleep, he was especially dear because he himself was awake and prompted others - because in the gathering twilight of that time he did not let the lamp go out and played in that game, which is known under the name "smoking room is alive". There are eras in which such a game is already a great merit. He was even more dear to his friends for some kind of constant sadness that accompanied the cheerfulness of his lively mind ... How to explain his fame? He was neither a literary figure, nor an engine of political life, nor a financial force, and yet the name of Chaadaev was known in St. Petersburg and in most of the Russian provinces, almost to all educated people who did not even have any direct conflict with him.

A. S. Khomyakov (1861)

Feature ,

He experienced the strongest influence of German classical philosophy in the person of Schelling, whose ideas he met during his trip to Europe in -1826. During the years spent in Europe, he continued to study the works of French traditionalists (de Maistre, Bonald, Ballanche, early Lamennay).

Although Chaadaev was deprived of the opportunity to publish, his work went on the lists, and he remained an influential thinker who had a significant impact (especially by posing the problem of the historical fate of Russia) on representatives of various schools of thought. Chaadaev had a significant impact on the further development of Russian philosophical thought, in many ways initiating the controversy between Westerners and Slavophiles. According to A. Grigoriev, it “was that glove that at once separated two hitherto, if not united, then not separated camps of thinking and writing people. In it, for the first time, the question of the meaning of our nationality, selfhood, and particularity was raised in an unabstracted way, until then peacefully resting, until then not touched or raised by anyone.

“The trace left by Chaadaev in the minds of Russian society is so deep and indelible that the question involuntarily arises: is it not a diamond that has been drawn on glass? (...) All those properties that Russian life was deprived of, which she did not even suspect, were purposely combined in Chaadaev’s personality: tremendous internal discipline, high intellectualism, moral architectonics and the coldness of the mask, the medal with which a person surrounds himself, realizing that in the ages he is only a form, and in advance preparing a mold for his immortality.

Philosophical letters,

In "Philosophical Letters" he declared himself an adherent of a number of principles of Catholicism, but Herzen called his worldview "revolutionary Catholicism", since Chaadaev was inspired by an unrealistic idea in orthodox Catholicism - "sweet faith in the future happiness of mankind", relying on the fulfillment of the earthly aspirations of the people as a superintelligent whole , overcoming egoism and individualism as inconsistent with the universal purpose of man to be the engine of the universe under the guidance of the supreme mind and world will. Chaadaev was not interested in the topics of sin, church sacraments, etc., focusing on Christianity as a speculative force. In Catholicism, he was attracted by the combination of religion with politics, science, and social transformations - the “insertion” of this confession into history.

Russia score,

In the 1st letter, the historical backwardness of Russia, which determined its current state, is interpreted as a negative factor.

About the fate of Russia, he writes:

... a dull and gloomy existence, devoid of strength and energy, which did not enliven anything but atrocities, nothing softened except slavery. No captivating memories, no graceful images in the memory of the people, no powerful teachings in their tradition... We live in the present, in its narrowest limits, without past and future, in the midst of dead stagnation.

Chaadaev’s interpretation in his 1st letter of Christianity as a method of historically progressive social development with the absolute significance of culture and enlightenment, the power of ideas, a developed sense of justice, ideas of duty, etc., served as the basis for his sharp criticism of the current state of affairs in Russia and that course of history, which brought her to this state. He writes that the departure of the Orthodox Church from the “world brotherhood” during the Schism had, in his opinion, the most painful consequences for Russia, since the enormous religious experience, the “great world work” done by the minds of Europe over 18 centuries, did not affect Russia, which was excluded from the circle of "beneficial action" of Providence because of the "weakness of our faith or the imperfection of our dogmas." Separating ourselves from the Catholic West, “we were mistaken about the true spirit of religion,” we did not accept the “purely historical side,” the socially transformative principle, which is an internal property of true Christianity, and therefore we “did not collect all its fruits, although we obeyed its law” ( that is, the fruits of science, culture, civilization, a well-ordered life). “There is something in our blood that is hostile to any true progress,” for we stand “aside from the general movement in which the social idea of ​​Christianity developed and was formulated.” Turian,

• Foreign edition of selected works of Chaadaev, undertaken in 1862 in Paris in French by Ivan Sergeevich Gagarin.
• Two-volume edition of works, ed. M. Gershenzon.
• In 1935, five previously unknown and long-sought by researchers Philosophical Letters by Chaadaev were published in the Literary Heritage.
• Chaadaev P. Ya. Complete works and selected letters in 2 vols. - M.: Nauka, 1991. (Monuments of philosophical thought)

hid his participation

• Note to A. Kh. Benkendorf on behalf of I. V. Kireevsky
• Participation in the creation of the book by I. I. Yastrebtsov "On the system of sciences, decent in our time for children assigned to the most educated class of society."

Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev is known to ordinary readers no more than as a friend and addressee of Pushkin, to whom the great poet dedicated several of his magnificent poems. These two brilliant personalities met in the summer of 1816 while visiting the Karamzins. Seventeen-year-old Alexander Pushkin was still studying at the Lyceum, and twenty-three-year-old Pyotr Chaadaev by this time was already a brilliant military officer who sniffed gunpowder in the battle of Borodino and participated in foreign military campaigns. Peter served in the Life Guards of the Hussar Regiment stationed in Tsarskoe Selo. They became friends a little later, when Pushkin finished his studies at the Lyceum.

Chaadaev Petr Yakovlevich and Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin

Chaadaev received an excellent education, he had an exceptional mind and therefore influenced the formation of the worldview of an inquisitive young poet. They had many smart conversations and heated arguments, in the end it all came down to autocratic Russia with all its weak points - the lack of freedom, serfdom, the heavy and oppressive atmosphere that reigned everywhere at that time. Freethinking friends were ready to dedicate their "souls wonderful impulses" to their Fatherland at any moment ("To Chaadaev", 1818).

They also did not leave philosophical and literary reflections alone. Their mutual friend Ya. I. Saburov said that Chaadaev had an amazing influence on Pushkin, forcing him to think deeply, philosophically. Pyotr Yakovlevich became one of the closest friends of Alexander Sergeevich and even took part in the efforts to mitigate his punishment when he fell out of favor with the tsar. They wanted to exile the poet first to Siberia, or, however, an unexpected result was a southern exile with a transfer to service in Bessarabia.

twist of fate

The friendship of the two celebrities continued in letters, in which Pushkin often admitted that friendship with Chaadaev had replaced happiness for him and that the cold soul of the poet could love him alone. In 1821, Alexander Sergeevich dedicated his poems to him “In a country where I forgot the anxieties of previous years ...”, “Why cold doubts?” (1824). All these creations are evidence of Pushkin's enthusiastic attitude towards his elder friend and mentor, whom he called the healer of his spiritual strength.

Chaadaev was supposed to make a brilliant career, but after the uprising in the Semenovsky regiment, he resigned (this is how Pyotr Yakovlevich showed his opposition position). He spent the next two years inactive, then went to Europe to improve his health, and this saved him from the December storm. All subsequent years he experienced mental anguish, a severe spiritual crisis, a severe fracture caused by disappointment with the surrounding reality. He constantly thought about the fate of Russia. He called all the highest nobility, the nobility and clergy bribe-takers, ignoramuses, vile serfs and reptiles in slavery.

In the early autumn of 1826, Alexander Pushkin and Pyotr Chaadaev returned to Moscow almost simultaneously. Friends met at their mutual friend S. A. Sobolevsky, where the poet introduced everyone to his poem "Boris Godunov", and then they visited the salon of Zinaida Volkonskaya. A little later, Pushkin will present this great work to his friend Peter.

Petr Chaadaev: "Philosophical Letters"

In 1829-1830, a publicist attacked Nikolaev Russia with sharp social criticism and wrote his famous Philosophical Letters. The first such work-letter of Peter Chaadaev was in Pushkin's possession, the poet mentioned it in his letter to a friend in the middle of the summer of 1831. It will be published already in 1836 in the "Telescope", then he wrote that this event was a shot that rang out on a dark night.

Pushkin decided to respond and wrote a reply letter to the author, which remained unsent. In it, he said that Chaadaev’s criticism of Russian public life was in many ways deeply true and that he, too, was far from delighted with what was happening around him, but Pushkin swears on his honor that he would not exchange his Fatherland for anything and did not want to would have a different history than the history of his ancestors, which God sent them.

As a result, Teleskop was closed, editor N. I. Nadezhdin was exiled to Siberia, and Chaadaev was declared insane and placed under constant medical and police supervision. Chaadaev always highly valued Pushkin as his great friend, he was proud of this, cherished their friendship and called Pushkin "a graceful genius." In subsequent years, although they continued to meet in Moscow, they no longer had that former friendly intimacy.

Biography

Pyotr Chaadaev, whose biography is presented in the article, was from a wealthy noble family and on the maternal side was the grandson of the historian and academician M. M. Shcherbatov. He was born on May 27, 1794 and orphaned early, his father died a day after his birth, and his mother died in 1797.

Peter, together with his brother Mikhail, was taken to Moscow for education by his aunt, Princess Anna Mikhailovna Shcherbatova. Her husband, Prince D. M. Shcherbatov, became the guardian of the children. They lived in Serebryany Lane, on the Arbat, next to the Nikolo-Yavlenskaya Church.

Career

In 1807-1811, he attended lectures at Moscow University, made friends with A. S. Griboedov, the Decembrists N. I. Turgenev, I. D. Yakushkin and others. He was distinguished not only by his intelligence and social manners, but also by his reputation as a dandy and handsome. In 1812 he served in the Semenovsky, then in the Akhtyrsky hussar regiment. Participated in the Battle of Borodino, and at the end of the war began to serve at the imperial court and in 1819 received the rank of captain.

After a riot in the Semyonovsky regiment, he resigned and in 1821 joined the Decembrist society, in 1823 he went abroad. There he attended the lectures of the philosopher Schelling, struck up a friendship with him and revised his views and worldview.

Opala

Upon his return to Russia in 1826, Pyotr Chaadaev lived practically in seclusion. Only then did he write his famous Philosophical Letters, of which there were only eight. His last letter, after being printed in the Telescope in 1836, will be critically discussed in every home. Its meaning was that Russia had broken away from global cultural development, that the Russian people was a gap in the order of the rational existence of mankind. Herzen was one of the few who supported the philosopher's hopeless conclusions about Russia. Chaadaev incurred the wrath of the authorities, and he was officially declared insane.

Such a reaction from the authorities and public unanimous condemnation forced Chaadaev to reconsider his views, and in a year he will write “Apology of a Madman”, where there is already a more optimistic forecast for the future of Russia.

In his last years, he lived very modestly and secluded on Novaya Basmannaya Street, although Moscow society attributed strange eccentricity to him, at the same time, many were very afraid of his sharp tongue.

Proceedings of Philosophy

He called himself a "Christian philosopher". The philosophy of Pyotr Chaadaev can be immediately incomprehensible, it is impossible to fully comprehend it by reading only one of his works. This requires studying the full range of his writings and private correspondence. After that, it will immediately become clear that the main thing in his position was a religious worldview, which was not included in the framework of Catholicism, Protestantism or Orthodoxy. From the standpoint of a unified Christian doctrine, he wanted to give a new understanding of the entire historical and philosophical culture. He considered his philosophical religious studies to be the religion of the future, intended for fiery hearts and deep souls, and it did not coincide with the religions of theologians. Here he becomes similar to Tolstoy Leo Nikolayevich, who, in the same way, experienced his spiritual crisis in a very difficult and tragic way.

Pyotr Chaadaev knew the Holy Scripture well and was well versed in it. However, the main question he wanted to answer was the "mystery of time" and the meaning of human history. He looked for all the answers in Christianity.

“Only the eye of mercy is clairvoyant - this is the whole philosophy of Christianity,” wrote Peter Chaadaev. His quotes help to reveal his personality more deeply, in one of them he looks like a prophet, because he writes that socialism will win, in his opinion, and not because he is right, but because his opponents are wrong.

United Church

He believed that the main idea and the only goal for humanity should be the creation of the Kingdom of God on earth through its moral development, and this historical process is driven by divine providence. Outside of Christianity, he did not represent the historical existence and incarnation of the Kingdom of God without the Church. And here it must be emphasized that here Chaadaev was talking about a single church, not divided into different confessions. It was in this that he saw the true meaning of the dogma of faith in a single church - through the establishment of a perfect order on earth, referred to as the Kingdom of God. It is necessary to immediately recall that in the Orthodox faith the Kingdom of God is a mystical concept that arises after the end of real earthly life (after the Apocalypse).

Chaadaev believed that the Muslim faith is far from the truth. The united Christian church, which has split into confessions, is where the true incarnation of God is. Of all the denominations, he suddenly chooses the Catholic Church as the main one, which allegedly carried out God's providence to a greater extent. The main argument he called the high development of Western culture. According to him, Russia did not give anything to world culture and "got lost on earth." He blames the Russian people for this and sees the reason for the fact that Russia adopted Orthodoxy from Byzantium.

Conclusion

But here it is very carefully worth noting that all these thoughts of his are mainly theoretical in nature, since he considered himself Orthodox all his life and was even deeply indignant when rumors arose about his conversion to the Catholic faith.

Having wandered a little in his philosophical reasoning after denying providence in the fate of Russia, in 1837 he suddenly wrote a work called “Apology of a Madman”, in which he already spoke about the great fate of Russia, about its special role intended by the Lord himself.

Chaadaev, Petr Yakovlevich

Genus. May 27, 1794, grandson of Peter Vas. Ch. and the son of Yakov Petrovich, at an early age lost his father and mother and remained in the arms of his aunt, the daughter of the famous historian Prince M. M. Shcherbatov. Together with other children, D. M. Shcherbatov, Chaadaev received an excellent education at home and early attracted the attention of his teachers, among whom were Merzlyakov, Bule, Bause, and others. For some time Chaadaev attended lectures at Moscow University, and in 1811 he moved from Moscow to St. Petersburg and entered the cadet in the Life Guards Semenovsky Regiment, in whose ranks he made a trip to Paris, where he transferred to the Akhtyrsky Hussar Regiment. At the beginning of 1816, Chaadaev transferred to the Life Hussar Regiment, which was already quartered at that time in Tsarskoe Selo. Here he met Pushkin, who considered him among his best friends. Origin, education, brilliant appearance - everything seemed to promise Chaadaev an outstanding service career. The more difficult was for him the need to retire under circumstances of a very special kind. In 1820, in the Semyonovsky regiment, in which Chaadaev had previously served, a very unfortunate story broke out: the soldiers, despite all exhortations, refused to obey the regiment commander. For a detailed report to the sovereign about this incident, Chaadaev, who at that time was an adjutant to the commander of the guards corps, was sent by courier to Troppau. The details of Chaadaev’s long audience with Emperor Alexander I remained unknown, but extremely unfavorable rumors for Chaadaev began to circulate in society: they said that he betrayed his comrades, that he did this out of a desire to receive adjutant monograms, etc. Much in this episode remains and probably will forever remain unexplained. In any case, at the beginning of 1821, Chaadaev, unexpectedly for everyone, resigned and, despite his extremely cramped financial situation, he no longer sought service. The crisis in the fate of Chaadaev did not cost him in vain: he lost heart and became especially susceptible to illness. The best way out of the delicate situation in which Chaadaev was placed was a trip abroad, and until 1825 he visited England, France, Switzerland, Italy and Germany. AT Karlsbad, he met Schelling, with whom he was subsequently in correspondence. During the trip, Chaadaev replenished his knowledge of theology, philosophy and history, while returning to Moscow, he conceived an extensive work on the philosophy of history, of which he managed to write only a small part in the form of letters in French. These letters went from hand to hand for a long time and made their author famous in wide circles. One of these letters finally saw the light in The Telescope, 1836, vol. 34, under the title Philosophical Letters. His appearance constituted a whole event that had very tangible consequences both for the author, and for the publisher of the journal, and for the censor who missed the article: the author was officially declared insane and placed under the supervision of a doctor, the publisher Nadezhdin was exiled to Ust-Sysolsk, and the censor Boldyrev was removed from positions. In his defense, Chaadaev wrote "Apology of a Madman", but she, along with other philosophical letters, saw the light only in the posthumous "Oeuvres choisies de Pierre Tchadaïef, publiées pour la première fois par le p. Gagarine de la compagnie de Jésus, Paris", 1862. Medical supervision lasted a little over a year; Chaadaev was left alone, and until his death in 1856 he remained one of the prominent representatives of the Moscow circles.

Chaadaev belonged to that mental trend whose supporters had direct acquaintance with Western European orders and institutions and their unfavorable comparison with the system of their native country left a heavy residue and dissatisfaction in their souls. This was most pronounced in Chaadaev, which explains the general lack of sympathy with which the appearance in print of the beginning of the Philosophical Letters was met. The past of our country is presented to him in the most gloomy light, the future - in the most hopeless form. "We exist," he says, "as if outside of time, and the universal education of the human race has not touched us." "We did not have the age of immeasurable activity, the poetic play of the moral forces of the people. The atmosphere of the West is formed by the ideas of duty, law, truth, order, but we gave nothing to the world, took nothing from it, contributed nothing to the improvement of human understanding and distorted everything that this improvement told us. The sphere in which Europeans live is the fruit of religion. If hostile circumstances removed us from the general movement in which the social idea of ​​Christianity developed and took certain forms, then we need to revive faith, put all education on other principles. "Chadaev considers Catholicism to be the main fact that determined the historical course of events and the structure of the West hides her sympathy for him.

Not all of Chaadaev's writings have yet appeared; edition of his selected works, made by Fr. Gagarin, unfortunately, is inaccessible.

Biographical material is contained in the articles: M. N. Longinova, recollection of P. Ya. Chaadaev, "Russian Bulletin", 1862, November, pp. 119-160; M. I. Zhikhareva, P. Ya. Chaadaev, from the memoirs of a contemporary, Vestnik Evropy, 1871, July, pp. 172-208, September, pp. 9-54; D. Sverbeeva, Memories of Chaadaev, "Russian Archive", 1868, pp. 976-1001 . The best characterization of Chaadaev belongs to A. N. Pypin, Characteristics of literary opinions, ed. 2, St. Petersburg, 1890, pp. 141-195.

I. Kolubovsky.

(Polovtsov)

Chaadaev, Petr Yakovlevich

Famous Russian writer. The exact year of his birth is not known. Longinov says that Ch. was born on May 27, 1793, Zhikharev considers the year of his birth to be 1796, Sverbeev vaguely refers him to "the first years of the last decade of the 18th century." On his mother's side, Ch. was the nephew of the princes Shcherbatov and the grandson of a well-known Russian historian. In the hands of this relative, Ch. received an initial, remarkable education for that time, which he completed by listening to lectures at Moscow University. Enlisted as a cadet in the Semyonovsky regiment, he participated in the war of 1812 and subsequent hostilities. Serving then in the Life Hussar Regiment, Ch. became close friends with the young Pushkin, who was then studying at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum. According to Longinov, "Ch. contributed to the development of Pushkin, more than all kinds of professors with his lectures." The nature of the conversations between friends can be judged from Pushkin's poems "To Pyotr Yakovlevich Ch." "To the portrait of Ch." and others. It fell to Chaadaev to save Pushkin from exile in Siberia that threatened him or imprisonment in the Solovetsky Monastery. Upon learning of the danger, Ch., who was then adjutant to the commander of the Guards Corps, Prince. Vasilchikov, managed to get a meeting with Karamzin not at the appointed hour and persuaded him to stand up for Pushkin. Pushkin paid Ch. with warm friendship. Among the "most necessary objects for life," he demands that a portrait of Ch. be sent to him at Mikhailovskoye. He also sends a whole message from Mikhailovsky, in which he expresses his passionate desire as soon as possible in the company of Ch. "to honor, judge, scold, revive freedom-loving hopes." The preface to "Oeuvres choisies de Pierre Tchadaïeff publiées pour la première fois par P. Gagarin" says the following: "In his youth, Ch. was touched by the liberal movement, which ended in disaster on December 14, 1825. this movement, agreed with them on the question of the reality of that strong evil from which Russia suffered and is suffering, but disagreed with them on the question of its causes and, in particular, on the question of the means to eliminate it. If this is true, then Ch. could quite sincerely adjoin the Union of Welfare and just as sincerely disagree with the direction that subsequently prevailed in Northern and especially in Southern society. In 1820 in St. Petersburg. there were well-known unrest in the Semenov regiment. Emperor Alexander was then in Troppau, where Vasilchikov sent Ch. with news of the riots. Sverbeev, Herzen and others tell in their memoirs and notes that the Austrian ambassador, Count Lebzeltern, managed to send a courier to Troppau, who allegedly arrived there early and told Metternich about what had happened in St. unsuspecting emperor. When Ch. arrived, Alexander sharply reproved him for the slowness of the ride, but then, as if recollecting himself, offered him the rank of adjutant wing. The offended Ch. asked for one favor - resignation, and received it even without the usual awarding of the next rank. Such is the current story about the reasons for the resignation of Ch. Longinov decisively refutes it, arguing that Lebzeltern did not send any courier to Troppau, that even before Ch. was sent, at the first sign of disobedience of the soldiers, another courier was sent to Alexander, and that , the emperor, by the time Ch. arrived in Troppau, already knew about the St. Petersburg events, having received information about them from a Russian courier, and not from Metternich. Be that as it may, but at that moment Ch. suffered doubly: his brilliant career was ruined and at the same time he fell heavily in the opinion of fellow officers, among whom was the entire color of the then intelligentsia. It was said that under no circumstances should he have undertaken such a delicate task; knowing about the aide-de-camp aiguillettes complained to couriers in such cases, he must have felt especially awkward in front of his former colleagues in the Semyonov regiment, who were subjected to very heavy punishments. It is quite possible that as a result of this, the members of the secret society where he was accepted by Yakushkin estranged from him, and that it was precisely for this reason that Ch. did not like to talk later about his relationship with the Decembrists, the trip to Troppau and the conversation with Alexander. After his resignation, he lived abroad for six years. All events of 1825 - 1826 thus passed in his absence. These events demolished from the historical arena almost the entire color of the generation to which Ch belonged. Returning to his homeland, he found a different time and other people. Since that time, the figure of Ch. stands out against the background of Russian life, no longer as a public figure or one of the future reformers of Russia, not in the manner that Pushkin spoke of, that "he would be Brutus in Rome, Pericles in Athens," but in the form of a thinker, philosopher, brilliant publicist. In Europe Ch. moved among remarkable minds. Among his personal acquaintances were Schelling, Lamenne and others. The views of these people could not but have an influence on Ch., who by nature had a strong mind and a certain philosophical fold of thought. Extensive reading also greatly contributed to the development of Ch. strong worldview. "In my mind," says Zhikharev, "Ch. was the strongest, deepest, and most diverse thinker ever produced by the Russian land." From the end of the twenties, Ch. was very close to the elder Kireevsky. When published last magazine "European" was banned and Kireevsky himself placed under police supervision, C. wrote (in 1831) "Mémoire au compte Benkendorf, rédigé par Tchadaëeff pour Jean Kiréifsky". In this document, C. sets out his views on the history of Russia, very close to those that appeared five years later in his famous "Philosophical Letter", but, unlike him, he also points to positive means by which Russia can be directed towards a better future. This requires "first of all a serious classical education", then "the emancipation of our slaves", which is "a necessary condition for all further progress", and, finally, "the awakening of religious feeling, so that religion will emerge from a kind of lethargy in which it is now" . Whether this note was delivered to its destination or not is unknown. It was written in 1831 and already contained many "Chaadaev" thoughts. Those philosophical letters of Ch. "to Mrs. ***" (according to some sources - Panova, nee Ulybysheva, according to others - the wife of the Decembrist M.F. Orlov, nee Raevskaya), from which appeared in print (in 1836) only the first had been written seven years before. Pushkin mentions them as early as July 6, 1831. The circle of people who knew about the existence of these letters was, however, very small; before the appearance of the first of them in print, even such a person as well-versed in the literary and social affairs of his time as Herzen knew nothing about them. The impression of Nadezhdin's printing in the "Telescope" of Ch.'s "Philosophical Letter" was extremely strong. "As soon as the letter appeared," says Longinov, "a formidable storm arose." “After Woe from Wit, there was not a single literary work that would have made such a strong impression,” Herzen says on the same occasion. According to Sverbeev, "Ch.'s journal article produced a terrible indignation among the public and therefore could not help but turn government persecution on him. Everyone and everything rebelled against the author with unprecedented bitterness in our rather apathetic society." The bitterness was truly unparalleled. “Never,” says Zhikharev, “since the beginning of reading and writing in Russia, since book activity began in it, no literary and scientific event, not excluding even the death of Pushkin, has produced such a huge influence and such an extensive effect. ", did not spread with such speed and with such noise. For about a month, among the whole of Moscow, there was almost no house in which they would not talk about Chaadaev's letter and about Chaadaev's history. Even people who have never been engaged in any literary business, complete ignoramuses, ladies, according to degrees of their intellectual development, not much different from their cooks and henchmen, clerks and officials, drowned in embezzlement and bribery, stupid, ignorant, half-mad saints and bigots or bigots, gray-haired and run wild in drunkenness, debauchery and superstition, young father-lovers and old patriots, - everything was combined in one general cry of curse and contempt for a man who dared to offend Russia. There was no such donkey that would I didn’t consider it a sacred duty and a pleasant duty to kick the lion of historical and philosophical criticism with a hoof in the back ... Not only Russians paid attention to Chaadaev’s article: due to the fact that the article was written (originally) in French, and due to its great fame, which Ch. used in the Moscow foreign population - this case was taken up by foreigners who live with us and usually never pay any attention to any scientific or literary work in Russia and only barely know by ear that Russian writing exists. Not to mention a few high-ranking foreigners, ignorant teachers of French grammar and German regular and irregular verbs, the personnel of the Moscow French troupe, foreign merchants and artisans, various practicing and non-practicing doctors, musicians lost their temper in various heated disputes because of Chaadaev's writing. with lessons and without lessons, even German pharmacists ... At that time, I heard that students of Moscow University came to their superiors with an expression of a desire to defend liberated Russia with weapons and break a spear in her honor, and that the count, then trustee, reassured them " ... The well-known Vigel sent a denunciation to Metropolitan Seraphim of St. Petersburg at the same time; Seraphim brought this to the attention of Benckendorff - and a catastrophe erupted. Nadezhdin was exiled to Ust-Sysolsk, and Ch. was declared insane. Zhikharev cites the original text of the paper in which Ch. declared that he had gone mad: “The article that appeared at that time,” this paper said, “with the thoughts expressed in it aroused in all Russians, without exception, feelings of anger, disgust and horror, which soon, however, were replaced by a feeling of compassion, when learned that the deplorable compatriot, the author of the article, suffers from a disorder and insanity of mind.Taking into account the unfortunate state of illness, the government, in its caring and paternal care, orders him not to leave the house and provide him with a free medical allowance, for which the local authorities have to appoint a special physician under his jurisdiction." This order was carried out within a few months. According to Herzen, the doctors and the police chief came to Ch. weekly, and they never stuttered why they came. This testimony is contradicted by one of Ch.'s letters to his brother, which contains the following lines: "As for my position, it now consists in the fact that I must be content with one walk and see daily gentlemen of ex-officio physicians visiting me. One of them, a drunken private staff doctor, cursed me for a long time in the most insolent way, but now he stopped his visits, probably on orders from his superiors. , we consider it necessary to preface two remarks: 1) several Russian writers quote the following phrase from Ch.'s first letter: "Russia's past is empty, the present is unbearable, and there is no future for it. Russia is a gap in understanding, a terrible lesson given to the peoples, to which alienation and slavery can lead. "There is no such phrase in Ch.'s letter. 2) A. M. Skabichevsky claims that the translation of Ch.'s letter into Russian was made by Belinsky. This incorrect: the translation was made not by Belinsky, but by Ketcher.

Chaadaev's famous letter is deeply skeptical towards Russia. “For the soul,” he writes, “there is a dietary content, just like for the body; the ability to subordinate it to this content is necessary. I know that I am repeating an old saying, but in our country it has all the advantages of news. miserable features of our social education, that truths long known in other countries and even among peoples who are in many respects less educated than we are are just being discovered with us. to one of the great families of mankind, neither to the West nor to the East, we have no traditions of either. We exist, as it were, outside of time, and the universal education of the human race has not touched us. This wondrous connection of human ideas through the ages, this The history of human understanding, which has brought it to its present state in other countries of the world, had no influence on us. ... Look around you. Everything seems to be on the move. We all seem to be strangers. No one has a sphere of a definite existence, there are no good customs for anything, not only rules, there is not even a family center; there is nothing that would bind, that would awaken our sympathy, disposition; there is nothing permanent, indispensable: everything passes, flows, leaving no trace either in appearance or in yourself. We seem to be at home, in families as strangers, as if wandering in cities and even more than the tribes wandering through our steppes, because these tribes are more attached to their deserts than we are to our cities "... Pointing out that of all peoples "there is a period of strong, passionate, unconscious activity," that such epochs constitute "the time of the youth of peoples," Ch. finds that "we have nothing of the kind." that "at the very beginning we had wild barbarism, then gross superstition , then cruel, humiliating domination, the traces of which in our way of life have not been completely erased to this day. Here is the sad story of our youth... There are no enchanting memories in the memory, there are no strong instructive examples in folk legends. Take a look through all the centuries we have lived, all the space of the earth occupied by us, you will not find a single memory that would stop you, not a single monument that would tell you the past vividly, strongly, picturesquely ... We appeared in the world as illegitimate children , without inheritance, without connection with the people who preceded us, did not learn for themselves any of the instructive lessons of the past. Each of us must himself bind the broken thread of the family, by which we were connected with the whole of humanity. We must hammer into our heads what has become a habit, an instinct among others ... We grow, but do not mature, we move forward, but along some indirect direction that does not lead to the goal ... We belong to nations that, it seems that they do not yet constitute a necessary part of humanity, but exist in order to teach some great lesson to the world over time ... All the peoples of Europe have developed certain ideas. These are the ideas of duty, law, truth, order. And they make up not only the history of Europe, but its atmosphere. It is more than history, more than psychology: it is the physiology of the European. What will you replace all this with?... The syllogism of the West is unknown to us. There's more to our best minds than flimsiness. The best ideas, from a lack of connection and consistency, like barren ghosts, numb in our brain... Even in our glance I find something extremely indefinite, cold, somewhat similar to the physiognomy of peoples standing on the lowest rungs of the social ladder... According to our local position between East and West, resting one elbow on China, the other on Germany, we should combine in ourselves the two great principles of understanding: imagination and reason, should combine in our civic education the history of the whole world. But this is not the destiny that has fallen to our lot. Hermits in the world, we gave him nothing, took nothing from him, did not attach a single idea to the mass of ideas of mankind, did nothing to improve human understanding and distorted everything that this improvement told us ... Not a single useful thought increased in our barren soil, not a single great truth has arisen among us. We did not invent anything ourselves, and from everything that was invented by others, we borrowed only a deceptive appearance and useless luxury ... I repeat again: we lived, we live, as a great lesson for distant posterity, who will certainly use it, but in the present tense, which no matter what we say, we constitute a gap in the order of understanding. " Having pronounced such a sentence on our past, present and partly future, Ch. carefully proceeds to his main thought and at the same time to explaining the phenomenon he indicated. The root of evil, in his opinion, is in that we accepted the "new education" not from the source from which the West took it in. "Driven by an evil fate, we borrowed the first seeds of moral and intellectual enlightenment from the corrupt Byzantium, despised by all peoples," we borrowed, moreover, when "petty vanity had just torn Byzantium away from world brotherhood," and therefore "they accepted from her an idea distorted by human passion." From there, everything that followed happened. "Despite the name of Christians, we did not budge, while Western Christianity majestically walked along the path outlined by its divine founder." Ch. himself raises the question: “Are we not Christians, is education possible only according to the European model?”, And he answers this way: “No doubt we are Christians, but aren’t the Abyssinians Christians? Aren’t the Japanese educated? .. But are you really think that these miserable deviations from divine and human truths will bring heaven down to earth? In Europe, everything is permeated with a mysterious force that reigned autocratically for a number of centuries. "This thought fills the entire end of the Philosophical Letter. "Look at the picture of the full development of a new society and you will see that Christianity transforms all human benefits into its own, material need everywhere replaces it with a moral need, excites in the world of thought these great debates, which you will not meet in the history of other epochs, other societies ... You will see that everything was created by him and only by him: earthly life, and social life, and family, and fatherland , and science, and poetry, and the mind, and imagination, and recollection, and hopes, and delights, and sorrows. "But all this refers to Western Christianity; other branches of Christianity are fruitless. Ch. does not draw any practical conclusions from this. It seems to us that his letter caused a storm not with his own, although undoubted, but not at all pronounced Catholic tendencies - he developed them much deeper in subsequent letters - but only harsh criticism of the past and present of Russia. When M. F. Orlov tried to put in a word for Benckendorff in defense of Ch., the latter answered him: "Le passé de la Russie a été admirable, son présent est plus que magnifique, quant à son avenir il est au delà de tout ce que l "imagination la plus hardie se peut figurer; voilà le point de vue sous lequel l"histoire russe doit être conçue et écrite". That was the official point of view; any other was considered unacceptable, and Chaadaevskaya - denounced "disorder and insanity of mind" ... Other letters of Ch. saw the light many years later, and then only in French, in Paris, in the publication of the famous Jesuit Prince. I. S. Gagarin. There are three letters in all, but there is reason to think that in the interval between the first (printed in Teleskop) and the so-called second, there were more letters, apparently irretrievably lost. In the "second" letter (we will quote further in our translation) Ch. expresses the idea that the progress of mankind is directed by the hand of Providence and moves through the chosen peoples and chosen people; the source of eternal light has never been extinguished among human societies; man walked to the path determined for him only in the light of the truths revealed to him by higher reason. “Instead of obsequiously accepting the senseless system of mechanical improvement of our nature, so clearly refuted by the experience of all ages, it is impossible not to see that man, left to himself, always walked, on the contrary, along the path of endless degeneration. If there were epochs from time to time progress in all peoples, moments of enlightenment in the life of mankind, lofty impulses of reason, then nothing proves the continuity and constancy of such a movement.True forward movement and the constant presence of progress is noticed only in that society of which we are members and which is not the product of human hands. We undoubtedly accepted what was worked out by the ancients before us, took advantage of it and thus closed the ring of the great chain of times, but it does not at all follow from this that people would have reached the state in which they now find themselves without that historical phenomenon, which is unconditionally has no antecedents, is independent of human ideas, outside of any necessary connection of things and separates the ancient world from the new world. It goes without saying that Ch. is talking here about the emergence Christianity. Without this phenomenon, our society would inevitably perish, as perished all the societies of antiquity. Christianity found the world "perverted, bloodied, lied about." In ancient civilizations, there was no solid beginning lying inside them. "The profound wisdom of Egypt, the charming beauty of Ionia, the strict virtues of Rome, the dazzling brilliance of Alexandria - what have you become? Brilliant civilizations, nurtured by all the forces of the earth, associated with all glories, with all heroes, with all dominion over the universe, with the greatest sovereigns whom ever produced the earth, with world sovereignty - how could you be swept off the face of the earth? is it to destroy, overturn a magnificent building and plow up the very place on which it stood? But it was not the barbarians who destroyed the ancient world. It was already "a decomposed corpse and the barbarians scattered only its ashes to the wind." This cannot happen to the new world, for European society is single family of Christian nations. European society "for a number of centuries rested on the basis of a federation, which was broken only by the reformation; before this sad event, the peoples of Europe looked at themselves only as a single social organism, geographically divided into different states, but constituting a single whole in a moral sense; between these peoples there was no other public law than the decrees of the church, wars were presented as internecine strife, a common interest inspired everyone, one and the same tendency set the whole European world in motion.The history of the Middle Ages was literally the history of one people - the Christian people. moral consciousness was its foundation, purely political events stood in the background, all this was revealed with particular clarity in religious wars, that is, in events that the philosophy of the last century was so horrified of. Voltaire very aptly notes that wars over opinions occurred only among Christians; but should not be limited only to by stating a fact, it was necessary to rise to the understanding of the cause of such a unique phenomenon. It is clear that the realm of thought could not establish itself in the world otherwise than by giving the very principle of thought a full reality. And if now the state of things has changed, it was the result of the schism, which, having destroyed the unity of thought, thereby destroyed the unity of society. But the foundation remains and is still the same, and Europe is still a Christian country, no matter what she does, whatever she says ... In order for a real civilization to be destroyed, it would be necessary for the whole globe to turn upside down, to repeat a revolution similar to that which gave the earth its true form. To extinguish to the ground all the sources of our enlightenment, it would take at least a second worldwide flood. If, for example, one of the hemispheres were swallowed up, then what would be left on the other would be enough to renew the human spirit. The thought that is supposed to conquer the universe will never stop, will never perish, or at least will not perish until it is commanded by the One who put this thought into the human soul. The world came to unity, but this great cause was prevented by the reformation, returning it to a state of fragmentation (desunité) of paganism. "At the end of the second letter, Ch. directly expresses the idea that only indirectly made its way in the first letter. "That the papacy was a human institution, that the elements included in it are created by human hands - I readily admit this, but the essence of panism comes from the very spirit of Christianity. .. Who does not marvel at the extraordinary destinies of the papacy? Deprived of its human brilliance, it only became stronger because of it, and the indifference shown towards it only strengthens and ensures its existence even more ... It centralizes the thought of the Christian peoples, attracts them to each other, reminds them of the supreme beginning of their beliefs and, being sealed with a seal of a heavenly nature, hovers over the world of material interests. "In the third letter, Ch. develops the same thoughts, illustrating them with his views on Moses, Aristotle , Marcus Aurelius, Epicurus, Homer, etc. Returning to Russia and to his view of the Russians, who "do not belong, in essence, to any of the systems of the moral world, but adjoin the West with their social surface," Ch. recommends "to do all that is possible to prepare the way for future generations" "Since we cannot leave them what we ourselves did not have: beliefs, a mind brought up by time, a brightly defined personality, developed over a long, animated, active, rich results, intellectual life, opinions, then let us leave to them at least a few ideas which, although we did not find them ourselves, being transmitted from generation to generation, will have more traditional element and therefore more powerful, more fruitful than our own thoughts. Thus, we will earn the gratitude of posterity and will not pass the earth in vain. "Ch.'s short fourth letter is devoted to architecture. Finally, the first and a few lines from the second chapter of the Madman's Apology" Ch. are also known. Here the author makes some concessions, agrees to recognize some exaggerations of his former opinions, but maliciously and caustically laughs at the society that fell upon him for the first philosophical letter from "love for the fatherland" "There are various kinds of love for the fatherland: Samoyed, for example, the yurt in which he spends half his life crouched, the rancid fat of his reindeer, surrounding him with a sickening atmosphere - this Samoyed no doubt loves his homeland differently than the English citizen loves her, proud of the institutions and high civilization of his glorious island ... Love for the fatherland - a very good thing, but there is something higher than it: love for truth. "Further Ch. sets out his opinions on the history of Russia. Briefly this story is expressed as follows: "Peter the Great found only a sheet of paper and with his powerful hand wrote on it: Europe and West". And a great man did a great thing. "But now, a new school (Slavophiles) has appeared. The West is no longer recognized, the work of Peter the Great is denied, it is considered desirable to return to the desert again. Forgetting everything that the West has done for us, being ungrateful to the great man who civilized us, to Europe, who formed us, renounce both Europe and the great man. In its ardent zeal, the newest patriotism declares us the most beloved children of the East. Why, - says this patriotism, - shall we seek light from the Western peoples? home of all germs of a social order infinitely better than the social order of Europe?Left to ourselves, our bright mind, the fruitful principle hidden in the bowels of our mighty nature and especially our holy faith, we would soon leave behind all these peoples, stagnant in error and lies. And what are we to envy in the West? Its religious wars, its pope, its chivalry, its inquisition? All these things are good, there is nothing to say! Indeed, the West is the birthplace of science and deep wisdom? Everyone knows that the birthplace of all this is the East. Let us return to this East, with which we are in contact everywhere, from where we once took our beliefs, our laws, our virtues, in a word, everything that made us the most powerful people on earth. The Old East is passing into eternity, and aren't we its rightful heirs? His wonderful traditions must live among us forever, all his great and mysterious truths, the preservation of which was bequeathed to him from the beginning of centuries ... You now understand the origin of the storm that has recently burst over me and see that a real revolution is taking place among us, a passionate reaction against enlightenment, against Western ideas, against that enlightenment and those ideas that made us what we are, and the fruit of which was even the real movement itself, the reaction itself. "The idea that in our past there was nothing creative, C. apparently wanted develop in the second chapter of the Apologia, but it contains only a few lines: "There is a fact that dominates our historical movement in all its ages, passing through our whole history, containing in a certain sense the whole philosophy, era of our social life, which determines its character, which is at the same time an essential element of our political greatness, and the true cause of of our intellectual impotence: this fact is a geographical fact. Publisher of works Ch., book. Gagarin, says in a footnote the following: "Here the manuscript ends and there are no signs that it has ever been continued." After the incident with the "Philosophical Letter" Ch. lived almost without a break in Moscow for 20 years. Although in all these years he did not show himself anything special, but - Herzen testifies - if Ch. was in the company, then "no matter how dense the crowd was, the eye found him immediately." Ch. died in Moscow on April 14, 1856.

Literature. "Telescope" (vol. 34, no. 15, pp. 275 - 310) and "Half. Star" (1861, book VI, pp. 141 - 162); Pypin, "Characteristics of literary opinions from the 20s to the 50s" ("West. Europe", 1871, December); Milyukov, "The Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought"; Zhikharev, "P. Ya. Chaadaev" ("West. Europe", 1871, July and September); Longinov, "Memories of P. Ya. Chaadaev" ("Russian Bulletin", 1862, November); Sverbeev, "Memories of P. Ya. Chaadaev" ("Russian Archive", 1868, No. 6); Yakushkin, "Notes"; Herzen, "The Past and Thoughts"; Nikitenko, Notes and Diary (vol. I, pp. 374 - 375). Vigel's denunciation and Metropolitan Seraphim's letter to c. Benkendorf - in "Russian Antiquity" (1870, No. 2); "Unpublished manuscripts of P. Ya. Chaadaev" - in the "Bulletin of Europe" (1871, November). Two letters from Ch. to Schelling - in Rus. Vestnik (1862, November); Wed also Skabichevsky, "Forty Years of Russian Criticism"; Skabichevsky, "Essays on the history of Russian censorship"; Koshelev, "Notes"; Smirnova, "Notes" (part 1, p. 211); "Oeuvres choisies de Pierre Tchadaïeff, publiées pour la première fois par le P. Gagarin"; Herzen, "Du développement des idées révolutionnaires en Russie"; Custine, "La Russie en 1839"; Shchebalsky, "A Chapter from the History of Our Literature" ("Rus. Vestn.", 1884, November); A. I. Koshelev, "Notes"; Kirpichnikov, "P. Ya. Chaadaev according to new documents" ("Russian. Thought", 1896, April); Veselovsky, "Etudes and Characteristics" (1903).

V. Bogucharsky.

(Brockhaus)

Chaadaev, Petr Yakovlevich

(May 27, 1794-April 14, 1856). - Former adjutant of General I.V. Vasilchikov; philosopher and publicist.

Genus. in Moscow. Father - Lieutenant Colonel Yak. Peter. Chaadaev (d. 1807), mother - prince. Nat. Mich. Shcherbatova, daughter of the historian M. M. Shcherbatov. He was brought up in the house of his uncle, Prince. D. M. Shcherbatov, in 1808-1812 he studied at the Moscow University. He entered the service together with his brother Mikhail as a lieutenant in the Life Guards. Semyonovsky regiment - 12.5.1812, participant in the Patriotic War of 1812 (Borodino - promoted to ensign for distinction, Tarutino, Maloyaroslavets) and foreign campaigns (Lutzen, Bautzen, Kulm - awarded the Order of Anna 3rd class and the Kulm Cross, Paris), transferred to Akhtyrsky hussar. regiment, and then in the l.-guards. Hussar. regiment - the beginning of 1816. The regiment was stationed in Tsarskoe Selo, where Chaadaev met, and soon became friends with A.S. Pushkin, who dedicated three messages to him. Hell. I. V. Vasilchikov, left St. Petersburg with a report to Alexander I in Troppau about the uprising of the Semenovsky regiment - 10/22/1820. Retired Feb. 1821, in 1823-1826 he traveled abroad in England, France, Italy, Switzerland and Germany. After returning to Russia, he was placed under secret supervision. Mason, a member of the lodge "United Friends", "Friends of the North" (guardian and delegate in "Astrea"), in 1826 wore the badge of the 8th degree of the "Secret white brothers of the John lodge". Member of the English Club.

Member of the Welfare Union. Vysoch. ordered to be ignored.

The author of the famous "Philosophical Letters", one of which was published in 1836 in the "Telescope" and caused persecution of the author, censor A. V. Boldyrev and publisher N. I. Nadezhdin (exiled to Ust-Sysolsk). Chaadaev was officially declared insane, although he was left at large under medical supervision. Lived and died in Moscow, buried in the Donskoy Monastery.

Brother - Mikhail (1792-1866).

TsGAOR, f. 48, op. 1, d. 28, 243.

Chaadaev, Petr Yakovlevich

writer, former officer of Semenovsky and Akhtyr. goose. shelf; R. 27 May 1793, † 14 Apr. 1856

(Polovtsov)

Chaadaev, Petr Yakovlevich

[genus. between 1793 and 1796 (the year is not precisely established), died in 1856] - a major Russian philosopher and publicist. He came from an old noble family, the grandson of the historian Prince Shcherbatov, in whose family he was brought up. In 1811 he entered the military service. Participated in the wars against Napoleon. Fluent in foreign languages, Ch. acquired a deep education through reading and became one of the most educated people in Russia at that time. In St. Petersburg, he communicated with many representatives of the liberal Russian intelligentsia. He became close friends with A. S. Pushkin, on whom he had a great influence. When Pushkin was threatened with exile to the Solovetsky Monastery for his poems, Ch. went to Karamzin, hardly managed to get an emergency meeting with him and convinced him to stand up for Pushkin and achieve a mitigation of punishment. Pushkin deeply loved Ch., considered him his best friend and dedicated a number of his poems to him. In one of his poems, Pushkin wrote about Ch. that he would have been Brutus in Rome, and Pericles in Athens. In another poem, referring to Ch., Pushkin wrote: “As long as we burn with freedom, while our hearts are alive for honor, my friend, we will devote high impulses to the fatherland. autocracy will write our names."

The reasons that caused the movement in Russia Decembrists, also affected Ch. In 1816-18 he was a member of the Masonic Lodge, along with the Decembrists S. G. Volkonsky, P.I. Pestel and M.I. Muravyov-Apostol(cm.). Later he was a member of the Welfare Union. But Ch. had a deep and, moreover, a skeptical mind. He saw the need for Russia to embark on the path of capitalist development, but did not see the real strength on which the bourgeois liberal movement could rely; he saw the groundlessness of the Decembrists' movement, given the correlation of social forces at that time. In addition, by nature, Ch. was a man of thought, not action. Therefore, he did not show himself active in the ranks of the Decembrists, and in 1821 he went abroad and actually withdrew from the movement, which is why he was not brought to trial after the defeat of the movement. Abroad Ch. read a lot and traveled. There he met Schlegel, Schelling, Lammene, who highly appreciated him. Returning to Russia in 1826, that is, after the defeat of the Decembrist movement, Chaadaev found himself in an atmosphere of deep reaction. His best friends were arrested, exiled, and some executed. This defeat of the movement further strengthened the skepticism and pessimism of Ch. After settling in Moscow, he led a solitary life ("the Basman philosopher" - he was jokingly nicknamed in Moscow). Around 1830 he wrote a number of articles, which he did not publish, however. In 1836, one of them, Philosophical Letter, was published in the Telescope magazine. This article made a huge impression. "As soon as the letter appeared," says Loginov, "a formidable storm arose." “After Woe from Wit, there was not a single literary work that would have made such a strong impression,” Herzen wrote. “It was a shot that rang out on a dark night.”

In his "Philosophical Letter" Ch. raises the question of the entire past history of Russia, its position and its future, and comes to deeply pessimistic conclusions. He points to the backwardness of Russia, to its isolation from the cultural life of the West. "We exist, as it were, outside of time, and the universal education of the human race has not touched us ... What other peoples have long entered into life, for us is only speculation, theory." "All the peoples of the world have developed certain ideas. These are the ideas of duty, law, law, order. And they make up not only the history of Europe, but its atmosphere." We don't have any of that. "Hermits in the world, we gave him nothing, took nothing from him, did not attach a single idea to the mass of ideas of mankind." "Not a single useful thought has grown out of our barren soil." "We did not invent anything ourselves, and from everything that was invented by others, we borrowed only a deceptive appearance and useless luxury."

Seeing no social basis for his liberal-bourgeois aspirations in the economic situation of contemporary Russia, Ch. falls into mysticism and finds the main driving factor of the historical process in religion. The role of Catholicism, according to Chaadaev, was enormous. "Everything was created by him and only by him: earthly life, and social life, and the family, and the fatherland, and science, and poetry, and intelligence, and imagination, and education, and hopes, and delights, and sorrows." Other branches of Christianity give nothing. Ch. sees the reason for the backwardness and isolation of Russia in the fact that she took Christianity not from Western Europe in the form of Catholicism, but from Byzantium in the form of Orthodoxy. Chaadaev denies the entire old history of Russia, any desire to create a Russian original culture, and therefore is one of the largest predecessors Westernism.

Article Ch. caused deep indignation of the government of Nicholas I and those who supported him. - "Telescope" was closed. Its editor, Nadezhdin, was exiled to Ust-Sysolsk, and the censor was fired. The press was forbidden to speak about Ch. and his article, and Ch. himself was declared insane. He was forbidden to leave the house, and a police medical supervision was established over him: he was visited daily by a doctor and a police chief. A year later, supervision was removed. The rest of the "Philosophical Letters" - there were 8 in total - except for two did not see the light of day. These two letters were printed abroad in French by Prince Gagarin. The remaining 5 letters were also found (prepared for publication in the "Academia" edition).

After 1836 Ch. lived in Moscow. In 1837, he wrote the "Apology of a Madman", where he partly developed some of the provisions of the "Philosophical Letter", partly softened some of his sharp thoughts. Here he pointed to the enormous historical role of Peter the Great, who pushed Russia onto the path of development of Western Europe. Here he put forward the idea that a backward Russia nevertheless has a great future ahead of it. "I have a deep conviction, - wrote C., - that we are called to solve most of the problems of the social order, to complete most of the ideas that have arisen in old societies, to answer the most important questions that occupy humanity." This idea was subsequently picked up and developed by Herzen and the Narodniks.

Ch.'s worldview, his pessimism, his tragic fate are the result of the economic weakness and political impotence of the Russian bourgeoisie at the beginning of the 19th century. Ch. did not remain alone in his time either. In the same 1836, when the first "Philosophical Letter" was published, another prominent Russian person, V.S. Pecherin(see) independently came to the conclusion about the superiority of European culture and Catholicism over Russian culture and Orthodoxy. He also went abroad and converted to Catholicism there.

Ch. did not leave behind a school of direct students. But his critique of Russian culture and his position on the superiority of Western culture are close to the ideas of Westernism. Even later, at the beginning of sunset, Rus. liberalism, when the ideologists of the Rus. The bourgeoisie began to feel the nearness of death, threatening the bourgeois system, and when, because of this, their thought began to turn into the realm of the irrational, into the realm of mysticism, Ch.'s mystical ideas, his idea of ​​a universal church was taken up by B.C. Solovyov, and later M.O. Gershenzon(cm.).

Lit.: Works and letters of P. Ya. Chaadaev (under the editorship of M. O. Gershenzon), vol. I - II. M., 1913-14; Gershenzon M. O., P. Ya. Chaadaev (Life and Thinking), St. Petersburg, 1908, [given bibliography]; Plekhanov GV, Works, Moscow-Leningrad, vol. X (article "Pessimism as a Reflection of Economic Reality"), vol. XXIII; Lemke M. K., Nikolaev gendarmes and literature 1826-55, 2nd edition, St. Petersburg, 1909.

N. Meshcheryakov.

Chaadaev, Petr Yakovlevich

Philosopher, publicist. Genus. in Moscow, in a noble family. Studied in Moscow. un-te (1808-1811). There he met Griboyedov and some future Decembrists. He spent the war of 1812-1814 as part of a hussar regiment. He went with him to Paris. After returning to Moscow, he makes a fast career. According to contemporaries, Ch. was one of the most brilliant secular young people in St. Petersburg. In 1814, Ch. joined the Masonic lodge, but the details of his connections with the Masons are still unclear. In the autumn of 1820, Ch. was sent to Alexander I in the Austrian city of Tropau (the congress of the Holy Alliance was held there) with a report on the rebellion of the Semyonovsky regiment. However, after this meeting, which seemed to promise promising prospects for the young ambitious man, Ch. unexpectedly submits his resignation. The motives that prompted Ch. to leave the state. services are unclear to this day. The reasons for the severity of the emperor, who ordered to deprive Ch. of the next rank, which he relied on when he retired, are also unclear. Obviously, at this time (1820-1821) Ch. is experiencing some kind of deep ext. crisis and turning point in his worldview. In the summer of 1821, Ch.'s old friend Ivan Yakushkin accepted him into a secret society, but nothing is known about this area of ​​Ch.'s life either. In July, Ch. travels abroad and spends three years wandering around England, France, Switzerland, Italy, and Germany. Meet Schelling. In July 1826, in the border Brest-Litovsk, he was interrogated in connection with the Decembrist case, but he avoided serious trouble. For the next few years, Ch. lives as a recluse in Moscow, almost never appearing in the world and working hard on the "Philosophical Letters". In 1830-1831 he reappears in the Society, sharing his prophetic insights with friends. In 1836, after the appearance of the first "Philosophical Letter" in Zh. "Telescope" (No. 15), a storm broke out. Many contemporaries saw Ch. as a frantic overthrower of the nat. shrines and reckless rebel. An investigation was launched. After the "investigation" was completed, the "highest" verdict was issued that the author was insane. After removing honey. Ch. participated in the ideological life of Moscow, in the controversy between Westerners and Slavophiles, wrote a lot, but due to the continued ban, he did not publish anything until the end of his life. Ch. died in Moscow.

Ch. was the creator of the first original historiosophical theory, which set the basis. topics of future fierce discussions about the place and fate of Russia, about the specifics of Russian. nat. consciousness and Russian. history, about the relationship between the people and the state. authorities in the transformation of the Russian. reality. Ch.'s ideas contributed to the formation of two chapters. directions in the views on the past and future of Russia - Slavophilism and Westernism. V. S. Solovyov experienced a great influence of historiosophical ideas. In general philosophy. in terms of Ch. stood on the positions of theism and providentialism; in the interpretation of the phenomena of consciousness adhered to t. sp. psychophys. parallelism. Of the two types of knowledge he singled out (experience and direct insight), the unconditional primacy gave to divine revelation.

Op.: Works and letters in 2 volumes. M., 1913-1914 ;P.Ya. Chaadaev's letter to the book. P.A. Vyazemsky // Antiquity and novelty. 1916. Vol.20;Letter to I. Gagarin // Vremennik of the Society of Friends of the Russian Book. 1928. V.2;Philosophical Encyclopedia

Russian thinker and publicist. Born into a noble family (mother is the daughter of the historian Prince M. M. Shcherbatov). In 1808–11 he studied at Moscow University, where he became close friends with N. I. Turgenev and I. D. ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Chaadaev (Pyotr Yakovlevich) is a famous Russian writer. The exact year of his birth is unknown. Longinov says that Ch. was born on May 27, 1793, Zhikharev considers the year of his birth to be 1796, Sverbeev vaguely refers him to the first years of the latter ... ... Biographical Dictionary

- (1794 1856), Russian. thinker, author of the treatise "Philosophical Letters" (1829 1831, in French), the first of which was published. in Russian translated in The Telescope (1836, No. 15). In the "Letter" developed pessimistic. concept of past and present. history of Russia ... ... Lermontov Encyclopedia

- (1794 1856) Russian thinker and publicist. Participated in the Patriotic War of 1812, in 1821 he was admitted to the Northern Society of the Decembrists, in 1823 26 abroad. Philosophical and historical views were formed under the influence of the ideas of Catholic providentialism ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

- (1794 1856) Russian idealist philosopher. The author of Philosophical Letters, which in Russian society were perceived as a manifesto of Western ideology. In the field of psychology, he developed the idea of ​​​​a single space where human souls can ... ... Psychological Dictionary

Chaadaev Petr Yakovlevich- (1794 1856) Russian idealist philosopher. Research. The author of Philosophical Letters, which in Russian society were perceived as a manifesto of Western ideology. In the field of psychology, he developed the idea of ​​​​a single space where human souls ... ... Great Psychological Encyclopedia BooksMore