Mikhail Vsevolodovich. Oleg Svyatoslavich, in St.

Ivan Ilyin - the harbinger of the coming Russia

Ilyin Ivan Aleksandrovich (03/28/04/10/1883, Moscow, Russia - 12/21/1954, Zurich, Switzerland) - an outstanding Russian religious philosopher, national thinker, legal scholar and statesman, a brilliant publicist and orator, a writer and literary critic of rare beauty of language .

I.A. Ilyin in the office at the table with a lamp. Source: Scientific Library of Moscow State University

Rod Ilinykh

He was born in Moscow, in Baidakov's house on Plyushchikha, into a noble family of a sworn attorney of the Moscow Court of Justice, provincial secretary Alexander Ivanovich Ilyin (1851-1921) and Ekaterina Yulyevna Ilyina (1858-1942). His great-grandfather Ivan Ilyich Ilyin served under Emperor Paul I as a collegiate adviser, in 1796 he was granted a diploma of nobility. The grandfather of the philosopher Ivan Ivanovich Ilyin (1799-1865) - a military civil engineer, colonel, built the Grand Kremlin Palace, became its commandant and received the title "Major from the gates of the Grand Kremlin Palace." The grandfather's family lived in the Kremlin; the father of the philosopher, Alexander Ivanovich Ilyin, was also born there, whose godfather was Emperor Alexander II. Maternal grandfather - Court Councilor Julius Schweikert von Stadion (1805-1876), a German physician who moved to Russia in 1832, later became the chief physician of the Imperial Widow's House and an honorary citizen of Imperial Russia. His daughter Caroline Louise Schweikert, a Lutheran by religion, converted to Orthodoxy when she married Alexander Ivanovich Ilyin in 1880 in the Nativity Church in the village of Bykovo and became known as Ekaterina Yulyevna Ilyina. She gave birth to five sons - Alexei, Alexander, John (Ivan), Julius and Igor. Little John was baptized on April 22, 1883 in the Mother of God-Rozhdestvenskaya church outside the Smolensk Gates.

Years of study

Ivan Ilyin studied at the famous Moscow 1st classical gymnasium and graduated from it in 1901 with a gold medal, which gave him the right to enter the law faculty of the Imperial Moscow University without exams. Here he developed a deep interest in philosophy; his supervisor was the well-known jurist, Professor Pavel Ivanovich Novgorodtsev, who in 1906 left Ilyin at the university to prepare for a professorship.

Family life

On August 27, 1906, Ivan Ilyin married Natalia Vokach (1882-1963), a graduate of the Higher Women's Courses, the daughter of Nikolai Antonovich Vokach (1857-1905) and Maria Andreevna Muromtseva (1856-?). She was the niece of the chairman of the First State Duma, Sergei Muromtsev, and the cousin of Ivan Bunin's wife, Vera Muromtseva. Her scientific interests lay in the field of philosophy, art criticism, history; she was spiritually close to her husband, with whom she lived a long life. They had no children, and after the death of Ivan Alexandrovich, Natalia Nikolaevna transferred his archive and legacy to close friends and students, who on December 21, 1956 created the "Commonwealth named after Professor Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin."

Becoming a philosopher

In 1909, Ilyin passed the exams for a master's degree in state law and, after two trial lectures, was approved as a Privatdozent in the department of the Encyclopedia of Law and the History of the Philosophy of Law of his native university. In 1910, he began teaching his first course at Moscow University, at the same time he became a member of the Moscow Psychological Society; in "Questions of Philosophy and Psychology" published his first scientific work "The Concepts of Law and Force". At the end of the year, he and his wife went abroad on a scientific mission and spent two years there at the universities of Heidelberg, Freiburg, Berlin, Göttingen and Paris. From the summer of 1911, he listened to the lectures of the founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl (Göttingen), for a year and often communicated with him, comprehending his phenomenological method, the essence of which, in the words of Ilyin himself, was as follows:

The analysis of one or another subject must be preceded by an intuitive immersion in the experience of the analyzed subject.

Returning to Moscow in 1912, he lectured at the university using this method, later called the "method of phenomenological reduction". Since 1913, he lived with his wife in Krestovozdvizhensky Lane, 2, apt. 36, - from now on his permanent residence until his expulsion from Soviet Russia in 1922.

The Great War with Germany in 1914 caused a patriotic upsurge in Russia, Ilyin not only imbued it, but played an important role in strengthening it. During this period, two works by Ilyin appeared: "The Basic Moral Contradiction of War" and "The Spiritual Meaning of War", which became the best pages of Russian moral philosophy; without them, a correct understanding of his important and in many ways difficult book “On Resistance to Evil by Force” is impossible. In them, as in a code, the ideas of his future works are laid down, concerning subjects “for which it is worth living, fighting and dying” - this is the leitmotif that pervades all subsequent creations of Ilyin. Here, for the first time and prophetically, volunteerism was spoken of, then this topic moved into the White Idea, and not only in the military-historical sense, but in a broader sense: the thousand-year state building of Russia. In addition, these were bold lines about the difficult and delicate issue of the war.

Expulsion from Bolshevik Russia

The February Revolution of 1917 posed a serious problem for Ilyin: the state system of his Motherland was crushed, he is a legal scholar, what is his attitude to everything that happens? Ilyin solved this most difficult task in the spirit of Socrates: he did not try to evade the troubles and hardships that befell his country and people, he deeply analyzed the situation, applied all his knowledge to a worthy way out of the current situation: he turns from an armchair scientist into an active politician , fighter and ideologist of a just cause. He perceived the October coup as a catastrophe and actively joined the fight against the illegal regime; his fiery article "To the Gone Winners" in the newspaper "Russian Vedomosti" came out three weeks after the coup and was a direct accusation of the Bolsheviks and the providence of their historical death. At this time, he creates his original Russian Doctrine of Legal Consciousness.

In 1918, he was arrested three times and kept in the dungeons of the Cheka for a total of about two months. He was involved in “case No. 93 of an American citizen V.A. Bari, staff captain V.V. Krivoshein, K.M. Khalafov, assistant professor Ilyin I.A. etc., accused of belonging to a counter-revolutionary organization called the Volunteer Army.

On May 19, 1918, he was released for a while to defend his master's thesis "Hegel's Philosophy as the Doctrine of the Concreteness of God and Man", which was so impeccable that the faculty unanimously awarded him two degrees at once: master's and doctor of state sciences, and in the fall he received at the university title of professor. His fame helped to avoid punishment in the Volunteer Army case, and he was acquitted for lack of evidence and amnestied. On August 24, 1918, Professor Alexei Ivanovich Yakovlev, the son of the famous Chuvash educator Ivan Yakovlevich Yakovlev, a friend of the Ulyanov family, who once worked for Alexander Ulyanov, addressed Lenin with a letter, asking him to stop Ilyin's case, which significantly influenced the course of the process.

Three more times Ilyin was arrested by the Cheka and the OGPU (in 1919, 1920 and 1922), he was finally charged with being

... from the moment of the October Revolution to the present, not only has he not reconciled himself with the workers' and peasants' power existing in Russia, but he has not stopped his anti-Soviet activities for a single moment, and in moments of external difficulties for the RSFSR he intensified his counter-revolutionary activities, that is, in the crime provided for Article 57 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR.

On September 29, 1922, Ilyin, along with other scientists, philosophers and writers, was deported to Germany on the ship Oberburgomaster Haken. In Soviet Russia there was a campaign to expel the best people abroad.

Life in Germany. Nazi persecution

Upon arrival in Berlin in early October 1922, Ilyin immediately contacted General Alexei von Lampe, representative of Baron Wrangel, and became an analyst, assistant to General Wrangel and ideologist of the Russian All-Military Union. (Later, von Lampe organized the publication of 216 of the famous Ilyinsky bulletins "Our Tasks", which were sent around the world for like-minded people.)

In February 1923, the Russian Scientific Institute was opened in Berlin, at the opening of which Ilyin delivered a topical speech "Problems of Modern Legal Consciousness". Ilyin became a professor at this institute, read a number of courses: an encyclopedia of law, the history of ethical doctrines, an introduction to philosophy, an introduction to aesthetics, the essence of legal consciousness, etc. - in two languages, Russian and German.

In 1923-1924 he was the dean of the Faculty of Law of the RNI, in 1924 he was elected a corresponding member of the Slavic Institute at the University of London. In the same 1926, his famous pamphlet-appeal "Motherland and Us" was published - the heroic song of the White Army and the White Movement.

Since 1925, his great works have appeared: “The Religious Meaning of Philosophy”, “On Resistance to Evil by Force”, “The Path of Spiritual Renewal”, “Fundamentals of Art. On Perfection in Art” and no less significant in content brochures: “The Poison of Bolshevism”, “On Russia. Three Speeches”, “The Crisis of Godlessness”, “Fundamentals of Christian Culture”, “Pushkin's Prophetic Vocation”, “The Creative Idea of Our Future. On the Foundations of a Spiritual Character”, “Fundamentals of the Struggle for National Russia”, etc. Particular attention both among the Russian emigration and in Russia of that time was attracted by Ivan Ilyin’s book “On Resistance to Evil by Force”, which remains relevant to this day.

After Hitler came to power in 1933, Ilyin had a conflict with the German propaganda ministry. The representative of Goebbels, Ert, following the general policy of the German government, demanded that the professors of the Russian Scientific Institute join in anti-Jewish propaganda and act in this direction before the students. Ilyin refused to follow these instructions, and in 1934 he was fired from the university. In 1938, the Gestapo seized his published works and banned him from public speaking.

Life in Switzerland

Having lost his source of livelihood, Ivan Alexandrovich decided to leave Germany and move to Switzerland, where the Ilyins settled in the Zurich suburb of Zollikon. With the help of friends and acquaintances, in particular Sergei Rachmaninoff, he began to rebuild his life for the third time.

Since the Swiss authorities forbade Ilyin to engage in political activities, he concentrated on literary work, often giving lectures on Russian culture in various Swiss audiences, which gave him a small income.

Once, after one of his speeches, a listener, Charlotte Bareiss, approached him and asked if he wrote books on the topics that he talks about in his lectures. He replied that he did not have the financial means to publish books. Later, she, being a wealthy Swiss woman, offered her patronage to Ilyin. She rented an apartment for Ilyin at 33 Zollikerstrasse and provided a monthly allowance of 500 francs for the publication of his manuscripts. With her help, Ilyin published several brilliant books in German: The Essence and Uniqueness of Russian Culture, The Eternal Foundations of Life, and the three-volume book I peer into life. The Book of Thoughts”, “The Singing Heart. The book of quiet contemplation”, “Look into the distance. The Book of Reflections and Hopes”, the book “Hegel’s Philosophy as a Contemplative Doctrine of God” and his fundamental research in Russian “Axioms of Religious Experience”.

Death and return to Russia

All his life, Ilyin was sick - often and a lot. He treated diseases with Christian courage and considered them the finger of God; he died in a hospital in the city of Zollikon in the morning in one second, sitting on a chair near his bed while dressing. It was "a shameless and peaceful death." His widow and friends did everything to ensure that his unpublished works saw the light, and his large and valuable archive was preserved: Professor Nikolai Petrovich Poltoratsky (1921-1990), at the suggestion of the "Commonwealth ...", in 1966 moved the archive of Ivan Ilyin to the University of Michigan for storage, City of East Lansing, USA. Mrs. Bareiss erected a monument on the grave of the philosopher with an epitaph composed in German by Ilyin himself, and in Russian translation it sounds something like this:

Everything is felt
So much has been gained
Contemplated with love
A lot of sins
And little understood
Thank You, Eternal Kindness!

Charlotte Bareiss supported Natalia Nikolaevna until her death, on March 30, 1963, buried her and, as if fulfilling her last duty, soon died herself.

The remains of Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin and his wife Natalia Nikolaevna Ilyina were transferred from Tsollikon to Moscow, at the state and church level they were reburied in the necropolis of the Donskoy Monastery on October 3, 2005; the philosopher's archive was returned to his home university in 2006. All these cultural events were facilitated by the widow of Professor Poltoratsky Tamara Mikhailovna (1921-2016), who transferred all the legal rights necessary for this to Yuri Trofimovich Lisitsa, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, the compiler and commentator of the 30-volume Collected Works of Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin (Moscow, 1993-2015) .

Yu.T. Lisitsa, professor of PSTGU

Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin was born on April 9, 1883 (died December 21, 1954), philosopher, writer and publicist, supporter of the White movement and consistent critic of the communist government in Russia, ideologist of the Russian All-Military Union (ROVS).

The emigrant philosopher Ivan Ilyin has now become "the favorite thinker of the supreme power." At least, it is to him that the president and other government officials quite often refer in their public speeches.

At one time there were some fluctuations. Casting (in Russian - choice, selection - our "elite" loves foreign terms) for the role of "beloved thinker" was held by both Berdyaev and Konstantin Leontiev, by the way, a participant in the first Crimean campaign of 1853.

But everything turned out to be different. The candidates were ill-suited to address the pressing ideological challenges and displayed dangerous freethinking. That is why the supreme power as the main ideologists, since the ban on state ideology is fixed in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, determined for itself I. Ilyin and A. Solzhenitsyn in this role.

In his messages to the Federal Assembly in 2005 and 2006, the head of state quoted from the work of the white émigré philosopher Ivan Ilyin "Our Tasks" and the book "How We Should Equip Russia" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Who is Ivan Ilyin and what are his views, we will consider in our article.

To understand why such philosophers and writers as I. Ilyin, A. Solzhenitsyn came to the fore in the post-Soviet period, why their views and ideology are popular today, it is necessary to turn to the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Ideologies differ from each other formally - by certain ideals and values that are proclaimed in it, but in fact - by the concept that they cover up with their announcements.

An ideology that declares the highest value of human rights and freedoms, but in its inner essence, containing financial slavery, is the ideology of liberalism.

Article 2 of the RF Constitution thus formally establishes the liberal state ideology in Russia. There is a conflict between Article 13, which prohibits the state ideology, and Article 2, which approves it.

Each civilization appears in the world with its own ideal (from the ideals carried by civilizations) project. This ideal project is reflected in the constitutions of the respective states.

Today there is only one civilization-forming state for which the promotion of its own ideal project is prohibited. This state is Russia.

Is it a coincidence that the two most dynamically developing countries in the world today in terms of economic parameters, China and India, directly declare their adherence to certain ideological teachings? Isn't a publicly declared ideology a development factor in this case?

After all, when any ideology is announced, at least the specific goals that the ideology proposes to achieve become visible. And if ideals come to the fore, then such a society will begin to realize its civilizational destiny.

And in Russia, at the highest level, a single civilizational idea has not yet been announced, and therefore our officials, in search of at least some kind of Russian surrogate, turned their attention to the works of I. Ilyin, A. Solzhenitsyn.

As a result of the implementation of the ideas of the latter, we have a state concept for de-Sovietization, as a result - monuments to the victims of political repression, the Wall of Sorrow and the constant denigration of our historical past in the media.

What ideas of I. Ilyin make their way through the activities of some politicians of our state? These are the church, private property, capitalism, freedom, criticism of the Soviet past...

IVAN ILYIN IS A DOGMATIC RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHER WHO HATES SOVIET RUSSIA

Philosophers in general are difficult people for power, they rarely manage to be included with giblets in the current Machiavellian game. In this sense, Nikita Mikhalkov, who has long been promoting the legacy of Ilyin, did everything right.

Certainly, none of the Russian intellectuals of the 20th century is better suited to justify the current political order than Ivan Ilyin, the most dogmatic of our religious philosophers.

The trick is simple: when you can't directly refer to the Orthodox creed as the basis of your power, use secular interdependence with it. We say Ivan Ilyin, but we mean the church.

If not for the revolution of 1917, Ivan Ilyin would probably have become a good professor of jurisprudence and philosophy and would have taken his niche among other professional philosophers of his era - Lossky, Shpet, Frank.

The revolution turned Ilyin first into an active political dissident, then into a prisoner, and then into an exile, a passenger on the famous "philosophical ship".

But Ilyin's transformations did not end there either. In exile, he took a more or less empty place as an ideologist of the veteran organizations of the White movement, dreaming of revenge.

During his life, the philosopher in Ilyin mutated more and more into a propagandist, the author of combat leaflets against Soviet Russia. Short texts infused resentment and bile, Ilyin has accumulated a huge amount.

INSERT

It is worth noting that the concept of resentment was first introduced by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his work On the Genealogy of Morals (1887).

Resentment, according to Nietzsche, is a feeling of hostility towards what the subject considers the cause of his failures (the "enemy"), impotent envy, "a painful consciousness of the futility of trying to raise one's status in life or in society."

The feeling of weakness or inferiority, as well as envy towards the "enemy" leads to the formation of a special value system that denies the value system of the "enemy". The subject creates the image of an "enemy" in order to get rid of guilt for his own inferiority.

END INSERT

Back in the 90s, an attempt was made to publish his complete works, which could not be completed, so that in the end it consisted of 10 main and 16 additional volumes.

After the default of 1998, this hefty pack of "spiritual heritage" was given away for free, including to all federal officials who were recommended to study them.

At the beginning of his career, Ivan Ilyin managed to write a devastating review of Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, published for the first time (by Lenin) under the pseudonym V. Ilyin.

The evil irony is that Professor Ivan Ilyin eventually became the antipode, a caricature copy of Lenin. In addition to purely superficial similarities and conspiratorial activities in neutral Switzerland during the world wars (take note of this point), they were united by an uncompromising hatred of political opponents.

The difference was that Lenin was for the workers and peasants, relied on the ideology of Marxism and won the Civil War. Ivan Ilyin, on the other hand, was in the camp of the losers, to whom, moreover, he joined after the end of the fight.

He advocated for the landowners and priests and relied on a kind of "Russian", but in fact nationalist (if not Nazi) ideological basis.

So it is very easy to accept Ilyin as the “chief” in a country that is used to worshiping dogmatic “Marxism-Leninism”.

An academic philosopher who became a poet and tribune of the White Cause is a unique figure.

Other white poets like Roman Gul or Ivan Solonevich do not have the professorial respectability of Ilyin. Ivan Ilyin, on the other hand, combined incompatible qualities at first glance.

On the one hand, he mastered the technique of philosophical argumentation, perfected at Moscow University.

On the other hand, his attitude turned out to be primitive enough not to notice that the real tragedy of Russia lies not at all in the Bolsheviks alone, and the revival of Russia is not in anti-Bolshevism.

In this he disagreed, for example, with Bulgakov, Gaito Gazdanov and even with Nikolai Berdyaev. Academic emigre philosophers did not follow the activist Ilyin, who seemed to be their colleague, at all. Neither Lossky, nor Frank, nor Sergei Bulgakov felt so confident in the role of conductors of a clear political course.

In this sense, the controversy that unfolded around Ilyin's book "On Resistance to Evil by Force", relating to his early emigre period (1925), is very indicative. Ivan Ilyin, with all his fury, falls upon the preachers of ethical Tolstoyism, unacceptable and impossible, in his opinion, at the time of the struggle for the fate of the Motherland.

In fact, we have before us the application of the apparatus of German classical philosophy to denounce their political opponents at the current historical moment, for which the Bolshevik theorists have always been so famous.

Berdyaev reacted with an extremely vicious review of The Nightmare of Evil Good, where he declared from the first lines that:

"Cheka in the name of God is more disgusting than Cheka in the name of the devil."

Zinaida Gippius stated that Ivan Ilyin became a "former philosopher", and his text is "military theology". However, Ivan Ilyin then found allies even among representatives of the moderate wing of emigration like Pyotr Struve, and he himself did not go into his pocket for a word.

In a letter to ROCOR Metropolitan Anastasia Ilyin, he smashes his “heresiarch” rivals:

“... I am trying to weave the fabric of a new philosophy, thoroughly Christian in spirit and style, but completely free from pseudo-philosophical abstract idle talk. Here there is absolutely no intellectual "theologizing" like Berdyaev - Bulgakov - Karsavin and other amateurish heresiarchs ...
This is a simple, quiet philosophy, accessible to everyone, born of the main organ of Orthodox Christianity — the contemplative heart…”

The justification of philosophy and at the same time of the political course lies not simply in faith, but in faith sanctioned by the institution of the church. The main theoretical works of the late Ilyin, Axioms of Religious Experience and The Path to Evidence, are built on similar principles.

In the first of them, Ivan Ilyin proposes a draft description of religious experience, understood as the foundation of human existence in the world and, at the same time, social relations. Whoever does not believe in God will not be able to understand the nature of Russia.

In the second, it sets its own methodological program: philosophy is looking for ways to revive the spirit, the goal of philosophical knowledge is evidence, the latter is revealed in traditional values.

In general, Ilyin can be characterized as a typical conservative philosopher of his time. Hermetic, full of metaphysics and even mysticism, Ilyin's texts are built around axioms, the acceptance of which automatically means recognition of the persuasiveness of his conclusions.

The concepts with which he operates - "ascended spirit", "creative heart", "living breath of God on earth" - could easily find their place in the texts of any, let's be careful, right-wing thinker of the 20th century, for example, Baron Julius Evola ( Italian philosopher, ideologist of neo-fascism - our note).

Ilyin had no serious disagreements with fascism at all, but quite a lot has already been written about this. The point is not who Ilyin sympathized with, but that his worldview is, in principle, typologically a radical worldview.

In political works, Ivan Ilyin spoke quite definitely. In The Way of Spiritual Renewal (1937), he states that for this very renewal of Russia, the following are necessary: faith, love, freedom, conscience, family, homeland, nationalism, legal consciousness, the state and private property.

If we do not count the freedom that accidentally crept in here, understood, of course, primarily as freedom from Bolshevism, then we have a list that is ideal for immediate absorption into the ideology of the current Russian “elite”.

The "dean's Leninist" Ilyin, the "philosopher of the censer and the whip," is brilliantly suited to answer the questions that really worry our new conservatives.

Why do they need to be in power whenever possible, why everything around should belong to respected people, and why, finally, the people should humbly accept their fate, "in love, faith and humility."

To quote Ilyin as an undeniable justification, as Marx and Engels were quoted in Soviet textbooks, is to take sides in the civil war and declare it unfinished. In an early essay, The Motherland and Us (1926), Ivan Ilyin writes bitterly about the loss of the Motherland.

Now, through his quotes, the motherlands want to deprive all of his ideological opponents: Bolsheviks, liberals or atheists.

WHO WAS IVAN ILYIN REALLY?

On September 2, 1922, the collegium of the Main Political Directorate under the NKVD of the RSFSR decided to expel citizen Ilyin "from the RSFSR abroad" in connection with anti-Soviet activities, after which he settled in Germany, where he became a teacher at the Berlin "Russian Scientific Institute", which in in turn, he was a member of the so-called "League of Aubert", the full name of which sounded like the "International League of Struggle Against the Third International" (which included the NSDAP and other extreme right-wing nationalist organizations of that time).

All this didn't bother me at all. "Russian patriot" Ilyin.

“Professor I. Ilyin, the founder of the Russian Bell magazine, openly called himself and his associates fascists ...”(Okorokov A.V., Fascism and Russian emigration (1920 - 1945). M. 2001. P. 21).

In October 1933, when the Russian Institute came under the wing of Reich Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, and NSDAP member Adolf Erth was appointed its director, Ivan Ilyin was appointed vice president of the institute.

It is noteworthy that while the remaining employees of the “institute” were fired by the Nazis due to “disloyalty to the ideas of the Fuhrer and the Reich” or “non-Aryan origin”, the “Russian patriot” Ivan Ilyin remained to work in it as one of three Russian employees (two others are white emigrants Alexander Bogolepov and Vladimir Poletika).

According to the German historian Hartmut Rüdiger Peter, the activities of the propagandist Ilyin received explicit recognition from the first head of the Gestapo, Rudolf Diels. And Ivan Ilyin, until 1937, delivered reports of anti-communist content on the territory of the Third Reich.

On May 17, 1933, in the white émigré newspaper Vozrozhdeniye published in Paris, the idol of the entire current “elite”, Ivan Ilyin, published an article “National Socialism. New spirit”, quotes from which you can evaluate yourself:

“What did Hitler do? He stopped the process of Bolshevization in Germany and by doing so rendered the greatest service to all of Europe”;
“While Mussolini leads Italy and Hitler leads Germany, European culture is given a reprieve”;
“And the European peoples must understand that Bolshevism is a real and fierce danger; that democracy is a creative dead end; that Marxist socialism is a doomed chimera; that a new war is beyond Europe's strength, neither spiritually nor materially, and that only a national upsurge can save the cause in each country, which will dictatorially and creatively take up the "social" solution of the social question";
“Until now, European public opinion has only been repeating that extreme racists, anti-Semites have come to power in Germany; that they do not respect rights; that they do not recognize freedom; that they want to introduce some kind of new socialism; that all this is "dangerous" and that, as Georg Bernhard recently put it,<…>, this chapter in the history of Germany, “hopefully, will be short” ... It is unlikely that we will be able to explain to European public opinion that all these judgments are either superficial, or short-sighted and biased”;

How about this:

“What is happening is a great social stratification; but not property, but state-political and cultural-driving (and only to this extent - service-earned) ”,
“Everything involved in Marxism, Social Democracy and Communism is being removed; all internationalists and Bolsheviks are removed; many Jews are removed,
“The spirit of National Socialism cannot be reduced to 'racism'. It does not come down to denial either. He puts forward positive and creative tasks. And these creative tasks are facing all peoples. It is imperative for all of us to look for ways to solve these problems.
It is foolish and ignoble to boo other people's attempts in advance and gloat over their anticipated failure. And didn't they slander the white movement? Wasn't he accused of "pogroms"? Wasn't Mussolini slandered?
And what, did Wrangel and Mussolini become smaller from this? Or perhaps European public opinion feels called upon to hinder any real struggle against communism, both purifying and creative, and is only looking for a convenient pretext for this? But then we need to keep that in mind…”

Anti-Soviet and frankly fascist Ilyin's views are so strong that even after the defeat of the Reich by the Red Army and the Allies, after the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal, after making public the truth about the crimes of the Nazis, in the article "On Fascism" (1948), Ivan Ilyin writes that:

“Fascism is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon and, historically speaking, is far from obsolete (we note that he is very right here - IAC note). It has healthy and sick, old and new, state-protective and destructive. Therefore, in assessing it, calmness and justice are needed. But its dangers must be thought through to the end.
“Fascism arose as a reaction to Bolshevism, as a concentration of state-protective forces to the right. During the onset of left-wing chaos and left-wing totalitarianism, this was a healthy, necessary and inevitable phenomenon.
Such a concentration will continue in the future, even in the most democratic states: in the hour of national danger, the healthy forces of the people will always be concentrated in a protective-dictatorial direction. So it was in ancient Rome, so it was in the new Europe, so it will be in the future.”
“Coming out against left totalitarianism, fascism was, furthermore, right, because it was looking for just social and political reforms. These searches may or may not have been successful: it is difficult to solve such problems, and the first attempts may not have been successful.
But to meet the wave of socialist psychosis - with social and therefore anti-socialist measures - was necessary. These measures have been brewing for a long time, and there was no need to wait any longer.
“Finally, fascism was right, because it proceeded from a healthy national-patriotic feeling, without which no people can either assert its existence or create its own culture.”

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from all this - everyone should understand “who” the authorities are quoting, “who” is being imposed on the citizens of Russia as a kind of “landmark”, the founder of the notorious “national idea”.

All this looked especially cynical against the backdrop of the 70th anniversary of the Victory, when the same people who presented Ilyin as a “Russian patriot” and “statesman” began to talk with hypocritical rapture about the feat of the Soviet people and how important it is to fight Nazism and fascism currently.

WHO REPRESENTS IVAN ILYIN IN RUSSIA?

Russian President Vladimir Putin once called the collapse of the Soviet Union a "geopolitical catastrophe." But today, the greatest influence on modern Russia is not the founder of the USSR Vladimir Lenin, but the political thinker and preacher of fascism Ivan Ilyin.

This brilliant philosopher died more than 60 years ago, but his ideas have been revived in post-Soviet Russia. After 1991, Ilyin's books are reprinted in large numbers. President Putin began quoting him in his annual Address to the Federal Assembly.

To complete the rehabilitation of Ilyin, Putin secured the return of his ashes from Switzerland, and the archive from Michigan. The Russian president was spotted laying flowers at the Moscow grave of the philosopher. But Putin is not the only one using Ilyin among the Kremlin “elite”.

One of the main Russian propagandists, Vladislav Surkov, also considers Ilyin an authority.

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who served as president from 2008 to 2012, recommends Ilyin's work to Russian students. The name of Ilyin appears in the speeches of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, the head of the constitutional court and the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.

WHAT ARE THE IDEAS ENGAGED SO “DEEP RESPECT”?

Ivan Ilyin believed that individuality is evil. For him, "human diversity" was a demonstration of God's inability to complete the work of creating the world, and therefore he considered such diversity to be essentially satanic.

Accordingly, the middle class, political parties and civil society are all the same evil, because they contribute to the development of a personality that goes beyond the boundaries of a single self-identification of the national community.

According to Ilyin, the goal of politics is to overcome individuality and establish the "living totality" of the nation.

His main philosophical works date back to the 1920s and 1930s, when he became the leading émigré ideologue of the anti-communist white movement.

He looked to Mussolini and Hitler as exemplary leaders who had saved Europe by dissolving democracy. Therefore, the article of 1927, which he called completely unreasonably - "On Russian fascism" was addressed to him "to my white fascist brothers."

Later, in the 1940s and 1950s, he drafted a constitution for a fascist Holy Russia to be ruled by a "national dictator" "inspired by the spirit of the multitude."

And this man is presented to us as a prophet.

WAS A PROPHET?

Maybe the prophet was chosen wrong, that's why his prophecies do not "warm" his contemporaries, locking themselves, as before, on a narrow layer of creative intelligentsia and government officials who are far from their people?

Perhaps the point is both in the prophet and in the Fatherland, as well as in the inaccuracies of the ideas themselves, which Ivan Alexandrovich tried to implement all his life, being outside of Russia?

With all due respect to the legacy of Ilyin, his role in Russian philosophy, one cannot fail to notice that the ideas of Ivan Alexandrovich did not take root even in the minds of the most radical emigrants who categorically denied the Soviets, before which the philosopher lectured about Russia and the hated Bolshevik regime.

The views of Ilyin, a staunch monarchist and nationalist, are based on remaining faithful to pre-revolutionary foundations. In his view, Russian society should be built on the rank and hierarchy of estates.

“We must revive in ourselves the ancient ability to have a king,” wrote the philosopher.

His lack of understanding of everything that was happening in the country came down to criticizing the Soviet government, instilling hatred for the Bolsheviks.

Having spent 5 years in revolutionary Russia before his expulsion, for the rest of his life he fixed in his mind the negative experience that later became evident in his writings. It is sometimes impossible to read them without a smile, without asking the question:

“If everything in the USSR was as Ivan Alexandrovich describes, then why didn’t it crumble earlier, but survived and almost independently defeated the more correct (according to Ilyin) fascism in a difficult war?”

It is affected by isolation from genuine historical events that will remain hidden from Ilyin by the iron curtain, information hunger, and scooping knowledge from the Western press and emigre newspapers.

Of course, Russia has come a long way since the collapse of the USSR. To a certain extent, Ilyin's prophecies came true. Only Ilyin in his works does not blame those who contributed to the pulling to pieces of a huge country.

He accuses all the same Bolsheviks, who, in his opinion, emasculated his spirituality from the people. By spirituality, Ivan Alexandrovich understands the dogma helping the powerful of this world to manage, restrain, educate the population.

The Soviet ideology also brought up. Under its influence, Soviet people gave their lives for the liberation of mankind., and not a single group of exiles.

The geopolitical changes brought about by revolutions and wars in young Soviet Russia could not but affect the psychology of the people, who for the first time felt their collective unconscious, felt themselves to be “everyone”.

What can we say about the generations that grew up in another, new country, about those who heard the name of the philosopher himself for the first time several years ago.

How to explain Ilyin's philosophical thoughts about the priority of Russians among the peoples of Russia, which today are clearly not actively used for the purpose of consolidating the state, those whose fathers and grandfathers fought in the Civil War for universal happiness on earth, built Magnitogorsk, created a superpower from a backward patriarchal state without regard to nationality?

How to explain to the descendants of General Karbyshev that his feat of confrontation was in vain, that the expansion of space by Yuri Gagarin, the first Soviet man who paved the way to the stars, is a bluff? How can you cross out everything that the country has lived for 70 years and in which continuity has not yet been lost, and start searching for the “Russian idea of revival” where everything has died a long time ago?

So political scientists and other ideological treasure hunters, rushing from one extreme to another, hope to pull out of the philosophical works of the ideologist of the White Guard movement Ivan Ilyin, who laid down his life to resist the Soviets, the “national idea” of the revival of modern Russia.

The question here should be asked: “The national idea should be what kind of nation? Great Russians? If the answer is “Russians”, then this is a belittling of our spiritual power, since the concept of “Russian” has long been a designation not of a nation, but of a civilizational community.

Therefore, an attempt to restore the Orthodox faith is also becoming a dead end, erroneous direction in the search for a “national Russian idea”.

No renewal of Orthodoxy will lead to anything, unless it is a return to the Teachings of Christ, for which a lot of things will need to be reviewed and canceled, for example: the fact of execution, the Trinity, the creed, priests, icons, crosses, etc., but then little will remain of Orthodoxy itself.

It is possible to introduce the law of God into the curriculum, to teach the dogma in schools, to introduce it without asking the consent of the parents, in kindergartens, but it is impossible to restore the “true faith” if the clergy themselves, in the past graduates of secondary and higher Soviet educational institutions, are not able to think former categories.

Now they want to get the idea of reviving the state for free, without really straining.

So they are looking for it in philosophical treatises of 60-100 years ago and trying to find it among those who, if Russia was dear, then obviously not enough to find a way out of the crisis for the whole country.

The very country that lay "from the seas to the very outskirts", whose multimillion-strong population speaks more than 180 languages and dialects.

Some of the "ship philosophers", living in Europe and the Americas, introducing the ideas of liberation from the "Bolshevik yoke" and the revival of Russia in an emigre environment, among the participants in various white movements and other anti-Soviet organizations, the ideologist of which was Ivan Ilyin, at the same time thought not about yourself, but about the Russian people, about their troubles and aspirations?

Of course no. They saddened their skins about their ruined estates, lost capital and lost property. And dreamed of someday returning them.

ON THE. BERDYAEV ON I.A. ILYINA

In 1925, Ivan Ilyin wrote the book "On Resistance to Evil by Force" - he found a sponsor and published it.

The idea of the book is simple - to justify from a Christian point of view the thesis that it is possible and necessary to fight the Bolsheviks by force, with weapons in hand. The book caused a great controversy in emigre circles, came to Berdyaev, and he, horrified, wrote a review “The Nightmare of Evil Goodness” (http://krotov.info/library/02_b/berdyaev/1926_312.htm). There he writes:

“I rarely had to read such a nightmarish and painful book as the book of I. Ilyin. "On resisting evil by force." This book is capable of instilling a real aversion to the “good”, it creates an atmosphere of spiritual suffocation, plunges into the dungeons of the moral inquisition”…
“In the worldview of I. Ilyin there is nothing not only Orthodox, but in general Christian.<…>Completely un-Christian and anti-Christian are the views of I. Ilyin on the state, on the individual and on freedom.”
“The entire mood of I. Ilyin's book is not Christian and anti-Christian. It is imbued with a sense of pharisaic self-righteousness... The whole misfortune is that I. Ilyin is too conscious of himself as a "particle of divine fire." This is the discovery of an unheard-of spiritual pride.”

Very on point. Maybe this is too strong a word, but the fact that this person was subject to the sin of “self-righteousness”, that pride really raged in him, is subtly noticed.

AFTERWORD

Through the prism of years, the fallacy of the actions and assessments of many, as it were, “Russian” ideologists, who, due to a number of private or social conditions, have lost their correct orientation, becomes obvious.

Often they worked successfully in favor of the Western intelligence services, which used their names and popularity as their main ideological weapon in an attempt to weaken and destroy the USSR from within.

One can only regret that intelligentsia, talented writers and philosophers who, being deeply immersed in their own egocentrism, buying into university chairs and Nobel Prizes, becoming puppets, who were skillfully controlled by the bosses of the West, in vain devoted their lives to an imaginary ideological struggle for a fictional Russia, which, in fact, they never knew or understood.

In 2005, the ashes of Ivan Ilyin were returned to their homeland. This costly event was supposed to "stir up people's self-consciousness" and outline the sprouts of patriotic pride "for the Fatherland" in the hearts of young Russians. But are such “actions” capable of changing the collective unconscious of a people that has long since ground down both the idealistic atheism of all churches and the materialistic atheism of the Soviet era?

Video "Materialistic and idealistic atheism and the tasks of the future (IAC)"

Modern youth and the majority of the population of Russia were, are and will be as far from the philosophical ideas of Ivan Alexandrovich as their great-grandfathers from the slavery of ancient Egypt.

Neither the transfer of the remains of the deceased, nor the attempt by famous people to popularize the works of the philosopher, nor even the quoting of some of his sayings in their public speeches by the first persons of the state, were able to arouse mass interest in the works of Ivan Ilyin in today's society.

And none of the historians and biographers is ready to explain this phenomenon. They shrug their hands and refer to a phrase from the Bible that has set the teeth on edge:

"There is no prophet in his Fatherland."

Therefore, it is necessary to think carefully about whether it is possible to follow a person whose views on Orthodoxy, the structure of society and, in general, whose worldview is far from the best sample?

“Do they gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles?” (Matthew 7:16).
“Believe not every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1).

Why is the attention of the supreme power to such persons so closely? The answer is clear: since there is no state ideology in Russia, which is very fraught with the gradual development of the country, the ideas and views of a number of seemingly non-ideological philosophers and writers are being promoted, although this is an obvious slyness.

In fact, the ban on state ideology is nothing more than a ban on any propaganda by the state, a ban on the targeted propaganda of human ideals through the structures of state authorities, through educational and educational institutions, which causes negative consequences: despondency, apathy, lack of meaning in life for people, kaleidoscopic outlook, legal nihilism, the growth of crime, etc.

In general, the constitutional consolidation of the role of ideology has turned out to be interesting in our country. Deeply original. There is no such thing anywhere else and no one else. And whether Russia needs such originality is a question that requires serious discussion.

There should be a generally accepted system of ideals, values, views and beliefs, enshrined in the Constitution, and not what we are offered through Ivan Ilyin or Solzhenitsyn and others.

“Constitution of 1993. Time to look beyond the horizon

Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin. Born March 28 (April 9), 1883 in Moscow - died December 21, 1954 in Zollikon. Russian philosopher, writer and publicist, supporter of the White movement and consistent critic of the communist government in Russia, ideologist of the Russian All-Military Union (ROVS).

In exile, he became a supporter of the so-called monarchists-“unpredetermined”, gravitated towards the intellectual tradition of the Slavophiles and remained an opponent of communism and Bolshevism until his death.

Ilyin's views greatly influenced the worldview of other Russian conservative intellectuals of the 20th century, including.

Ivan Ilyin was born in Moscow into a noble aristocratic family. According to Mikhail Andreevich Ilyin, a professor at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University (a close relative of Ivan Alexandrovich).

Ivan Ilyin's father - Alexander Ivanovich Ilyin (1851-1921), godson of Emperor Alexander II, provincial secretary, sworn attorney of the District of the Moscow Court of Justice, since 1885 - owner of the Bolshie Polyany estate in the Ryazan province; vowel of the Pronsky district zemstvo assembly.

Ivan Ilyin's mother - Russian German Carolina Louise Schweikert von Stadion (1858-1942), Lutheran, daughter of collegiate adviser Julius Schweikert von Stadion (1805-1876), converted to Orthodoxy (in marriage - Ekaterina Yulyevna Ilyina) after her wedding in 1880 in the Church of the Nativity Bykovo village, Bronnitsky district, Moscow province.

Alexei Alexandrovich Ilyin graduated from the 5th Moscow Gymnasium. In July 1899 he was enrolled in the Faculty of Law of Moscow University, and in January 1900 he was transferred to the 2nd semester of the Faculty of History and Philology, but soon applied for permission to attend classes at the Faculty of Law. May 5, 1903 received a graduation certificate from the Faculty of History and Philology. At the same time, he attended a full course at the Faculty of Law, passing all the necessary tests and exams.

Alexander Alexandrovich Ilyin first entered the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University, and at the end of the 2nd semester on July 29, 1902, in a petition to the rector, he set out a request for a transfer to the 1st year of the Faculty of Law. In May 1907 he was awarded a diploma of the 2nd degree.

Igor Alexandrovich Ilyin, after graduating from the Ryazan 1st gymnasium in August 1910, entered the law faculty of Moscow University, in 1914 he was awarded a diploma of the first degree and joined the Council of Attorneys at Law of the Moscow Court of Justice. The graduation essay on the theme "Reconciliation with Rome in the reign of Justin I and church struggle in the reign of Justinian (518-565)" was rated "very satisfactory". On July 1, 1933, Igor Ilyin applied to the archives of Moscow State University with a request to issue a certificate of graduation from the Faculty of Law, necessary for submission to the Bureau of Legal Advisers at the Moscow Prosecutor's Office.

Ivan Ilyin's paternal grandfather - Ivan Ivanovich Ilyin (1799-1865), colonel, civil engineer, participated in the construction of the Grand Kremlin Palace, then was its commandant.

Ivan Ilyin's paternal aunt - Ekaterina Ivanovna Zhukovskaya (translator, pseudonym "D. Torokhov", 1841-1913) - wife of publicist Yuliy Galaktionovich Zhukovsky (1822-1907); Ivan Ilyin's cousin, their daughter, the writer Natalya Yulyevna Zhukovskaya-Lisenko (1874-1940).

Another paternal aunt - Lyubov Ivanovna Ilyina (c. 1845-1922) - was married to the famous St. Petersburg teacher Yakov Grigoryevich Gurevich, the founder and director of the Gymnasium and the real school of Gurevich, as well as the pedagogical magazine "Russian School"; their children (cousins and sister of I. A. Ilyina) are Grigory Yakovlevich Gurevich-Ilyin, professor of medicine and author of the repeatedly reprinted General Medical Technique, teacher, writer and (after the death of his father) director of the Gurevich gymnasium Yakov Yakovlevich Gurevich and writer Lyubov Yakovlevna Gurevich, with whom I. A. Ilyina had many years of friendship and correspondence. Great-grandson of Ya. G. and L. I. Gurevich - literary critic Irakli Luarsabovich Andronikov (1908-1990).

Paternal uncle - Nikolai Ivanovich Ilyin (1837-after 1917) - colonel engineer, one of the co-owners of the Moscow-Ryazan Railway Society, bought the Bykovo estate from I. I. Vorontsov-Dashkov in the 1890s. By the name of N. I. Ilyin, they named the dacha settlement that arose soon and the railway platform of the same name in the Ryazan direction of the Moscow Railway. Grandson of N. I. Ilyin and cousin of I. A. Ilyin - art critic, professor of Moscow State University Mikhail Andreevich Ilyin (1903-1981).

On August 27, 1906, Ilyin got married in the Church of the Nativity of Christ in the village of Bykovo with Natalya Vokach, niece of Sergei Muromtsev, cousin of Vera Muromtseva (wife) and cousin of sisters Evgenia and Adelaide Gertsyk. The Ilins had no children.

Ivan Ilyin was born on March 28, 1883 according to the old style. Baptized on April 22 in the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin outside the Smolensky Gates.

In 1906 he graduated from the Faculty of Law of the Imperial Moscow University and stayed to work there. He also lectured at the Higher Women's Courses in Moscow.

In 1909, he was Privatdozent of the Department of the History of Law and the Encyclopedia of Law.

In 1910, Ilyin is on a scientific trip to Germany and France, studying the latest trends in European philosophy, including the philosophy of life and phenomenology.

In 1918 he defended his dissertation on the topic "Hegel's philosophy as a doctrine of the concreteness of God and man" and became a professor of jurisprudence. The official opponents are Professor P. I. Novgorodtsev and Professor Prince E. N. Trubetskoy.

During the years of the first Russian revolution, Ilyin was a man of rather radical views, but after 1906 he turned to a scientific career, and politically migrated towards the right wing of the Kadet party.

In 1922, by order, he was expelled from Russia along with other 160 prominent philosophers, historians and economists.

From 1923 to 1934 he worked as a professor at the Russian Scientific Institute in Berlin, supported by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After 1930, the funding of the RNI by the German government practically ceased, and Ilyin earned money by speaking at anti-communist rallies and publishing in the circles of the so-called "political Protestantism" (Eckart publishing house). From the 1920s, Ilyin became one of the main ideologists of the Russian White movement in exile, and from 1927 to 1930 he was the editor and publisher of the Russian Bell magazine.

In 1934 he was fired from his job and persecuted by the Gestapo.

In 1938 he left Germany, moving to Switzerland, where he established himself thanks to the initial financial support of Sergei Rachmaninov. In the suburbs of Zurich Zollikon, Ivan Aleksandrovich continued his scientific activity until the end of his days. The books “The Singing Heart. The Book of Quiet Contemplation", "The Path to Evidence" and "Axioms of Religious Experience".

The library of I. A. Ilyin, together with his archive, entered the Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts of the Scientific Library of Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov in 2006. Before that, from 1966 to 2005. kept at the University of Michigan.

The library has 630 titles of books, brochures, magazines and rotaprint publications, of which 563 books are in Russian. Publications on Russian literature, history and philosophy. The library contains rare editions of N. M. Karamzin (“History of the Russian State”, 1818), (“Chronicle of Novgorod”, 1819), etc., as well as valuable publications of the Russian diaspora, concerning issues of Russian ideology and culture. electronic edition of the catalog of the personal library of I. A. Ilyin.

Ivan Ilyin and fascism:

A number of Ilyin's works are devoted to the fascist movement in Europe, both during its development (1925-1933) and after its collapse (1948).

“What did Hitler do? He stopped the process of Bolshevization in Germany and by doing so rendered the greatest service to all of Europe.(National Socialism. New Spirit - 1933).

"Fascism arose as a reaction to Bolshevism, as a concentration of state-protective forces to the right. During the onset of left chaos and left totalitarianism, this was a healthy, necessary and inevitable phenomenon. Such a concentration will continue, even in the most democratic states: in the hour of national danger, the healthy forces of the people will always be concentrated in the direction of the protective-dictatorial.So it was in ancient Rome, so it happened in the new Europe, so it will be in the future... In speaking out against left totalitarianism, fascism was, furthermore, right, since it was looking for just socio-political reforms ... Finally, fascism was right, because it proceeded from a healthy national-patriotic feeling, without which no nation can either establish its existence or create its own culture.

We advise you not to believe the propaganda trumpeting the local "atrocities", or, as it is called, "atrocious propaganda". There is such a law of human nature: a frightened fugitive always believes in the chimeras of his imagination and cannot help but talk about the "terrible horrors" that almost overtook him. ..European peoples must understand that Bolshevism is a real and fierce danger; that democracy is a creative dead end; that Marxist socialism is a doomed chimera; that a new war is beyond Europe's strength, neither spiritually nor materially, and that only a national upsurge, which will dictatorially and creatively undertake the "social" solution of the social question, can save the cause in each country.(ibid.).

At the same time, after the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, Ilyin also noted a number of mistakes of the fascist regimes, which, in his opinion, “compromised fascism”, “gave its very name that odious coloring that its enemies never tire of emphasizing”:

"Fascism was not supposed to take a position hostile to Christianity...

fascism could not create a totalitarian system: it could be satisfied with an authoritarian dictatorship...

Russian "fascists" did not understand this. If they manage to settle in Russia (which God forbid), then they will compromise all state and healthy ideas and fail in disgrace ...

Franco and Salazar understood this and are trying to avoid these mistakes. They do not call their regime "fascist". Let's hope that Russian patriots will think through the mistakes of fascism and National Socialism to the end and not repeat them".

Family

Another paternal aunt - Lyubov Ivanovna Ilyina (c. 1845-1922) - was married to the famous St. Petersburg teacher Yakov Grigorievich Gurevich, the founder and director of the Gymnasium and the Gurevich real school, as well as the pedagogical magazine "Russian School"; their children (cousins and sister I. A. Ilyina) are a professor of medicine and the author of the repeatedly reprinted General Medical Technique Grigory Yakovlevich Gurevich-Ilyin, a teacher, writer and (after the death of his father) director of the Gurevich gymnasium Yakov Yakovlevich Gurevich and writer Lyubov Yakovlevna Gurevich, with whom I. A. Ilyina had many years of friendship and correspondence. Great-grandson of Ya. G. and L. I. Gurevich - literary critic Irakli Luarsabovich Andronikov (1908-1990).

Paternal uncle - Nikolai Ivanovich Ilyin (1837-after 1917) - colonel engineer, one of the co-owners of the Moscow-Ryazan Railway Society, bought the Bykovo estate from I. I. Vorontsov-Dashkov in the 1890s. By the name of N.I. Ilyin, they named the dacha settlement that soon arose and the railway platform of the same name of the Ryazan direction of the Moscow Railway. Grandson of N. I. Ilyin and cousin of I. A. Ilyin - art critic, professor of Moscow State University Mikhail Andreevich Ilyin (1903-1981).

On August 27, 1906, Ilyin married in the Church of the Nativity of Christ in the village of Bykovo with Natalya Vokach, niece of Sergei Muromtsev, cousin of Vera Muromtseva (wife of Ivan Bunin) and cousin of sisters Evgenia and Adelaide Gertsyk. The Ilins had no children.

Biography

Ivan Ilyin was born on March 28, 1883 according to the old style. Baptized on April 22 in the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin outside the Smolensky Gates.

Ilyin studied for the first five years at the Fifth Moscow Gymnasium, the last three years at the First Moscow Gymnasium. In 1901 he graduated from the gymnasium with a gold medal, having received a classical education, in particular knowledge of Latin, Greek, Church Slavonic, French and German. In the summer of the same year, Ilyin applied to Moscow University to enroll him in the Faculty of Law. During his studies, he developed an interest in philosophy, he received fundamental training in law, which he studied under the guidance of the legal philosopher P. I. Novgorodtsev.

It is believed that he collaborated with Germany until 1938:

“In the 1930s, in collaboration with Adolf Erth, a high-ranking Nazi functionary who until 1938 headed the anti-Comintern branch of the Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda, Ilyin published books under German pseudonyms. Almost no one here knows about it. He used the pseudonyms "Julius Schweikert" and "Alfred Norman". These books had such wonderful titles as, for example, Unchaining the Underworld. It is understood that it was the Bolsheviks who removed the fetters from the underworld. Or "Bolshevik Great Power Politics: The Plans of the Third International to Revolutionize the World According to Authentic Sources". There, Ilyin explained to everyone who wished what terrible Jews and Slavs inhabited Bolshevik Russia - since they allowed the liquidation of the monarchy and the expulsion of him, Ivan Ilyin, abroad, and, of course, that the Fuhrer must drive them into the ground, once and for all show everyone what with such rascals are supposed to be done.”

The library has 630 titles of books, brochures, magazines and rotaprint publications, of which 563 books are in Russian. Publications on Russian literature, history and philosophy. The library contains rare editions of N. M. Karamzin (“History of the Russian State”, 1818), (“Chronicle of Novgorod”, 1819), etc., as well as valuable publications of the Russian diaspora, concerning issues of Russian ideology and culture. A printed and electronic edition of the catalog of I. A. Ilyin's personal library has been prepared.

Ilyin today

Until the 1990s, Ilyin was hardly talked about openly in Russia. The works of the thinker began to be published again in the USSR since 1989; from 1993 to 2008, 28 volumes of collected works were published (compiled by Yu. T. Lisitsa).

A certain influence on the revival of Ilyin's ideas and his memory was provided by the Russian actor and film director Nikita Mikhalkov. The popularity of Ilyin's ideas is also gaining popularity among the Russian Orthodox Church. Quotes from the works of Ilyin were used in their speeches by Prosecutor General V.V. Ustinov and President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin

« Whoever loves Russia must desire freedom for her; first of all, freedom for Russia itself as a state, freedom for Russia as a national, albeit a multi-membered unity, freedom for the Russian people, freedom of faith, the search for truth, creativity, labor and property", - said the President.

Memory

Proceedings

Ivan Ilyin has written over 50 books and over a thousand articles in Russian, German, French and English.

The most famous:

"On resistance to evil by force", 1925
the two-volume "Our Tasks", 1956, contains more than 200 articles written in Switzerland from 1954 to 1954.
"Axioms of Religious Experience", 1956
lectures "The concepts of the monarchy and the republic", 1979 - prepared for publication by N. P. Poltoratsky.

Ilyin and the reform of Russian spelling

I. A. Ilyin is known as an implacable opponent of the Russian spelling reform of 1918. Ilyin's criticism of the new orthography ("curvature", in his words) contains both linguistic (in particular, Ilyin reproached the new orthography for an increase in the number of homographs after the disappearance of differences like is / is, world / world), and political and philosophical elements:

Why all these distortions? What is this mind-boggling decline for? Who needs this turmoil in thought and in linguistic creativity?
There can be only one answer: the enemies of national Russia need all this. Im; precisely im, and only im.
I remember how, in 1921, I pointed out to Manuilov the question of why he introduced this deformity; I remember how he, not thinking of defending what he had done, helplessly referred to Gerasimov's insistent demand. I remember how I put the same question to Gerasimov in 1919 and how he, referring to the Academy of Sciences, burst into such a rude outburst of anger that I turned around and left the room, not wanting to let my guest down with such tricks. Only later did I find out, a member which international organization was Gerasimov.

Write a review on the article "Ilyin, Ivan Aleksandrovich"

Literature

Blokhina N. N., Kalyagin A. N. Doctor's morality in the view of I. A. Ilyin (to the 120th anniversary of his birth) // Siberian Medical Journal. - Irkutsk, 2004. - T. 43. No. 2. - S. 95-99.
Evlampiev I. I. Phenomenology of the Divine and the Human in the Philosophy of Ivan Ilyin. - M., 1998.
Zernov I. Ivan Ilyin. Monarchy and the future of Russia. - M.: Algorithm, 2007. - 240 p.
Lisitsa Yu. T. I. A. Ilyin: Historical and biographical essay // I. A. Ilyin. Collected works: in 10 vols. T. 1. - M .: Russian book, 1993. - S. 5-36.
Poltoratsky N. P. Monarchy and republic in the perception of I. A. Ilyin. - New York, 1979.
Poltoratsky N. P. Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin. To the centenary of the birth // Russia and revolution. Russian religious-philosophical and national-political thought of the XX century: Sat. articles. - New York, 1988. - S. 214-291, 339-345.
Social Philosophy of Ivan Ilyin: Materials of the Russian Seminar. secret V. V. Kozlovsky. Parts 1,2. - St. Petersburg, 1993.
Sokhryakov Yu. I. I. A. Ilyin is a religious thinker and literary critic. - M., 2004.
Tomsinov V. A., Tyurenkov M. A. Ilyin Ivan Alexandrovich // Imperial Moscow University: 1755-1917: encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Russian political encyclopedia, 2010.
Tomsinov V. A. A thinker with a singing heart. Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin: Russian ideologist of the era of revolutions. - M.: Zertsalo, 2012.
Tomsinov V. A. A thinker with a singing heart. The fate and work of Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin // Ilyin I. A. Theory of Law and State. Second edition, enlarged. - M.: Zertsalo, 2008. - S. 8-180.
I. A. Ilyin: Pro et contra: The personality and work of Ivan Ilyin in the memoirs, documents and assessments of Russian thinkers and researchers. - St. Petersburg: Russian Christian Humanitarian Institute, 2004.
Grier, Philip T. The Speculative Concrete: I. A. Il'in's Interpretation of Hegel, in: Hegel and Hermeneutics / ed. Shaun Gallagher. - New York, 1994.
Grier, Philip T. The complex legacy of Ivan Il'in, in: Russian thougut after marxism: The re-discovery of Russia's intellectual roots / ed. James P. Scanlan. - Ohio State University Press 1994.
Paradowski, Ryszard. Kosciół i władza: ideologiczne dylematy Iwana Iljina. - Poznań: Wydawn. Naukowe UAM, 2003. ISBN 83-232-1328-3.
Offermans, Wolfgang. Mensch, werde wesentlich! Das Lebenswerk des russischen religiösen Denkers Ivan Iljin für Erneuerung der geistigen Grundlagen der Menschheit. - Erlangen 1979.
Tsygankov, Daniel Beruf, Verbannung, Schicksal: Iwan Iljin und Deutschland // Archiv fuer Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie. - Bielefeld, 2001. - Vol. 87. - 1. Quartal. - Heft 1. - S. 44-60

Notes

A copy of the birth certificate of I. A. Ilyin (CIAM, f. 418, op. 315, d. 373, ll. 10, 10v.)
. www.chrono.ru Retrieved 28 October 2016.
Solzhenitsyn, A. I. (September 18, 1990). "" (Brochure to the newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda"). Retrieved 2008-10-15.
Solzhenitsyn, A.I.. "". Retrieved 2008-10-26.
Solzhenitsyn, A.I.. "". Retrieved 2008-10-26.
TsGIA of Moscow. F. 418. Op. 313. D. 261a. L. 3, 3v., 5, 7.
TsGIA of Moscow. F. 418. Op. 315. D. 369. L. 2, 16, 17-17v.; F. 371. Op. 3. D. 45. L. 109, 113-113v.
TsGIA of Moscow. F. 418. Op. 324. D. 739; Op. 513. D. 3382.
Ivan Ilyin and Russia. Unpublished photographs and archival materials: Photoalbum / Comp. Yu. T. Lisitsa. - M .: Russian book, 1999. - S. 113. - ISBN 5-268-00415-8.- facsimiles of letters of dismissal dated July 9 and 11, 1934 are given.
Apartments A. From the memoirs of I. A. Ilyin // Russian Renaissance. - 1983. - No. 23. - S. 135.
Gessen I.V. Years of exile. - Paris, 1979. - S. 242.
Letter from Heinrich Müller to Georg Leibrandt 05/14/1936 // Ilyin I. A. Collected works: In 2 volumes / Comp., comm. Lisitsy Yu. T. - M .: Russian book, 1999. - T. 1: Diary, letters, documents: 1903-1938. - S. 465. - ISBN 5-268-00256-2.
A. Tarasov .

Links

Ilyin's works

lib.ru Selected articles. ed. N. P. Poltoratsky. Ed. Holy Trinity Monastery and Telex Corporation Jordanville, NY USA, 1991. // M.: Military Publishing, 1993. - 368 p.
(unavailable link from 20-05-2013 (2215 days) - story , copy)

Editions in German

Kommunismus oder Privateigentum? Berlin: Verlagsanstalt d. Deutschen Hausbesitzes, 1929.
Wider die Gottlosigkeit. Berlin: Eckart-Verl., 1931.
Die Ziele und die Hoffnungen; Die Arbeits method; Das System des Terrors; Kommunismus als Beamtenherrschaft; Das Schicksal des russischen Bauern; Die Lage der Arbeiter // Welt vor dem Abgrund. Politik, Wirtschaft und Kultur im kommunistischen Staate. Berlin: Eckart-Verl., 1931. S. 15-34, 35-53, 99-118, 119-142, 183-218, 371-400.
Gift - Geist und Wesen des Bolschewismus. Berlin: Eckart-Verl., 1931.
(mit A. Ehrt als J. Schweikert) Entfesselung der Unterwelt. Berlin: Eckart-Verl., 1932.
Was hat das Martyrium der Kirche in Sowjet-Russland den Kirchen der anderen Welt zu sagen? Neukirchen: Stursberg, 1936.
Der Angriff auf die christliche Ostkirche. Neukirchen: Stursberg, 1937.
Das Martyrium der Kirche in Russia. Neukirchen: Stursberg, 1937.
Ich schaue ins Leben. Berlin: Furche-Verl., 1938.
Wesen und Eigenart der russischen Kultur. Zürich: Aehren Verl., 1942.
Die wigen Grundlagen des Lebens. Zürich: Aehren Verl., 1943.
Das verschollene Herz. Bern: Haupt, 1943.
Blick in die Ferne. Affoltern am Albis: Aehren Verl., .
Die Philosophie Hegels als kontemplative Gotteslehre. Bern: Francke, 1946.

About Ilyin

Melnichuk O. S. Law and power in the concept of justice I. O. Ilyina: Monograph. - O.: Phoenix, 2008. - 178 p.
Tomsinov V.A. A Thinker with a Singing Heart. Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin: Russian ideologist of the era of revolutions. M.: Zertsalo-M, 2012. - 102 p. (series "Great Russian people").

Criticism

Martynov K.
Semenov Yu.
Kozhevnikov V. A.

An excerpt characterizing Ilyin, Ivan Aleksandrovich

“Oh, yes, yes,” answered the commander-in-chief. - What he?..
The small society, gathered in the old-fashioned, high, with old furniture, drawing room before dinner, looked like a solemn meeting of the council of the court. Everyone was silent, and if they spoke, they spoke quietly. Prince Nikolai Andreevich came out serious and silent. Princess Mary seemed even more quiet and timid than usual. The guests were reluctant to address her, because they saw that she had no time for their conversations. Count Rostopchin alone kept the thread of the conversation, talking about the latest urban or political news.
Lopukhin and the old general occasionally took part in the conversation. Prince Nikolai Andreevich listened as the supreme judge listened to the report that was being made to him, only occasionally stating in silence or in a short word that he took note of what was being reported to him. The tone of the conversation was such that it was understandable that no one approved of what was being done in the political world. Events were recounted, apparently confirming that things were going from bad to worse; but in every story and judgment, it was amazing how the narrator stopped or was stopped every time at the border where the judgment could relate to the face of the Emperor.
At dinner, the conversation turned to the latest political news, about the seizure of the possessions of the Duke of Oldenburg by Napoleon, and about the Russian note, hostile to Napoleon, sent to all European courts.
“Bonaparte treats Europe like a pirate on a conquered ship,” said Count Rostopchin, repeating a phrase he had already spoken several times. - You are only surprised at the patience or blindness of sovereigns. Now it comes to the pope, and Bonaparte no longer hesitates to overthrow the head of the Catholic religion, and everyone is silent! One of our sovereign protested against the seizure of the possessions of the Duke of Oldenburg. And then ... - Count Rostopchin fell silent, feeling that he stood at the point where it was no longer possible to condemn.
“They offered other possessions instead of the Duchy of Oldenburg,” said Prince Nikolai Andreevich. - Just as I resettled the peasants from the Bald Mountains to Bogucharovo and Ryazan, so he dukes.
- Le duc d "Oldenbourg supporte son malheur avec une force de caractere et une resignation admirable, [The Duke of Oldenburg endures his misfortune with remarkable willpower and humility to fate,] said Boris, respectfully entering into a conversation. He said this because he was passing through from Petersburg had the honor of introducing himself to the duke.” Prince Nikolai Andreevich looked at the young man as if he wanted to tell him something about this, but changed his mind, considering him too young for that.
“I read our protest about the Oldenburg case and was surprised at the bad wording of this note,” said Count Rostopchin, with the casual tone of a person judging a case he is well acquainted with.
Pierre looked at Rostopchin with naive surprise, not understanding why he was worried about the bad wording of the note.
“Isn’t it all the same how the note is written, Count?” he said, “if its content is strong.
- Mon cher, avec nos 500 mille hommes de troupes, il serait facile d "avoir un beau style, [My dear, with our 500 thousand troops it seems easy to be expressed in a good style] - said Count Rostopchin. Pierre understood why Count Rostopchin was worried about the editorial note.
“It seems that the scribbler is quite divorced,” said the old prince: “everything is written there in St. Petersburg, not only notes, but new laws are being written. My Andryusha wrote a whole volume of laws for Russia there. Everything is being written! And he laughed unnaturally.
The conversation was silent for a minute; the old general drew attention with a cough.
- Did you deign to hear about the latest event at the review in St. Petersburg? how the new French envoy showed himself!
- What? Yes, I heard something; he said something awkwardly in front of His Majesty.
“His Majesty drew his attention to the grenadier division and the ceremonial march,” continued the general, “and it was as if the envoy did not pay any attention and as if he allowed himself to say that we in France do not pay attention to such trifles. The sovereign did not deign to say anything. At the next review, they say, the sovereign never deigned to turn to him.
Everyone fell silent: no judgment could be made on this fact, which applied personally to the sovereign.
- Daring! - said the prince. Do you know Metivier? I kicked him out today. He was here, they let me in, no matter how I asked not to let anyone in, ”said the prince, looking angrily at his daughter. And he told his whole conversation with the French doctor and the reasons why he was convinced that Metivier was a spy. Although these reasons were very insufficient and not clear, no one objected.
Champagne was served for the roast. The guests rose from their seats, congratulating the old prince. Princess Mary also approached him.
He looked at her with a cold, angry look and offered her a wrinkled, shaven cheek. The whole expression of his face told her that he had not forgotten the morning conversation, that his decision had remained in its former force, and that it was only thanks to the presence of guests that he did not tell her this now.
When they went into the drawing-room for coffee, the old men sat down together.
Prince Nikolai Andreevich became more lively and expressed his way of thinking about the upcoming war.
He said that our wars with Bonaparte would be unhappy as long as we seek alliances with the Germans and meddle in European affairs into which the Peace of Tilsit has drawn us. We didn't have to fight for Austria or against Austria. Our policy is all in the east, but in relation to Bonaparte there is only one thing - armament on the border and firmness in politics, and he will never dare to cross the Russian border, as in the seventh year.
- And where are we, prince, to fight the French! - said Count Rostopchin. - Can we take up arms against our teachers and gods? Look at our youth, look at our ladies. Our gods are French, our kingdom of heaven is Paris.
He began to speak louder, obviously so that everyone could hear him. “French costumes, French thoughts, French feelings!” You've kicked out Metivier in your neck, because he's a Frenchman and a scoundrel, and our ladies are crawling after him. Yesterday I was at the evening, so out of five ladies, three are Catholic and, with the permission of the pope, they sew on canvas on Sunday. And they themselves are sitting almost naked, like signs of trading baths, if I may say so. Oh, look at our youth, prince, I would take the old club of Peter the Great from the Kunstkamera, but in Russian I would break off the sides, all the nonsense would jump off!
Everyone fell silent. The old prince looked at Rostopchin with a smile on his face and shook his head approvingly.
“Well, goodbye, Your Excellency, don’t get sick,” said Rostopchin, rising with his usual quick movements and holding out his hand to the prince.
- Farewell, my dear, - the harp, I will always listen to him! - said the old prince, holding his hand and offering him a kiss for a cheek. Others rose with Rostopchin.

Princess Mary, sitting in the drawing room and listening to these talk and gossip of the old people, did not understand anything from what she heard; she only thought about whether all the guests noticed her father's hostile attitude towards her. She did not even notice the special attention and courtesies that Drubetskoy, who had been in their house for the third time, had shown her throughout this dinner.
Princess Mary with an absent-minded, questioning look turned to Pierre, who, the last of the guests, with a hat in his hand and with a smile on his face, approached her after the prince had left, and they were left alone in the living room.
- Can I sit still? - he said, with his thick body falling into an armchair near Princess Marya.
“Oh yes,” she said. "Didn't you notice anything?" said her look.
Pierre was in a pleasant state of mind after dinner. He looked ahead of him and smiled softly.
“How long have you known this young man, Princess?” - he said.
- What?
- Drubetskoy?
No, recently...
- What do you like about him?
- Yes, he is a pleasant young man ... Why are you asking me this? - said Princess Mary, continuing to think about her morning conversation with her father.
- Because I made an observation - a young man usually comes from St. Petersburg to Moscow on vacation only with the aim of marrying a rich bride.
You have made this observation! - said Princess Mary.
“Yes,” Pierre continued with a smile, “and this young man now keeps himself in such a way that where there are rich brides, there he is.” I read it like a book. He is now undecided whom he should attack: you or Mademoiselle Julie Karagin. Il est tres assidu aupres d "elle. [He is very attentive to her.]
Does he visit them?
- Very often. And do you know a new way of courting? - Pierre said with a cheerful smile, apparently being in that cheerful spirit of good-natured mockery, for which he so often reproached himself in his diary.
“No,” said Princess Mary.
- Now, to please the Moscow girls - il faut etre melancolique. Et il est tres melancolique aupres de m lle Karagin, [one must be melancholic. And he is very melancholy with m elle Karagin,] - said Pierre.
– Vrayment? [Right?] - said Princess Mary, looking into Pierre's kind face and not ceasing to think about her grief. “It would be easier for me,” she thought, if I decided to believe to someone everything that I feel. And I would like to tell Pierre everything. He is so kind and noble. It would be easier for me. He would give me advice!”
- Would you marry him? Pierre asked.
“Ah, my God, Count, there are such moments when I would go for anyone,” Princess Mary suddenly said, unexpectedly for herself, with tears in her voice. “Ah, how hard it is to love a loved one and feel that ... nothing (she continued in a trembling voice) you can do for him except grief, when you know that you cannot change this. Then one thing - to leave, but where should I go? ...
- What are you, what is the matter with you, princess?
But the princess, without finishing, began to cry.
“I don't know what's wrong with me today. Don't listen to me, forget what I told you.
All Pierre's gaiety vanished. He anxiously questioned the princess, asked her to express everything, to confide her grief to him; but she only repeated that she asked him to forget what she had said, that she did not remember what she had said, and that she had no grief, except for what he knew - grief that the marriage of Prince Andrei threatened to quarrel her father with son.
Have you heard about the Rostovs? she asked to change the conversation. “I was told that they would be coming soon. I also wait for Andre every day. I would like them to meet here.
How does he look at the matter now? asked Pierre, by which he meant the old prince. Princess Mary shook her head.
– But what to do? The year is only a few months away. And it can't be. I would only wish to spare my brother the first few minutes. I wish they would come sooner. I hope to get along with her. You have known them for a long time, - said Princess Marya, - tell me, hand on heart, the whole true truth, what kind of girl is this and how do you find her? But the whole truth; because, you understand, Andrei risks so much by doing this against the will of his father that I would like to know ...
An obscure instinct told Pierre that in these reservations and repeated requests to tell the whole truth, Princess Mary's hostility towards her future daughter-in-law was expressed, that she wanted Pierre not to approve of Prince Andrei's choice; but Pierre said what he felt rather than thought.
"I don't know how to answer your question," he said, blushing, not knowing why. “I definitely don’t know what kind of girl this is; I can't analyze it at all. She is charming. And why, I do not know: that's all that can be said about her. - Princess Mary sighed and the expression on her face said: "Yes, I expected this and was afraid."
- Is she smart? asked Princess Mary. Pierre considered.
“I think not,” he said, “but yes. She does not deign to be smart ... No, she is charming, and nothing more. Princess Mary again shook her head disapprovingly.
“Oh, I so desire to love her!” Tell her that if you see her before me.
“I heard that they will be in the next few days,” said Pierre.
Princess Marya told Pierre her plan of how, as soon as the Rostovs arrived, she would get close to her future daughter-in-law and try to accustom the old prince to her.

Marrying a rich bride in St. Petersburg did not work out for Boris and he came to Moscow for the same purpose. In Moscow, Boris was in indecision between the two richest brides - Julie and Princess Mary. Although Princess Mary, despite her ugliness, seemed to him more attractive than Julie, for some reason he was embarrassed to look after Bolkonskaya. On her last meeting with her, on the old prince's name day, to all his attempts to talk to her about feelings, she answered him inappropriately and obviously did not listen to him.
Julie, on the contrary, although in a special way, peculiar to her alone, but willingly accepted his courtship.
Julie was 27 years old. After the death of her brothers, she became very rich. She was now completely ugly; but I thought that she was not only just as good, but much more attractive than she had been before. She was supported in this delusion by the fact that, firstly, she became a very rich bride, and, secondly, that the older she became, the safer she was for men, the freer it was for men to treat her and, without assuming any obligations, enjoy her dinners, evenings and lively society, gathering with her. A man who ten years ago would have been afraid to go every day to the house where there was a 17-year-old young lady, so as not to compromise her and not to tie himself up, now went to her boldly every day and treated her not as a young lady, but as a a friend who has no gender.
The Karagins' house was the most pleasant and hospitable house in Moscow that winter. In addition to parties and dinners, every day a large company gathered at the Karagins, especially men who had dinner at 12 o'clock in the morning and stayed up until 3 o'clock. There was no ball, festivities, theater that Julie would miss. Her toilets were always the most fashionable. But, despite this, Julie seemed disappointed in everything, told everyone that she did not believe in friendship, or in love, or in any joys of life, and expected peace only there. She adopted the tone of a girl who has suffered great disappointment, a girl who seems to have lost a loved one or was cruelly deceived by him. Although nothing like this happened to her, they looked at her as such, and she herself even believed that she had suffered a lot in life. This melancholy, which did not prevent her from having fun, did not prevent the young people who visited her from having a good time. Each guest, coming to them, gave his debt to the melancholic mood of the hostess and then engaged in secular conversations, and dances, and mental games, and burime tournaments, which were in vogue with the Karagins. Only some young people, including Boris, went deeper into Julie's melancholy mood, and with these young people she had longer and more solitary conversations about the vanity of everything worldly, and to them she opened her albums, covered with sad images, sayings and poems.
Julie was especially affectionate to Boris: she regretted his early disappointment in life, offered him those consolations of friendship that she could offer, having suffered so much in her life herself, and opened her album to him. Boris drew two trees for her in an album and wrote: Arbres rustiques, vos sombres rameaux secouent sur moi les tenebres et la melancolie. [Rural trees, your dark boughs shake off gloom and melancholy on me.]
Elsewhere he drew a tomb and wrote:
"La mort est secourable et la mort est tranquille
Ah! contre les douleurs il n "y a pas d" autre asile.
[Death is saving and death is calm;
O! there is no other refuge against suffering.]
Julie said it was lovely.
- II y a quelque chose de si ravissant dans le sourire de la melancolie, [There is something infinitely charming in a smile of melancholy,] - she said to Boris word for word the passage written out from the book.
- C "est un rayon de lumiere dans l" ombre, une nuance entre la douleur et le desespoir, qui montre la consolation possible. [This is a ray of light in the shadows, a shade between sadness and despair, which indicates the possibility of consolation.] - To this, Boris wrote poetry to her:
"Aliment de poison d" une ame trop sensible,
"Toi, sans qui le bonheur me serait impossible,
"Tendre melancolie, ah, viens me consoler,
Viens calmer les tourments de ma sombre retraite
"Et mele une douceur secrete
"A ces pleurs, que je sens couler."
[Poisonous food of a too sensitive soul,
You, without whom happiness would be impossible for me,
Gentle melancholy, oh come comfort me
Come, calm the torments of my gloomy solitude
And join the secret sweetness
To these tears that I feel flowing.]
Julie played Boris the saddest nocturnes on the harp. Boris read Poor Liza aloud to her and interrupted the reading more than once from excitement, which took his breath away. Meeting in a large society, Julie and Boris looked at each other as the only people in the world who were indifferent, who understood each other.
Anna Mikhailovna, who often went to the Karagins, making up her mother's party, meanwhile made accurate inquiries about what was given for Julie (both Penza estates and Nizhny Novgorod forests were given). Anna Mikhailovna, with devotion to the will of Providence and tenderness, looked at the refined sadness that connected her son with rich Julie.
- Toujours charmante et melancolique, cette chere Julieie, [She is still charming and melancholic, this dear Julie.] - she said to her daughter. - Boris says that he rests his soul in your house. He has suffered so many disappointments and is so sensitive,” she told her mother.
“Ah, my friend, how I have become attached to Julie lately,” she said to her son, “I cannot describe to you! And who can't love her? This is such an unearthly creature! Oh Boris, Boris! She was silent for a minute. “And how I feel sorry for her maman,” she continued, “today she showed me reports and letters from Penza (they have a huge estate) and she is poor and all alone: she is so deceived!
Boris smiled slightly, listening to his mother. He meekly laughed at her ingenuous cunning, but he listened and sometimes asked her attentively about the Penza and Nizhny Novgorod estates.
Julie had long been expecting an offer from her melancholic admirer and was ready to accept it; but some kind of secret feeling of disgust for her, for her passionate desire to get married, for her unnaturalness, and a feeling of horror at the renunciation of the possibility of true love still stopped Boris. His vacation was already over. Whole days and every single day he spent with the Karagins, and every day, reasoning with himself, Boris told himself that he would propose tomorrow. But in the presence of Julie, looking at her red face and chin, almost always sprinkled with powder, at her moist eyes and at the expression on her face, which always showed readiness to immediately move from melancholy to the unnatural rapture of marital happiness, Boris could not utter a decisive word: despite the fact that for a long time in his imagination he considered himself the owner of the Penza and Nizhny Novgorod estates and distributed the use of income from them. Julie saw Boris's indecisiveness and sometimes the thought came to her that she was disgusting to him; but immediately a woman's self-delusion offered her consolation, and she told herself that he was shy only out of love. Her melancholy, however, began to turn into irritability, and not long before Boris left, she undertook a decisive plan. At the same time that Boris' vacation was coming to an end, Anatole Kuragin appeared in Moscow and, of course, in the Karagins' living room, and Julie, suddenly leaving her melancholy, became very cheerful and attentive to Kuragin.
“Mon cher,” Anna Mikhailovna said to her son, “je sais de bonne source que le Prince Basile envoie son fils a Moscou pour lui faire epouser Julieie.” [My dear, I know from reliable sources that Prince Vasily is sending his son to Moscow in order to marry him to Julie.] I love Julie so much that I should feel sorry for her. What do you think, my friend? Anna Mikhailovna said.
The idea of being fooled and wasting for nothing this whole month of hard melancholy service under Julie and seeing all the income from the Penza estates already planned and used properly in his imagination in the hands of another - especially in the hands of stupid Anatole, offended Boris. He went to the Karagins with the firm intention of making an offer. Julie greeted him with a cheerful and carefree air, casually talking about how fun she had been at the ball yesterday, and asking when he was coming. Despite the fact that Boris came with the intention of talking about his love and therefore intended to be gentle, he irritably began to talk about female inconstancy: about how women can easily move from sadness to joy and that their mood depends only on who looks after them. Julie was offended and said that it was true that a woman needed variety, that everyone would get tired of the same thing.
“For this I would advise you ...” Boris began, wanting to taunt her; but at that very moment the insulting thought came to him that he might leave Moscow without having achieved his goal and having lost his labors in vain (which had never happened to him). He stopped in the middle of her speech, lowered his eyes so as not to see her unpleasantly irritated and indecisive face, and said: “I didn’t come here at all to quarrel with you. On the contrary…” He glanced at her to see if he could continue. All her irritation suddenly disappeared, and restless, pleading eyes were fixed on him with greedy expectation. "I can always arrange myself so that I rarely see her," thought Boris. “But the work has begun and must be done!” He blushed, looked up at her, and said to her, “You know how I feel about you!” There was no more need to speak: Julie's face shone with triumph and self-satisfaction; but she forced Boris to tell her everything that is said in such cases, to say that he loves her, and never loved a single woman more than her. She knew that for the Penza estates and Nizhny Novgorod forests she could demand this, and she got what she demanded.
The bride and groom, no longer remembering the trees that sprinkled them with darkness and melancholy, made plans for the future construction of a brilliant house in St. Petersburg, made visits and prepared everything for a brilliant wedding.

Count Ilya Andreich arrived in Moscow at the end of January with Natasha and Sonya. The countess was still unwell, and could not go, but it was impossible to wait for her recovery: Prince Andrei was expected to Moscow every day; besides, it was necessary to buy a dowry; The Rostovs' house in Moscow was not heated; in addition, they arrived for a short time, the countess was not with them, and therefore Ilya Andreich decided to stay in Moscow with Marya Dmitrievna Akhrosimova, who had long offered her hospitality to the count.
Late in the evening, four carts of the Rostovs drove into the courtyard of Marya Dmitrievna in the old Konyushennaya. Marya Dmitrievna lived alone. She has already married her daughter. Her sons were all in the service.
She kept herself as straight as ever, spoke her opinion directly, loudly and decisively to everyone, and with her whole being seemed to reproach other people for all sorts of weaknesses, passions and hobbies, which she did not recognize as possible. From early morning in Kutsaveyka, she did housework, then went: on holidays to mass and from mass to jails and prisons, where she had affairs that she did not tell anyone about, and on weekdays, dressed, she received petitioners of different classes at home who came to her every day, and then dined; at a hearty and tasty dinner there were always three or four guests, after dinner she made a party to Boston; at night she forced herself to read newspapers and new books, while she knitted. Rarely did she make exceptions for trips, and if she went out, she went only to the most important persons in the city.
She had not yet gone to bed when the Rostovs arrived, and the door on the block squealed in the hall, letting in the Rostovs and their servants who were coming in from the cold. Marya Dmitrievna, with spectacles pulled down on her nose, her head thrown back, stood at the door of the hall and looked at the incoming people with a stern, angry look. One would have thought that she was embittered against the newcomers and would now kick them out if she did not give careful orders to people at that time about how to accommodate the guests and their things.
- Counts? “Bring it here,” she said, pointing to the suitcases and not greeting anyone. - Ladies, this way to the left. Well, what are you kidding! she shouted at the girls. - Samovar to warm up! “I’ve gotten fatter, prettier,” she said, pulling Natasha, flushed from the cold, by the hood. - Ugh, cold! Get undressed quickly, - she shouted at the count, who wanted to approach her hand. - Freeze, please. Serve rum for tea! Sonyushka, bonjour,” she said to Sonya, emphasizing her slightly contemptuous and affectionate attitude towards Sonya with this French greeting.