Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev was born on May 27 [June 7] 1794, Moscow. Date of death: April 14, 1856, ibid. Russian philosopher (in his own estimation, a “Christian philosopher”) and publicist, declared crazy by the government for his writings, in which he sharply criticized the reality of Russian life. His works were banned from publication in imperial Russia.

In 1829-1831 he created his main work, Philosophical Letters. The publication of the first of them in the Telescope magazine in 1836 caused sharp discontent of the authorities due to the bitter indignation expressed in it about Russia’s exclusion from the “worldwide education of the human race”, spiritual stagnation, impeding the fulfillment of the historical mission destined from above. The magazine was closed, the publisher Nadezhdin was exiled, and Chaadaev was declared crazy.

Biography
Born into an old wealthy noble family of the Chaadaevs, on his mother’s side he is the grandson of academician, historian M. M. Shcherbatov, author of the 7-volume edition of “Russian History from Ancient Times.” He was left an orphan early — his father died the next year after his birth, and his mother — in 1797. He and his older brother Mikhail, very young, were taken from the Nizhny Novgorod province to Moscow by his aunt — Princess Anna Mikhailovna Shcherbatova (? — 1852), from her they and lived in Moscow, in Serebryany Lane, next to the famous Church of St. Nicholas the Revealed on Arbat. The Chaadaevs’ guardian was their uncle, Prince D.M. Shcherbatov, in whose house Chaadaev received his education.

In 1807-1811 he studied at Moscow University, was friends with A. S. Griboedov, A. S. Pushkin, and the future Decembrists N. I. Turgenev, I. D. Yakushkin.

War of 1812
In May 1812, the Chaadaev brothers joined the Semenovsky regiment as life ensigns, in which their guardian uncle had previously served. In 1813, Chaadaev moved from the Semenovsky regiment, where his brother and friends remained, to the Akhtyrsky Hussar Regiment.

During the Patriotic War of 1812, he took part in the Battle of Borodino, went into a bayonet attack at Kulm, and was awarded the Russian Order of St. Anna and the Prussian Kulm Cross.

His biographer M. Zhikharev wrote:

“A brave officer, tested in three gigantic campaigns, impeccably noble, honest and amiable in private relations, he had no reason not to enjoy the deep, unconditional respect and affection of his comrades and superiors. »
He took part in the battle of Tarutino, Maloyaroslavets, Lutzen, Bautzen, Leipzig, and took Paris. He went through the entire war side by side with his university friend Yakushkin.

After World War II
In 1816, he was transferred as a cornet to the Hussar Life Guards Regiment, stationed in Tsarskoe Selo. In the house of N.M. Karamzin in Tsarskoye Selo, Chaadaev met A.S. Pushkin, on whom he had a tremendous influence. Several poems by Pushkin are dedicated to Chaadaev.

In 1817, at the age of 23, he was appointed adjutant to the commander of the Guards Corps, Adjutant General Vasilchikov. In October 1820, the 1st battalion of the Semenovsky Life Guards Regiment, where Chaadaev had previously served, rebelled. In connection with these events, Chaadaev was sent to the sovereign, who was in Troppau, whom Vasilchikov, the commander of the guards corps, chose for a detailed report to the tsar. A month and a half after this trip, at the end of December, Chaadaev resigned and was dismissed from service by order of February 21, 1821. As they indicate, Chaadaev resigned, not considering it morally possible to continue serving after punishing his close friends from the rebel regiment. This resignation of a young man who was predicted to have the most successful career was unexpected. It shocked society and gave rise to many versions and legends: that he was compromised in front of his former fellow soldiers by delivering a “denunciation” against them, or that he was late with his package because he was too busy with his wardrobe, or that the emperor told him something accepted with rejection.

At the same time, there is another point of view, based on Chaadaev’s letter to his aunt, which was published in M. O. Gershenzon’s book “P. Ya. Chaadaev.” There Gershenzon cites the letter in its entirety; in particular, it says: “I considered it more amusing to neglect this mercy than to seek it. It was pleasant for me to show disdain for people who disdain everyone… It is even more pleasant for me in this case to see the anger of an arrogant fool.” In addition, Gershenzon writes that after Chaadaev’s resignation, all his officer friends did not turn away from him for a minute (which would undoubtedly have happened at least to some extent if he had actually betrayed the interests of the guard and the regiment) . It is also known that this letter was intercepted, and in this case the unusually long conversation between Alexander I and Chaadaev (lasting just over an hour) is explained.

Personality characteristics

Chaadaev was a very famous person in society even before the publication of Philosophical Letters.

The daughter of N.N. Raevsky Sr. Ekaterina wrote about him (around 1817) that he is “indisputably (…) and without any comparison the most prominent (…) and the most brilliant of all the young people in St. Petersburg.” In addition to the fact that he was highly educated and had excellent manners, he also “raised the art of dressing (…) almost to the level of historical significance” (according to M. Zhikharev). They sought his friendship and were proud of it. In 1819, Pushkin compares Eugene Onegin with him, wanting to characterize his hero as a real dandy: “The second Chadayev, my Eugene…”. His ill-wisher Wigel called him “the first of the young men who then climbed into genius.”
His contemporary wrote about him: “he was distinguished from other people by his extraordinary moral and spiritual excitability… His conversation, and even his mere presence, had an effect on others, like a spur on a noble horse. It was somehow impossible with him, it was awkward to give in to daily vulgarity. When he appeared, everyone somehow involuntarily looked around morally and mentally, tidied up and preened themselves.”

Voyage abroad

On July 6, 1823, in particular due to deteriorating health, he left to travel around England, France, Switzerland, Italy, and Germany. Before leaving, in May 1822, Chaadaev divided property with his brother, with no intention of returning to Russia.

Sailing by ship from Kronstadt, he landed near Yarmouth, from where he went to London, where he stayed for 4 days, leaving it for the sea bathing of Brighton. From England he moves to Paris, and from there to Switzerland. At the end of March 1825, he finds himself in Rome, then goes to Carlsbad, where he is accompanied by Nikolai Turgenev and meets Vel. book Konstantin Pavlovich. Despite the fact that he is constantly undergoing treatment, his health is only getting worse. Chaadaev also visited Milan. In June 1826, Chaadaev left for his homeland.

Relations with the Freemasons and Decembrists

While still in service, in 1814 in Krakow he was admitted to the Masonic lodge, in 1819 he was admitted to the Union of Welfare, and in 1821 to the Northern Society of Decembrists. Having joined the Decembrist society, he did not take part in its affairs and treated them with restraint and skepticism. In 1822, the tsarist government closed Masonic lodges in Russia; a year before that, Chaadaev left the United Brothers Masonic lodge.

In 1826, after returning to Russia, he was arrested on suspicion of involvement with the Decembrists — in July, in the border town of Brest-Litovsk. “Chaadaev, in letters to his relatives, said that he was leaving forever, and his close friend Yakushkin was so sure of this that during interrogation after the defeat of the rebels, he calmly named Chaadaev among the people he had recruited into the illegal organization.” On August 26, at the behest of Nicholas I, a detailed interrogation was removed from Chaadaev. A subscription was taken from Chaadaev not to participate in any secret societies, and he categorically denied his participation in the Northern Society. After 40 days he was released.

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

«Basmanny Philosopher»
At the beginning of September he arrives in Moscow. “On October 4, Chaadaev moved for permanent residence to his aunt’s village near Moscow in Dmitrovsky district. Chaadaev lives alone, unsociable, and reads a lot. Constant secret police surveillance is established over him here.” At this time, Avdotya Sergeevna Norova, a neighbor on the estate, fell in love with him, in whom “a cult of Chaadaev arose, close to a kind of religious exaltation.”

He lived in Moscow and on a village estate (with aunt Shcherbatova in Dmitrievsky district, then in the Levashevs’ house on Novaya Basmannaya), creating in 1829-1831 his famous “Philosophical Letters” (“Letters on the Philosophy of History,” addressed to Mrs. E.D. Panova). Beginning in the spring of 1830, in Russian educated society their lists began to circulate from hand to hand. In May or June 1831, Chaadaev began to appear in society again.
The publication in 1836 of the first of the “Letters” caused a real scandal and gave the impression of “a shot that rang out on a dark night” (Herzen), aroused the wrath of Nicholas I, who wrote: “Having read the article, I find that its content is a mixture of daring nonsense, worthy of an insane person.” »

The Telescope magazine, where the “Letter” was published, was closed, the editor was exiled, the censor was dismissed from service. Chaadaev was summoned to the Moscow police chief and announced that, by order of the government, he was considered crazy. Every day a doctor came to him for an examination; he was considered under house arrest and had the right to go for a walk only once a day. The supervision of the police doctor over the “patient” was lifted only in 1837, under the condition that he “not dare to write anything.” There is a legend that the doctor called to observe him, at the first meeting, told him: “If it weren’t for my family, my wife and six children, I would show them who really is crazy.”
During this period, Chaadaev accepted the role (which was reinforced by the attitude of his admirers) of a prophet in his fatherland. In 1827, A.V. Yakushkina writes about him: “…he is extremely exalted and completely imbued with the spirit of holiness (…). Every minute he covers his face, straightens up, does not hear what is being said to him, and then, as if by inspiration, begins to speak.” He actively used the epistolary genre to communicate with his admirers.

Chaadaev’s next work was “Apology for a Madman” (not published during his lifetime; the unpublished manuscript was brought to Chernyshevsky by his nephew and archive keeper M.I. Zhikharev in Sovremennik in 1860). Until the end of his life he remained in Moscow, taking an active part in all ideological meetings in Moscow, which brought together the most remarkable people of that time (Khomyakov, Kireevsky, Herzen, K. Aksakov, Samarin, Granovsky, etc.).

Herzen wrote about him during this period:

The sad and original figure of Chaadaev stands out sharply with some kind of sad reproach against the faded and heavy background of the Moscow nobility. I loved to look at him among this tinsel nobility, flighty senators, gray-haired rakes and honorable nonentity. No matter how dense the crowd, the eye found him immediately. Summer had not distorted his slender figure, he dressed very carefully, his pale, gentle face was completely motionless, when he was silent, as if made of wax or marble, “his forehead was like a bare skull,” his gray-blue eyes were sad and with that together they had something kind, thin lips, on the contrary, smiled ironically. For ten years he stood with folded arms somewhere near a column, near a tree on the boulevard, in halls and theaters, in a club and — with an embodied veto, he looked in living protest at the whirlwind of faces spinning senselessly around him, became capricious, became strange, alienated himself from society, could not leave him… Again he was capricious, dissatisfied, irritated, again he weighed down on Moscow society and again did not leave it. The old and the young felt awkward with him, uneasy, they, God knows why, were ashamed of his motionless face, his straight-looking gaze, his sad mockery, his caustic condescension… Acquaintance with him could only compromise a person in the eyes of the government police.
After the Crimean War, not seeing any improvement in Russia’s situation, he thought about suicide. He died of pneumonia, leaving his financial affairs in complete disarray. He was buried at the Donskoye Cemetery in Moscow. Before his death, he wished to be buried “in the Donskoy Monastery, near the grave of Avdotya Sergeevna Norova, or in Pokrovskoye, near the grave of Ekaterina Gavrilovna Levasheva.”

Creation
To understand Chaadaev’s work, one should take into account the personality crises he experienced. “In the years before 1823, Chaadaev experienced his first spiritual crisis — in the religious direction. Chaadaev, who had read a lot until that time, became interested in mystical literature at that time; The writings of Jung-Stilling had a particular influence on him. His health deteriorated due to extreme spiritual tension, and he had to go abroad to improve his health, where he remained until 1826 (which saved him from death, since he was extremely close to the most prominent Decembrists). Upon his return from abroad, Chaadaev was arrested, but was soon released and was able to return to Moscow, where he experienced a second crisis — for several years he became a complete recluse, completely absorbed in very complex mental work. During these years (until 1830) of complete solitude, Chaadaev developed his entire philosophical and religious worldview, which found (in 1829) its expression in a number of sketches written in the form of letters.”

Characteristic
He experienced the strong influence of German classical philosophy in the person of Schelling, whose ideas he became acquainted with during his trip to Europe in 1823-1826. During the years spent in Europe, he continued to study the works of French traditionalists (de Maistre, Bonald, Ballanche, early Lamennais).

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

“The mark left by Chaadaev in the consciousness of Russian society is so deep and indelible that the question involuntarily arises: was he drawn across glass with a diamond? (…) All those properties that Russian life was deprived of, which it did not even suspect, were deliberately combined in Chaadaev’s personality: enormous internal discipline, high intellectualism, moral architectonics and the coldness of the mask, the medals with which a person surrounds himself, realizing that in the centuries he is only a form, and in advance preparing a cast for his immortality.”
— Osip Mandelstam

Philosophical letters

In 1829-1831 he created his main work — “Letters on the Philosophy of History” (written in French), which received the name “Philosophical Letters” after publication in the magazine “Telescope”.

At the beginning of October 1836, the 15th book of “Telescope” was published in Russia, where an article under the original title was published in the “Science and Art” department: “Philosophical letters to Mrs. ***. Letter 1.» The article was not signed. Instead of a signature it read: “Necropolis. 1829, December 17.” The publication was accompanied by an editorial note: “These letters were written by one of our compatriots. A number of them constitute a whole, imbued with one spirit, developing one main idea. The sublimity of the subject, the depth and breadth of views, the strict sequence of conclusions and the energetic sincerity of expression give them a special right to the attention of thinking readers. In the original they are written in French. The proposed translation does not have all the advantages of the original regarding external decoration. We are pleased to inform readers that we have permission to decorate our magazine with others from this series of letters.”

The publication of the first letter aroused sharp discontent among the authorities due to the bitter indignation expressed in it about Russia’s exclusion from the “worldwide education of the human race”, spiritual stagnation, impeding the fulfillment of the historical mission destined from above. The magazine was closed, and Chaadaev was declared crazy.

Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter” (1836), published in the journal “Telescope” (translated by Al. S. Norov), gave a powerful impetus to the development of Russian philosophy. His supporters became Westerners, and his critics became Slavophiles. Chaadaev lays down two main ideas of Russian philosophy: the desire to realize utopia and the search for national identity. He identifies himself as a religious thinker, recognizing the existence of a Supreme Mind, which manifests itself in history through Providence. Chaadaev does not deny Christianity, but believes that its main idea is “the establishment of the kingdom of God on Earth,” and the Kingdom of God is a metaphor for a just society, which is already being implemented in the West (this was later the main emphasis of Westerners). As for national identity, Chaadaev only denotes the idea of ​​​​Russia’s uniqueness. “We belong neither to the West nor to the East,” he writes, “we are an exceptional people.” The meaning of Russia is to be a lesson to all humanity. However, Chaadaev was far from chauvinism and belief in the exclusivity of Russia. For him, civilization is one, and all further attempts to search for identity are “national prejudices.”

Apology for a madman

“Apology for a Madman,” written by Chaadaev in response to accusations of a lack of patriotism (1837), remained unpublished during the thinker’s lifetime. In it, speaking about Russia, Chaadaev argued that “… we are called upon to solve most of the problems of the social order… to answer the most important questions that occupy humanity.”

Relationship to history

Chaadaev believed that “everyday” history does not provide answers. He called “everyday” history an empirical-descriptive approach without a moral orientation and an appropriate semantic outcome for human activity. He believed that such history merely lists the ceaselessly accumulating events and facts, seeing in them only “causeless and meaningless movement,” endless repetitions in the “pathetic comedy of the world.” A truly philosophically meaningful history must “recognize plan, intention and reason in the course of things,” comprehend man as a moral being, initially connected by many threads with “absolute reason,” “the supreme idea,” “God,” “and not at all an isolated and personal being.” , limited at a given moment, that is, a mayfly insect that is born and dies on the same day, connected with the totality of everything only by the law of birth and decay. Yes, we must discover what truly makes the human race alive: we must show everyone the mysterious reality that is in the depths of spiritual nature and which is still discernible with some special insight.”

Chaadaev called his task “explaining the moral personality of individual peoples and all of humanity,” but in essence he was not engaged in studying the destinies of various nations, but in interpreting human history as a single coherent text. G.V. Florovsky writes that the main and only principle of Chaadaev is “a postulate of Christian philosophy of history. History for him is the creation of the Kingdom of God in the world. Only through the construction of this Kingdom can one enter or be included in history.” The meaning of history is thus determined by Providence, and the guiding and constantly revealing idea of ​​history is the idea of ​​​​the religious unity of humanity, brought into the world by the Christian religion and preserved by it. Ancient civilizations turned out to be doomed precisely because they embodied the idea of ​​“pagan disunity,” that is, they had only material, earthly interest, while true spirituality and powerful moral potential constitute the prerogative of the “mysteriously united” Christianity, and since only spiritual interest is “limitless by its very nature «, Christian nations alone «are constantly moving forward.»

Attitude to Catholicism
According to Chaadaev, Western European successes in the field of culture, science, law, and material well-being are the direct and indirect fruits of Catholicism as a “political religion.”

For Chaadaev, the Catholic Church is the direct and legal heir of the Apostolic Church. It is she who is the only bearer of the conciliar, catholic principle. He treats Orthodoxy much colder. Chaadaev criticized Orthodoxy for its social passivity and for the fact that the Orthodox Church did not oppose serfdom. Chaadaev contrasted the isolationism and statism of Russian Orthodoxy with the universality and supranational character of Catholicism. The philosopher dreamed of the day when all Christian denominations would reunite around the papacy, which, in his opinion, was a “permanent visible sign” and the center of the unity of world Christianity. Having familiarized himself with the work of Chaadaev about the need for the sake of uniting Christians to jointly fight with the papacy against materialism, which is closely associated with Orthodoxy, which Chaadaev did not know about due to the censorship of the Synodal period, who knew this

Emperor Nicholas I called it “a mixture of impudent nonsense, worthy of a madman,” after which Chaadaev was declared crazy.

Chaadaev’s sympathies for Catholicism as part of a thousand-year-old European civilization influenced Russian philocatholists of the 19th century (for example, the Jesuit Prince Ivan Gagarin claimed to have converted to Catholicism under his influence) and caused a reaction from his critics and rumors about his own conversion to Catholicism (Denis Davydov called his “little abbey”, Yazykov writes about him: “you kiss the pope’s shoe”).

At the same time, Chaadaev did not renounce Orthodoxy, which recognizes the primacy of honor of the Orthodox popes before the schism and is ready to recognize it again after the reunification of churches; he remained Orthodox all his life, regularly confessed and received communion, before his death he took communion from an Orthodox priest and was buried according to the Orthodox rite. Gershenzon writes that Chaadaev committed a strange inconsistency by not accepting Catholicism and not formally converting, so to speak, “to the Catholic faith,” in compliance with the established ritual.

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

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

He writes about the fate of Russia:

…a dull and gloomy existence, devoid of strength and energy, which was enlivened by nothing except atrocities, nothing softened except slavery. No captivating memories, no graceful images in the memory of the people, no powerful teachings in their tradition… We live only in the present, within its narrowest confines, without a past or future, in the midst of dead stagnation.

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

And yet, even then he writes that the very geographical position of Russia between the West and the East seemed to destined it to serve as a receptacle for two great principles — imagination and reason, that is, a receptacle for the history of the whole world. Chaadaev concluded: there must be a rapprochement between Russia and the West and the reunification of Russians. right lav. the church, whose mystical spirit must at the same time be assimilated by the West, with the Catholic Church, whose strict organization he wanted to use in Russia.

And in “Apology of a Madman,” speaking about Russia, he asserts that “… we are called upon to solve most of the problems of the social order… to answer the most important questions that occupy humanity.”

At a certain period in Chaadaev’s life and work, a noticeable change occurred in his concept of Russian history; the sharply critical attitude towards it during the period of the “Philosophical Letters” is replaced by confidence in the future of Russia, characteristic of the 2nd half of the 30s and early 40s. The peculiarities of Russian history and the Russian spirit, their lack of involvement in the world-historical process — now seems to him not to be disadvantages, but to be advantages of Russia, which will allow it to quickly master its virtues and reach the level of Western European civilization, while avoiding its inherent vices. From the 2nd half. 40s and early 50s Critical motives also became strong again, but now they have specific specific targets and do not have the character or semblance of general negativism.

The perception of the relationship between Russian and Western culture has also changed; Insufficient attention to the deep foundations of Russian life, many of which were forgotten and damaged by contact with the worst Western civilization, began to be perceived as a disadvantage or problem, but these very foundations, of which Chaadaev, who was not too much forgotten, sees only religion, were seen as a source of valor and happiness both the ancestors and the future of Russia. Chaadaev writes already in the late forties:

“…What amazes me is not that the minds of Europe, under the pressure of innumerable needs and unbridled instincts, do not comprehend this so simple thing, but that we, confident owners of the holy idea handed to us, cannot understand it. And, meanwhile, we have been in possession of this idea for quite some time. So why have we still not realized our purpose in the world? Is the reason for this not to be found in that very spirit of self-denial which you rightly point out as a distinctive feature of our national character? I tend to lean towards this opinion, and this is what, in my opinion, is especially important to truly comprehend. … By the grace of heaven, we brought with us only some of the appearance of this worthless civilization, only the insignificant works of this destructive science, civilization itself, science as a whole, remained alien to us. But still we have become sufficiently acquainted with the countries of Europe to be able to judge the profound difference between the nature of their society and the nature of the one in which we live. Reflecting on this difference, we should naturally have a high idea of ​​\u200b\u200bour own institutions, become even more deeply attached to them, and become convinced of their superiority … »

(1835) referring to the foreign campaign of the Russian army in 1813-1814: “… the fatal page of our history, written by the hand of Peter the Great, is torn; We, thank God, no longer belong to Europe: so, from this day our universal mission began.»

In culture
P. Ya. Chaadaev is considered one of the possible prototypes of Alexander Chatsky, the main character of A. S. Griboedov’s play “Woe from Wit.”
The song “To the Portrait of P. Ya. Chaadaev” (“In Memory of P. Ya. Chaadaev”), an improvisation based on Pushkin’s poetry, was written by the bard V. Turiyansky.