The Existential Prophecy of Fyodor Tyutchev's Historiosophical Thought

Mysovskikh Lev Olegovich ORCID: 0000-0003-0731-1998 Postgraduate Student, Philological Faculty, Department of Russian and Foreign Literature, Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin 620083, Russia, Sverdlovsk region, Yekaterinburg, Lenin str., 51, office 336 levmisov@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction. Historiosophical concepts in Russia of the 30s and 40s of the XIX century.

The era of Romanticism marked the beginning of the formation of an independent Russian philosophy, which was associated with the awareness of the importance of the question of the historical significance of Russia. The formulation of this question has led to the emergence of contradictory positions among the enlightened Russian society. Intellectuals of that time tried to answer the question of whether Russia should imitate the models of Western European countries in its historical process, whether it lags behind them or goes its own way. The need for original solutions was justified by the fact that Russia is characterized by a different type of culture, largely due to the history of the state. In the acute polemic of the creative and scientific intelligentsia, which took place at the turn of the 30s and 40s of the XIX century, different ideas appeared. Among the most important trends there are two opposite socio-philosophical trends – Slavophilism and Westernism.

P. Ya . was one of the first to enter into the controversy . Chaadaeva (1794-1856). In 1836, his philosophical letter was published, in which the author portrays Russia as a country excluded from universal history, divorced from the experience of the Western European world, having neither its own spirit nor historical mission. The only hope for the Russian state, according to Chaadaev, is to rely on the experience of Western countries, and the purpose of the state is to solve social problems associated with changes in the structure of society, the political system, according to the Western model.

The Slavophile doctrine was an attempt to respond to Chaadaev's thoughts. The theorists of Slavophile ideologies – first of all I. V. Kireevsky and A. S. Khomyakov – represented the opposite position. They believed that Russia should adhere to its native Russian traditions. They argued that the harmony that once existed between the government and the people living in communities is the best form of social order for Russia, and Orthodoxy as the only true faith is the link connecting the community. An important achievement of the Slavophile program was the intention to create a national Russian philosophy, which, based on the achievements of Eastern patristics, would represent a counterweight to Western European rationalism, especially vividly outlined in Hegel's "panlogism".

Against the background of this controversy, which had its roots in the time of Peter I, the figure of F. I. Tyutchev appears as an original phenomenon and quite difficult to classify. The Russian classic, by virtue of his official duties, and possibly deep personal predispositions, was keenly interested in politics. An interesting interpretation of the influence of Tyutchev 's professional activity on his worldview is given by K. G. Isupov: "A diplomat is a person of double vision (words, intentions, gestures and understanding; Greek diploma – "a sheet folded in half")" ^{[2, p. 29]}. The scientist also quotes Talleyrand, who proclaimed: "Language is given to us in order to hide our thoughts" ^{[2, p. 29]}, which characteristically correlates with Tyutchev's poem "Silentium!". More than twenty years spent abroad in diplomatic missions in Munich and Turin gave Tyutchev the opportunity to get acquainted with Western European society, the type of policy pursued by Western states and their perception of Russia. Despite his love of European civilization and culture, he was a Russian monarchist, a preacher of the idea of the messianic destiny of Russia, a poet glorifying the power of the Russian Empire. Tyutchev expressed his ideas about political life and history in poems, journalistic works and correspondence. Tyutchev's political views began to form already at the turn of the 20s and 30s of the XIX century, but only in 1841-1844 he began to openly express them in letters and articles. Tyutchev also worked on the treatise "Russia and the West", which was supposed to consist of nine chapters. This work has not been completed. Only a few chapters have been preserved, and some of them are in the form of sketches. Nevertheless, already on the basis of this incomplete material, it is possible to single out the most important components of Tyutchev's imperial idea.

After Prince Gorchakov took office as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tyutchev's political influence increased significantly. The poet took the post of chairman of the Committee on Foreign Censorship. At that time, about two and a half million books were imported into Russia annually from abroad. The committee chaired by Tyutchev rejected only 150-200 books a year, taking into account mainly their ethical value. However, Tyutchev's influence on foreign policy was not in this. From 1856 until his death, he was an unofficial adviser to Gorchakov, one of the main creators of the general political principles of Russian diplomacy. In 1865, he was appointed by Alexander II to the position of Privy Councilor. Tyutchev's activities in the political plane were often confidential, so it is difficult to fully assess its significance for the history of Russia today. This part of Tyutchev's biography still requires more in-depth research. However, there is no doubt that Tyutchev – through Gorchakov and Alexander II – had a huge influence on the formation of the main directions of the foreign policy of the then Russia.

Tyutchev's historiosophical reflections were a kind of continuation of his diplomatic activity. Researchers of Tyutchev's literary heritage, such as I. S. Aksakov or the modern researcher B. N. Tarasov, emphasize that the poet not only thought about history, but also lived it. In any political event of his time, he saw a modern link in history. V. V. Kozhinov's statement about the concept of history in the worldview of the Russian diplomat seems to be correct: "He raises and solves the question of ethics, of the moral meaning of History itself in all its thousand-year scope. But at the same time, the poet is all directed to the present, to the burning essence of today's events; and this means that he raises and solves the question of the moral meaning of politics, of state ethics" ^[4].

For Tyutchev, interest in the events of the European political scene was reduced not only to the era in which he lived. He remained true to his worldview, both in journalism and in poetry. The main categories of the poet's thinking, such as the question of the human personality, its place in the world, remain unchanged. The difference was that in philosophical poetry Tyutchev tried to answer existential questions by defining the place of man in the universe, in nature, to find the sources of the existence of the world and man. At the same time, the pictures of being depicted in Tyutchev's poems "can be interpreted as allegories" ^{[20, p. 104]}, where "nature is a proof of the existence of God, and its knowledge is synonymous with the desire for self–knowledge" ^{[9, p. 47]}. Tyutchev's poetry of nature can be considered existential, since the author "tries to solve the existential problems of being not by metaphysical reasoning, but with the help of natural philosophical poetry" ^{[20, p. 104]}. In poetry on political subjects and in historiosophical treatises, Tyutchev positioned man primarily in the social and political space. Thus, the silhouette of a person is outlined in two dimensions of being: in the metaphysical and in the empirical sphere. Moreover, Tyutchev connects the experience of a person as a person with the world of ideas, nature, space, or the experience of a person as a citizen with the categories of the state and society.

The originality of Tyutchev's historiosophical thought

For quite a long period, the idea of the Slavophile origin of Tyutchev's beliefs prevailed among researchers. One of the first biographers of the poet was Aksakov, who, being a Slavophile, tried, perhaps even unconsciously, to portray Tyutchev as a supporter of the views of this trend.

As for the Soviet research field, the most common position is still the duplicated position proclaimed by K. V. Pigarev, who claimed that the poet is connected with the Slavophiles by the belief in the exclusive destiny of Russia in world history, the power of the Russian state, as well as the confidence that all Slavic peoples are united by a common goal and a sense of unity. The scientist concludes that the philosophy of the history of the Russian classic "is limited by the framework of Slavophile, great-power ideas, is entirely subordinated to the goals of protecting the old world and is essentially devoid of genuine historicism" ^{[13, p. 191]}. Thus, the researcher devalues such an important, in our opinion, sphere of Tyutchev's literary and journalistic heritage as the concept of empire and the perception of history. At the same time, Pigarev points out that almost a fourth of the poet's literary work consists of poems on socio-political topics, in which elements of Slavophile theories appear (for example, works that touch on the topic of Orthodox religion). Kozhinov held a different point of view, emphasizing the originality and independence of Tyutchev's views, and mentioning as one of the main categories the key Tyutchev concept of "empire", while for Slavophiles it is "community". The main difference between the views of the Slavophiles and Tyutchev lies in the poet's attitude to the idea of Russia as the third Rome. Russia, considered by Tyutchev as the successor of the Byzantine Empire, was to become the next world empire. Slavophiles, on the contrary, excluded the idea of a positive continuity between Russia and the two previous incarnations of the imperial idea – the Rome of the Caesars and the Rome of Constantine the Great. Thus, Tyutchev does not proclaim the slogans of the Slavophile doctrine, but creates an original imperial ideology.

In modern research, there is an interesting interpretation of the poet's historiosophical thought in the context of Christian theological thought. Among the scientists dealing with this topic, one can single out B. N. Tarasov, whose works are devoted to the analysis of Christian subjects in Tyutchev's work, the influence of Christian ideas on the formation of history and peoples, the poet's connections with patristic thought and the influence of his ideas on the development of theological thought of later epochs. Tarasov also raises the question of Tyutchev's philosophy of history. He is convinced that the Russian classic views history as a fatal process of de-Christianization of the individual and society, as a paradox of a liberated person who, in the process of civilization development, loses his soul and becomes a slave to his imperfect nature, because "without an organic connection of man with God, the historical movement degrades due to the disastrous weakening of the Christian foundation in man and society" ^{[17, p. 20]}.

The idea of empire. The Legacy of Byzantium

One of the most important issues around which the controversy of the Russian intelligentsia of the XIX century was the question of Russia's attitude to Europe. The attempt to place the Russian state on the cultural and political map of Europe turned out to be very controversial. Part of the enlightened society expressed the belief that Europe had excluded Russia from universal history, part proclaimed the civilizational primacy of the West in relation to Russia. In 1869, N. Ya. Danilevsky published his famous essay "Russia and Europe", which became a kind of outcome of this social polemic. Danilevsky was the first to attempt to show history as a synthesis of various cultural and historical types.

The conviction of the exceptional fate of Russia and its role in the history of the whole of Europe was close to Tyutchev. In the treatise "Russia and the West" he states: "Scientists and philosophers, they have crossed out a whole half of the European world in their historical opinions" ^{[19, p. 117]}. The thinker's words clearly indicate that he views Russia as an equal part of Europe. This is a very important idea. Unlike the Slavophiles, who believed that the history of Russia developed in isolation from what was happening in Europe, Tyutchev linked the existence of the empire with the development of the European spirit in Russia. The actual question of the Russian intelligentsia of the XIX century about the opposition "Russia – Europe" has a different overtone than that of Westerners and Slavophiles. The poet puts Russia on the cultural and political map of the world, emphasizing that Russia is an integral part of Europe. V. K. Kantor states: "Tyutchev had reasons to see Russia as Europe and without relying on the opinions of Western Europeans" ^{[3, p. 265]}.

In Tyutchev's philosophy of history, the problem of "empire" arises as a central one. The thinker believes that the whole history of Europe is connected with the idea of empire, as evidenced by the aspirations of Charlemagne, Charles V, Louis XIV or Napoleon. The negative phenomenon that led to the fall of the Western world and the revolution was that empires in Europe were created by seizing land and usurping power. The empire itself is permanent and unchangeable, it is not connected with a particular state, but "moves" as if from nation to nation. The main criterion for the existence of the empire is unity. If it does not exist, then the state as an empire cannot exist. The poet cites the example of the Holy Roman Empire, which had to collapse because it was based on the "Roman soul" (the idea of the state structure taken from the Roman Empire) and the "Slavic body" (the lands of the Western Slavs conquered by the Germans). This dualism, caused by the disunity of the nation and the type of statehood, led to the fall of the empire.

Tyutchev was not alone in the perception of the Russian state as the successor and successor of Byzantium. The idea of Moscow as the third Rome originated in Russia much earlier. When Byzantium fell in 1453, Russia was just being freed from Mongol-Tatar rule and aspired to occupy a dominant position among Eastern Christianity. The idea of Moscow as the successor of the Byzantine Empire was also established thanks to the marriage concluded by Ivan III with Sophia Palaiologos, the niece of the last emperor Constantine XI. Thus, a dynastic connection was established between Russia and Byzantium.

Tyutchev treated Orthodoxy as a historiosophical category. He bases his concept of the historical process on the traditions of Eastern Christianity and the legacy of the Byzantine Empire. According to Tyutchev, the Eastern Empire "carries within itself its own principle of power, but ordered, restrained and sanctified by Christianity" ^{[19, pp. 54-55]}. In the idea of an empire based on Christian principles, Tyutchev sees the best system of statehood. He justifies this by saying that it was Russia as the Eastern Empire, which has a centuries-old tradition of statehood behind it, that calmed the political situation in Europe after the Great French Revolution and the Spring of the Peoples. Along with the idea of spiritual leadership in the Christian world, Russia acquired a specific attitude to the personality of the ruler in the legacy of the Byzantine Empire. The question of the significance of the tsar in the Orthodox Church has always been quite acute. This caused intellectual disagreements in society. The church in Russia was strongly subordinated to the tsarist government. Khomyakov, a representative of the Slavophiles, rejected the idea of combining church and state power. In Tyutchev's concept, not the tsar, but Christ is the head of the Church, which is consistent, however, with the dogma of the Orthodox Church. In the poem "Prophecy", the tsar of Russia appears as an "all–Slavic tsar", and Russia as a "renewed Byzantium":

Not a rumor rumor has passed among the people,

The news was not born in our kind –

Then an ancient voice, then a voice from above:

"The fourth century is already at an end, –

It will happen – and the hour will strike!

And the vaults of ancient Sofia,

In the renewed Byzantium,

The altar of Christ will be overshadowed again."

Fall before him, O Tsar of Russia, –

And stand up – like an all-Slavic tsar! ^{[19, pp. 200-201]}

For Tyutchev, the Russian people and Orthodoxy play a major role in the transformation of the world. The Russian poet and thinker preaches pan-Slavic slogans, but this is a specific pan-Slavism. Like the Slavophiles, he declares that no other "political nationality" is possible for the Slavs except the Russian one. But he wants not only the unification of the Slavic peoples under the auspices of Russia, but also the unification of the whole of Europe under the scepter of the Russian emperor.

Tyutchev did not refer the concept of "empire" to a specific state. In his philosophy of history, every nation is experiencing its "golden age". The Eastern Empire is actually a universal empire for him. Modern times for the poet were precisely the period in the history of Russia when it was on the verge of realizing its historical mission. Russian Russian idea founder V. S. Solovyov could have been inspired by such a position of Tyutchev, who reflected on the messianic fate of Russia and the Russian people, who were supposed to revive the entire Christian world. Russian Russian idea" was understood by Solovyov as the connection of the Russian people with the whole world in the spirit of Christian universalism. It is worth noting that the term "Russian idea" is not fully specified. Its meaning was often changed and expanded by subsequent thinkers, for example, N. A. Berdyaev, whose historiosophy can be interpreted as follows: Berdyaev believed, like Tyutchev, that one should believe in the mission of Russia, since it cannot be comprehended by reason. There is no single chosen people of God in Christian history, but each nation in its time fulfills its great mission in the work of "revelation of the spirit." Being an enemy of the Russian "official messianism" associated with the autocracy and the Church dependent on it, Berdyaev believed that "official messianism" had already died a natural death. However, another Messianism is alive, connected with the figures of Russian wanderers and seekers of truth and the city of God. It can be noted that the Messianic concepts of Tyutchev, and then Solovyov and Berdyaev have points of contact with the philosophy of Hegel, who is convinced that peoples influence the formation of history.

It should be emphasized that, despite the Messianic vision of Russia and Orthodoxy in the concept of the historical process, Tyutchev also knew how to look soberly and critically at contemporary Russia and the phenomena occurring in it. In correspondence with friends, the poet expressed concern about whether Russia and the Slavic peoples would be able to maintain historical independence during the crisis associated with the Crimean War. He also complained that government circles and educated groups of Russian society had lost consciousness of the historical fate of their country. The goal was to restore the independence of the Slavs. According to him, this consciousness, in turn, was the most important condition for the existence of Russia. Tyutchev, in a letter dated October 11, 1855, addressed to M. P. Pogodin, pragmatically expresses the following thoughts, which today can be taken as a kind of existential prophecy of the great thinker: "For more than a thousand years, the current struggle of the two great Western tribes against ours has been preparing. But until now, all these were only vanguard affairs, now, the hour of the last, decisive, general battle has come... All the vanguard affairs were lost by us, – the solution of the question depends on the outcome of the upcoming battle: which of the two independences should perish: ours or the Western one; but one of them must certainly perish – to be or not to be, we or they ..." ^{[18, p. 231]}

In a letter dated September 28, 1857 to A.D. Bludova, Tyutchev expresses an idea in which he points to the existential reason for the current reality: "the power in Russia is such as it was formed by its own past, by its complete rupture with the country and its historical past, that this power does not recognize and does not allow any other right than its own that this right – no offense to the official formula – does not come from God, but from the material power of the government itself <...> In a word, the government in Russia is in fact godless, because you inevitably become godless if you do not recognize the existence of a living immutable law that stands above our imaginary right, which for the most part is nothing but hidden arbitrariness" ^{[19, p. 306]}.

Harsh judgments about the ruling spheres and the decline of their morale clearly indicate that Tyutchev soberly perceived the Russian reality. He saw that power is based on force, which is actually hidden violence. In the concept of the state and power, the categories of Christian ethics are especially important for him, which, in his opinion, were not really relevant for the upper strata of society and representatives of the Russian government. The poet calls power "godless", claiming that it does not come from God, but is based on its material power, without recognizing a higher Divine authority over itself. The reason for the "godlessness" of the authorities was the separation from the Russian people and their national traditions and the departure from the historical past of "Holy Russia". Tyutchev points to a split in Russian society. He dreams of reviving the "soul" of the authorities and the higher social strata. For this to happen, it is necessary to unite the government and the people. This causes an association with such concepts as "conciliarity", understood as universal unity embodied in the cathedral, in the community of believers, which is part of the Holy Spirit. In this case, in our opinion, Tyutchev is close to the concept of conciliarity, understood as a social and ecclesiological category. Tyutchev's desire for the unity of the people, united and sanctified by the action of the Holy Spirit, brings the poet closer to the views of Khomyakov. However, for Slavophiles, conciliarity has primarily a religious dimension, which is most clearly manifested in Orthodoxy. Tyutchev's concept of empire was not a reproduction of the realities of the political life of Russia in the XIX century, but was an attempt to answer how the state should be built. Tyutchev's ideal of the Russian state is based on a society united by a common Christian faith.

Russia, Revolution and Orthodoxy

The Great French Revolution, a number of armed national demonstrations in other states, the events of the Spring of Peoples and Russia's position in relation to these historical facts prompted Tyutchev to become interested in the two largest forces that formed Europe at that time, that is, Russia and the revolution. He understood the revolution as an ideological movement, a general mood that took over Europe. L. P. Grossman claims that "in the sphere of history, she showed him the beginning of chaos" ^{[1, p. 402]}. Tyutchev, observing the events in the political arena, comes to the conclusion that the only guarantor of peace in Europe excited by revolutionary movements can be the Russian Empire. However, he sees the greatness of Russia not in military or material power, but in the ideological sphere.

In April 1848, Tyutchev wrote an article in French, addressed to Western politicians, entitled "Russia and the Revolution". According to the author, there can be no compromise between Russia and the revolution, since Christianity divides Russia and the revolution. The poet believes that the Christian religion plays a constructive role in the process of historical development of peoples. B. N. Tarasov notes that "in the history of Tyutchev reveals the fatal process of de-Christianization of the individual and society, the paradoxes of self-exaltation of an emancipated person, who is increasingly losing his soul and spirit in his "reasonableness" and "civility" ^{[17, p. 20]}. But such a person is doomed to existential despair, about which the founder of existentialism S?ren Kierkegaard wrote: "despair is not just the worst of suffering, but our death" ^{[6, p. 31]}. As if echoing Kierkegaard, the Russian classic expresses in poetic form the idea that despair "means the loss of one's own personality" ^{[9, p. 54]}. But de-Christianization affected Europe, and Russia, according to Tyutchev, is a Christian state. And this is not only the result of the Orthodox religion professed by society. Russia is Christian because it has the capacity for renunciation and self-sacrifice. These attributes form the basis of her morality. Tyutchev writes: "Russia is a Christian power, and the Russian people are Christian not only because of the Orthodoxy of their beliefs, but also because of something even more sincere. He is such because of the capacity for self-denial and self-sacrifice, which forms, as it were, the basis of his moral nature" ^{[19, p. 68]}.

Such a view presupposes the rejection of egoistic motives for action and the primacy of the good of one's neighbor over one's own. Again, here we can see some overlap with the view of Hegel, who in the social aspect recognized the primacy of the social over the individual, although at the same time emphasizing the importance of individuality and subjective freedom. The revolution is inherently anti-Christian, since it denies the above-mentioned provisions. Tyutchev bluntly declares that the revolution is "the enemy of Christianity. The anti-Christian spirit is the soul of the Revolution, its essential, distinctive property" ^{[19, p. 68]}.

For Tyutchev, the issue of the legality of power is important, since the destruction of legality leads to the destruction of the unity of the nation. The slogans of brotherhood and equality become useless, because the revolution is based on faith in the boundless power of the human self and faith in the power of the human mind. Tyutchev, on the other hand, believed that "the human self, replacing God, of course, is not something new among people; the autocracy of the human self, elevated into political and social law and striving to master society with its help, becomes new" ^{[19, p. 68]}. Thus, the revolution is the apotheosis of the human self, which becomes "its own idolater" ^{[19, p. 103]}. The theocentric system of the world under the influence of revolutionary movements quickly turned into an anthropocentric one.

Tyutchev also raises the question that the revolution appropriated one of the most important principles of Christianity – brotherhood – and made it its slogan, thereby posing as a religious trend. The statement proclaimed by some supporters of the revolution that it appeared to fulfill the gospel prophecy, according to the poet, is blasphemy, since the revolution turned the Christian spirit of humility and self-sacrifice into a spirit of pride and exaltation. The brotherhood of men, created in the name of God, was transformed by her into a brotherhood united by fear of the power of the people. Aside from these considerations, it is worth mentioning that, paradoxically, both the idea of revolution and Tyutchev's vision of empire are modifications of the well-known topos of paradise lost, the dream of universal happiness.

Tyutchev is trying to understand where the desire for personal independence comes from. Revolution for the poet is a logical outcome of the development of Western civilization. Western European society, under the influence of events such as the Reformation, popular revolutions, and the "nationalization" of the Catholic Church, lost faith in Christian principles and as a result lost the basis of public life. Tyutchev places the main blame on the Catholic Church. The transformation of the church into an organization of a state character, in which the power belongs to the individual, distorted the true character of Christianity. These changes in the Catholic Church led to the separation of Protestant churches, as well as to the beginning of the revolution. At the same time, the poet argues that the positive legacy of Christianity in the West is supported not by the clergy, but by a community of believers belonging to the Catholic Church. In his opinion, Protestantism in Western European countries, with the exception of England, is gradually dying out.

The main claim put forward by the Russian classic to the person of the Pope is that he did not remain just a priest, but became the head of state. Tyutchev declares: "Catholicism has always been the whole strength of Papism, just as Papism is the whole weakness of Catholicism. Strength without weakness is preserved only in the universal Church" ^{[19, p. 57]}. He also criticizes the papacy's desire for universal jurisdiction throughout the Christian world in order to subjugate not only local churches, but also states. In addition, he criticizes the Jesuit Order, in which he sees the symbol and paradox of Catholicism: these zealous Christians themselves are weapons that destroy Christianity. The changes that have taken place in the Western Church have caused disappointment both in morality and in the material sphere of church life. Looking back, we see that Tyutchev's thought was somewhat prophetic. The Western Church went even further from the primacy of the Pope and at the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) recognized the dogma of the infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morality. This provoked opposition from some followers of the Catholic Church. In 1870, Old Catholicism was singled out in Germany as an expression of disagreement with this dogma. Initially it united only professors of theology, and in 1871 it was organized into a separate church institution rejecting Marian dogmas, celibacy, fasting, individual confession and Latin in the liturgy.

It should be remembered that Tyutchev does not consider the Western Church false, and the Catholic faith apostasy or heresy. On the contrary, it indicates that there are many zealous Christians in Europe. We see in his statements a desire to save the ideas of Christianity in the West. The means of salvation for him is the Russian Empire as the bearer of the traditions of Orthodoxy. We see ecumenical aspirations and firm faith in the fusion of both branches of Christianity in his fervent confession: "The Orthodox Church has never lost hope for such healing. She is waiting for him, counting on him – not only with faith, but also with confidence. How can the One in its beginning and the One in Eternity not triumph over the separation in time? Despite the centuries-old division and all human prejudices, she has always recognized that the Christian principle has never perished in the Roman Church and that it is always stronger in it than human errors and passions. Therefore, she is deeply convinced that the Christian principle will be stronger than all its enemies. The Orthodox Church also knows that now, as for many centuries, the fate of Christianity in the West is still in the hands of the Roman Church, and hopes that on the day of the great reunification, she will return this sacred pledge to her intact" ^{[19, p. 100]}.

Slavs and the Polish question

The circle of reflections on the historical mission of the Russian Empire, the opposition "Russia – West", the relationship between Orthodoxy and Catholicism fit Tyutchev's thoughts about the role and purpose of the Slavs, and therefore Poland. The All-Slavic Empire, which was supposed to fulfill the historical mission of renewing Europe, consisted, according to the poet, of two elements: the Slavs, who made up the flesh, and Orthodoxy, which was the soul of the state. Among the Slavs, Tyutchev defines the place of primacy for Russia, because only it represented an empire that could serve as a counterweight to Europe. As for the question of the possibility of uniting the Slavic peoples, Tyutchev did not see this as a big problem, pointing to the tribal closeness, especially among the common people. In fact, the Slavs had to unite two elements: the anti-German opposition and the anti-Catholic opposition. The unification of the Slavic tribes was necessary because of threats from other peoples, especially Germany. The poet speaks about the existence in the minds of the German people of a belief in superiority over the Slavs: "German oppression is not only political oppression, it is a hundred times worse. For it stems from the German's thought that his domination over the Slavs is his natural right. Hence the insoluble misunderstanding and eternal hatred. Consequently, sincere equality in rights turns out to be impossible" ^{[19, p. 115]}. How deep existential rightness lies in this statement of Tyutchev is evidenced by the fact that such an attitude of the German people towards their eastern neighbors persisted for a very long time and in the twentieth century led to the policy of the Third Reich. Hitler justified the attack on Poland, which marked the beginning of the Second World War, including racial superiority.

Anti-German rhetoric appears in Tyutchev's 1867 poem To the Slavs. This was a response to the words of the Austrian Foreign Minister Count Friedrich von Beiste, who spoke about the superiority of the Germans over the Slavs and that the Slavs should be "pressed to the wall":

So let it be with a frenzied pressure

The Germans are crowding you and will squeeze you

To its loopholes and gates, –

Let's see what they take! ^{[19, p. 222]}

In the unification of the Slavs, the question of the Czech Republic was of great importance for the Russian diplomat. The 19th century in Czech political thought was marked by pro-Russian sentiments. This was due not only to ideological beliefs, but also to disillusionment with other political concepts. After the defeat of the Spring of Peoples in the Czech Republic, and then the transformation of the Austrian monarchy into a dualistic state of Austria-Hungary, the hopes of the Czechs turned to Russia. In the idea of the union of Slavs, Tyutchev is guided by a premonition of a conflict between Russia and the West, which will inevitably lead to war. A number of poems addressed to the Czechs appear in Tyutchev's poetic heritage, for example, "To the Gank", "Slavs", "Prophecy". At the turn of the 60s and 70s of the XIX century, the poet creates a number of poems in which the idea of uniting the Slavs under the auspices of Russia appears. Such an alliance could, according to Tyutchev, become a force opposing the West, mired in the chaos of the revolution.

In the works about the unity of the Slavs, the poet speaks of peaceful, voluntary union, equality and mutual understanding of the peoples that make up the Slavic world. However, the project of uniting the Slavs contradicted the policy of the Prime Minister of Prussia, and then German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, a supporter of Kulturkampf and Germanization. The idea of uniting the Slavic world is presented by Tyutchev in the poem "Two Unities" of 1870. The poet appeals to future generations, wants them to remember the strengthening of the union of Slavic brothers. The author is deeply convinced that unity can be achieved not by blood, revolution, force, but by love and mutual support. Tyutchev opposes Bismarck's military program:

From the cup overflowing with the Lord's wrath

Blood is pouring over the edge, and the West is drowning in it –

Blood will also flow on you, our friends and brothers –

Slavic world, close up tight...

"Unity," announced the oracle of our days, –

Perhaps soldered with iron only and blood..."

But we will try to solder it with love –

And there we will see what is stronger... ^{[19, p. 236]}

The poem contains the most important thought, an interpretation of the political beliefs of the German chancellor, called the "oracle of our days." This work, written three years before the poet's death, reads like a kind of testament – an existential prophetic warning not only to the Slavs, but to the whole world.

In the poem "To the Gank" (August 26, 1841), the poet says that the Slavic tribes have moved away from each other over time, that fraternal blood sometimes flowed. The author claims that the split between the Slavs was facilitated by "Gentiles", including Germans and Turks, whereas now it is time for the awakening of Slavs. The poet is tormented by the fact that fratricidal battles have occurred more than once in the past. Only their enemies benefited from the blind enmity between the Slavic peoples:

And a mad seed of enmity

The fruit has brought a hundredfold:

More than one tribe died

Or it's gone to a foreign land...

A gentile, a foreigner

He pushed us apart, broke us –

Those were de - linguized by a German,

These – the Turks have shamed... ^{[19, pp. 194-195]}

Not only Tyutchev was close to the idea of uniting the Slavic world. Adam Mickiewicz, who spoke about the two poles of Slavs, spoke about it, although in a different way, arguing that the "Polish idea", understood by him as the idea of freedom, expressed in anarchy, and the "Russian idea", understood as the idea of autocracy, expressed in Eastern despotism, have a common element that distinguishes the world of Slavs from Europe. They were united by their opposition to Western rationalism and the belief common to all Slavic peoples that the basis of social integration and the legitimacy of power is not rational teaching, but spiritual connection, which is the gift of the Holy Spirit. Mickiewicz saw this as a hope for the unification of the Slavs.

In the verses addressed to the Czechs, Tyutchev recalls Jan Hus, whose innovative religious doctrines marked the beginning of a number of national speeches in the Czech Republic (the Hussite Wars). In the poem "Gus at the stake" of 1870, Tyutchev draws with realistic detail the execution of Gus and the witnesses of this event, depicting the antagonism of the people with the clergy and nobility. For Tyutchev, Gus is "the holy teacher of the Czech people" ^{[19, p. 234]}.

Tyutchev often preached ecumenical views without blindly rejecting Christian denominations other than Orthodoxy. Only under the influence of the January uprising, when the Catholic clergy took an active part in the hostilities, the poet comes to the conclusion that the fusion of Orthodoxy and Catholicism is impossible. In the poem "A terrible dream has weighed on us" in 1863, he paints an expressive picture of a temple that has become a refuge for robbers: "A robber's den in the house of prayer, / In one hand a crucifix and a knife" ^{[19, p. 208]}.

If Russia's attitude towards the Czechs or Slovaks was not burdened with historical conflicts, then the "Polish question" presented a serious problem against the background of other Slavic peoples. The attitude towards Poland and Poles has been an existential issue for Russia for centuries. This has found a response in fiction. Tyutchev had outstanding predecessors: Pushkin, Herzen, Khomyakov, who addressed this extremely complex topic in their works. Tyutchev's poems are the answer in a kind of discussion with Pushkin's "anti-Polish trilogy", in which there is an interpretation of the Polish-Russian conflict as an old domestic dispute, where outsiders should not interfere. However, in Tyutchev's works there is no propagandistic patriotism, like Pushkin's, but the tragedy of the historical dispute is presented. Both peoples became entangled in the hidden laws governing the course of history, and were doomed to their fate in advance. Tyutchev's attitude to the "Polish question" is unusual. On the one hand, in the light of his idea of empire, he sees Poland as part of the Slavic world, which should find its place in the All-Slavic Empire. On the other hand, Poland has been closely associated with Western European culture and Catholic Christianity for centuries. Thus, it is both a native and an alien element in the Slavic world. This dualism of Poland in advance condemns all its actions related to gaining independence to failure. Tyutchev justifies Russia's aggressive behavior towards Poland: "Poland should have died... This is, of course, not about the original Polish nationality – God forbid, but about the false civilization and false nationality imposed on it" ^{[19, pp. 43-44]}. Thus, the defeat of the uprising is not the result of Russian hatred of the Polish people, but a historical fate, a verdict of history. Tyutchev sees the true reason for the collapse of the Polish state in the adoption of a foreign culture that destroyed the original, true tradition of the Polish people.

The attitude towards Poland was determined by the worldview of Tyutchev, who looked at the "Polish question" not only from the position of a Russian diplomat, but also a thinker. And despite the ambivalent attitude towards Poland, he remains true to his ideals of the unity of the Slavs united in a common Empire. The Polish people were also given a place in this idea of empire. Tyutchev noted that the Polish uprisings often characterized the split between the nobility and the people. Russia was supposed to become, according to the poet, an example of national unity, a country where all social strata are close to each other: "Here, where the government and citizenship / One language, one for all" ^{[19, p. 219]}.

The verses devoted to the topic of Slavs are dominated by vocabulary and metaphor related to the Bible. The symbol of sacrifice is repeated (in a sense, it is Poland that Tyutchev prescribes to play the role of a sacrifice that must be brought in the name of future unification) – the chalice. The label "Judas" is attached not only to Poland, but also to Austria in the poem "On the occasion of the arrival of the Austrian Archduke at the funeral of Emperor Nicholas." Poems with a positive attitude towards Poland include a poem on the occasion of the capture of Warsaw in 1831. Poland is depicted in it as a fraternal country ("the eagle of the same tribe"), whose sacrifice will contribute to the unification of the Slavs. Tyutchev tells about the struggle of Russians with Poles, the purpose of which was not to punish Warsaw, but to preserve the entire Russian state. The poet refers to the sacrifice made by Agamemnon in the person of his own daughter. Russia had to sacrifice the Polish state to save unity. From this sacrifice the freedom of all Slavs should be born. The poem shows sympathy for the Polish people.

The poem "Then only in full triumph" testifies to how seriously Tyutchev treated the "Polish question". The condition for the unification of the Slavs is the agreement between the Poles and the Russian:

Then only in full triumph,

In the Slavic world community,

The coveted system will be established, –

How Poland will reconcile with Russia ^{[19, p. 202]}.

The poet devotes many poems to the topic of Slavs. They are combined into an informal thematically related cycle. These works were created in different years and were often a response to current events in political and public life. In his historiosophical thought, Tyutchev assigns an important place to Slavic tribes. It is they, united in a single empire (under the auspices of Russia, as the strongest among them), who are entrusted with bringing moral and social renewal to the world.

Man, history and modernity

Poems devoted to political topics make up almost a quarter of the total volume in Tyutchev's work. It is possible to note a certain feature: during Tyutchev's stay abroad, in diplomatic missions, his poetry is dominated by poems on philosophical and landscape themes and works about love. He wrote few poems devoted to politics until the 1830s. Only after returning to his homeland in 1844, the poet increasingly creates poems about current political events. "Political poems" are characterized by the depth and relevance of the author's thoughts. They clearly indicate Tyutchev's political position and philosophical concepts. This poetry is firmly connected with the journalism of the 50s and 60s of Tyutchev. In it, the poet interprets and develops the ideas set forth in the historiosophical treatises. The thematic range of "political poems" is great. However, the most important areas can be identified. One of the main questions that arise in this poetry is the question of history and the place of man in it. Like philosophical landscape poems, political works demonstrate Tyutchev's inherent belief in dualism and at the same time the integrity, unity of polar elements in a person - both in his personal and public life. Tyutchev enriches the subject of poems, aggravates political issues. The main problems are man and history, man and modernity. The issue of relations between East and West and the historical mission of Russia is also important for him.

In poems telling about a person and society, the poet is looking for new compositional forms and artistic means that could convey the complexity of the relationship between a person and society. In contrast to the two-part composition prevailing in philosophical landscape poems, outwardly homogeneous structures prevail here. Despite this uniformity, they still remain ideologically and philosophically dialogical. They present a dispute arising from the collision of two different life situations of a person. This situation is represented by such poems as "Cicero", "Silentium!", "Two voices".

Tyutchev associated historical events with fate, God's destiny, which determined the course of history. The poet sought to understand and explain the fate of modern Europe and Russia through the fate of Ancient Greece and Rome. The atmosphere of horror and impending doom of the ancient Roman Empire, presented by Tyutchev, resembled the atmosphere that prevailed in Europe modern to the poet.

The poem "Cicero", the creation of which dates back to 1830, may have been the poet's reaction to the revolution in France. The poem is clearly dialogical in nature. The author depicts a dispute between a lyrical subject and a Roman politician about the role of an outstanding personality at the moment of significant historical events. In the first part of the work, Cicero regrets his times when Rome was gripped by the chaos of war:

The Roman orator said

Amid the storms of civil and anxiety:

"I got up late – and on the road

I was caught at night in Rome!" ^{[19, p. 139]}

Quoting the words of a Roman orator, the poet begins a polemic with him. The dispute takes on the character of a philosophical dispute. For a poet to witness the turning points of history is something significant for a person. He interrupts Cicero 's complaints with a statement:

So!.. but, saying goodbye to Roman glory,

From Capitol Hill

In all the greatness you have seen

Sunset of her bloody star!.. ^{[19, p. 139]}

The poet creates the image of an exalted hero who becomes a witness of "high spectacles". The poem's finale emphasizes Tyutchev's characteristic belief that immortality can only be achieved by struggle, which is the essence of human existence.:

Happy who visited this world

In his fateful moments –

He was called by the all -merciful

As a companion to a feast.

He is a spectator of their high spectacles,

He was admitted to their council –

And alive, like a celestial,

I drank their immortality from the cup! ^{[19, p. 140]}

A person who meets the fatal moments of history with dignity, who knows how to oppose his will and energy to tragic reality, can reach the heights accessible to the gods. Here there is praise for the activity of a person who uses the opportunity given to him by the gods to participate in the creation of history.

The idea of the immortality of man, which he can achieve through the struggle with fate, appears in the 1850 poem "Two Voices":

1

Take courage, O friends, fight diligently,

Although the fight is unequal, the fight is hopeless!

Above you, the luminaries are silent in the sky,

The graves are silent under you, and they are silent.

May the gods be blissful in Mount Olympus:

Their immortality is alien to labor and anxiety;

Anxiety and labor are only for mortal hearts...

There is no victory for them, there is an end for them.

2

Take courage, fight, O brave friends,

No matter how hard the fight is, no matter how hard the fight is!

Above you are silent star circles,

There are dumb, deaf coffins under you.

Let the Olympians with an envious eye

They look at the struggle of unyielding hearts.

Who, fighting, fell, defeated only by Fate,

He snatched the crown of victory from their hands ^{[19, p. 163]}.

The poet speaks about the need for mortal people to struggle with an immortal fate and raises the question – how should a person behave in relation to this tragic necessity? The name, the composition and the idea of inevitable loss indicate that both voices speak differently about the same thing. But thanks to subtle lexical changes, a turn to the fighters, a different, more optimistic tone appears in the second voice. Despite the use of the same images and motifs of fate, the Olympic gods – the tonality and the author's position in the second voice acquire a different character. The poem is based on the principle of a polyphonic work, in which a third voice joins the dispute of two equal voices (the appearance of which can help to get closer to the objective truth). The third voice should be, if we apply the projection of M. M. Bakhtin, the voice of the reader. In Tyutchev's work, the third voice may belong to Fate or the reader.

In the cycle of poems about Napoleon, the poet sought to convey as fully and accurately as possible the complex and contradictory essence of the figure of the French emperor. Tyutchev was not alone in his interest in his person. The image of the leader of the French has repeatedly served as a poetic inspiration for other Russian artists, including Pushkin and Lermontov. The poem "Napoleon", consisting of three parts, was written under the influence of Heine's journalistic essays of 1832, where Napoleon was shown as a genius with a nest of eagles of inspiration in his head and a serpent of prudence in his heart. Tyutchev's work through the use of images of an eagle and a snake corresponds to Heine's metaphor. Pushkin was going to publish this work of the Russian diplomat in Volume III of Sovremennik, but the censorship objected, considering the author's train of thought too vague. In the image of the French emperor, Tyutchev saw a combination of an extraordinary, capable of creating great ideas, a brilliant mind with a complete absence of a moral element:

At its head – eagles soared,

There were snakes in his chest... ^{[19, p. 199]}

This lack of an ethical core led, according to the poet, to the collapse of all the ideas of Napoleon:

But the sanctifying power,

Incomprehensible to the mind,

His soul did not light up

And she did not approach him... ^{[19, p. 199]}

Tyutchev points to the primacy of the earthly element in Napoleon, who had to give way to the spiritual principle:

He was earthly, not God's flame,

He swam proudly – the scorner of the waves, –

But oh the underwater rock of faith

A fragile canoe crashed into splinters ^{[19, pp. 199-200]}.

In the first two parts, an oratorical, sublime style appears, achieved by the use of Church Slavonic, rhetorical syntax and parallelism. The third part is characterized by concreteness in the descriptions of historical facts and statements. The well-known phrase of Napoleon about the crossing of the Neman is quoted here. Tyutchev shows the defeat of the French emperor in the struggle against the combined forces of Russia, England and the French supporters of the monarchy. The facts about the exile of Napoleon, and then about the transfer of his ashes to his homeland, are presented.

Tyutchev's earliest poetic work on a topical political topic was the poem "To Pushkin's Ode to Liberty", written in 1820. Tyutchev praises Pushkin's talent, his courage to resist tyranny, claims that the poet's fate is to fight slavery with the fire of freedom. According to Tyutchev, a poet like Pushkin was born to preach holy truths:

Happy is he who speaks with a firm, bold voice,

Forgetting their rank, forgetting their throne,

To broadcast to the hardened tyrants

Holy truths born!

And you are this great destiny,

O muse pet, awarded! ^{[19, p. 191]}

However, unlike Pushkin, Tyutchev calls not for an uprising and the overthrow of tyranny, but for the poet to touch and soften the hearts of the tsar's supporters with the power of his talent. This early poem contains ideas characteristic of Tyutchev's entire work: the belief that changes cannot be made by shedding blood and that poetry should soften anger, not incite struggle.

The poem "The Sea and the Cliff" appeared in connection with the revolutionary events of 1848 in Western Europe. The poet creates the image of the sea, symbolizing the revolution, and the image of the cliff, symbolizing the Russian Empire. The poem is characterized by symbolic imagery. The extremely plastic image of a raging sea trying to overcome everything that comes in its way is a symbol of the destructiveness of the revolutionary element:

Waves of violent surf

Continuously rolling sea

With a roar, a whistle, a squeal, a howl

Hits the coastal cliff –

But calm and arrogant,

The waves are not possessed by dope,

Immobile, unchangeable,

The modern universe,

You are standing, our giant! ^{[19, pp. 196-197]}

The theme of the poem "The East is doubtfully silent" is the expectation of the national awakening of Russia. The victorious rays of the rising sun, spreading all over the world, symbolize the victory of the East. Tyutchev wanted to show in this work the hope for the awakening and unification of the Slavs.

A number of interesting poems on political topics were created in the period from the second half of the 50s to the 70s. This period was dramatic for Tyutchev. The poet was disappointed by the policy of the tsarist government during the Crimean War. The fall of Sevastopol and the death of Nicholas I inspired the poet to write a bitter epitaph:

You didn't serve God and you didn't serve Russia,

Served only his vanity,

And all your deeds, both good and evil, –

Everything was a lie in you, all the ghosts are empty:

You were not a king, but a performer ^{[19, p. 207]}.

The tsar's clumsily conducted foreign policy and actions inside the country were strictly evaluated by Tyutchev in one of his letters to his wife Ernestine Fyodorovna dated September 17, 1855: "In order to create such a hopeless situation, the monstrous stupidity of this unfortunate man was needed, who during his thirty-year reign, being constantly in the most favorable conditions, did nothing I didn't use it and missed everything" ^{[18, p. 228]}.

Among the poems dedicated to Russia, one should not miss a short, but one of the most famous poetic works of Tyutchev:

You can 't understand Russia with your mind,

You can't measure a common yard.

She has a special become –

One can only believe in Russia ^{[19, p. 216]}.

The work touches on an important problem of the era, about which the poet wrote many times – the gap between faith and reason. This short, aphoristic poem perfectly conveys the specifics of Russia – it does not lend itself to reasonable comprehension. It can be understood only through the sphere of spiritual concepts. Tyutchev, even in such a small work, reveals the basic concept of his worldview: the sphere of spirit prevails over the sphere of material reality.

In his poems on political topics, Tyutchev often touches on the issue of the East–West opposition. The poet uses the ambiguity of these terms. They can denote Russia and Europe, they can also denote a geographical territory. Tyutchev solves the issue of the relationship between East and West, presenting it as two parallel lines of development:

Look how the west has flared up

The evening glow of the rays,

The East faded dressed

Cold, bluish scales!

Are they at enmity with each other?

Or the sun is not one for them

And, by a stationary medium

Dividing, does not unite them? ^{[19, pp. 156-157]}

In this poem, we again encounter a dual meaning: one can perceive the work as a plastic landscape showing the moment of twilight. We see a poetic image characteristic of Tyutchev's philosophical poetry. The East–West opposition fits into a number of well-known Tyutchev antitheses: night and day, space and chaos, love and death. A dichotomy arises, conflicting phenomena turn out to be related, having a common origin. According to the poet, this is the nature of the world and man. East and West, on the one hand, are extremely different phenomena, on the other – both are subject to the eternal path of the Sun. One can also read this poem as a political allegory, meaning by East and West Russia and Western Europe. The poet wonders what is the true relationship between them – is it really hostile? Given Tyutchev's worldview, to which Western European culture was close, it can be assumed that he could not reject the cultural and historical heritage of the Western world. The final question of the poem is rhetorical in nature: The sun is common to the East and the West.

Conclusion

In addition to the East–West opposition, the main issues in Tyutchev's poetry on political topics include the motive of Russia's greatness and conviction in its historical mission. In such poems as: "Russian geography" and "No, my dwarf! an unparalleled coward!.." the author expresses his conviction that Russia should bring Europe renewal in the sphere of socio-political relations, freedom, as well as spiritual rebirth, which will be realized through Orthodoxy. Often in poems on political subjects written in connection with a certain socio-political event, a deeper philosophical thought arises, which makes the work timeless. Dialectical meanings can be called a distinctive feature of Tyutchev's poetry.

For Tyutchev, the search for the meaning of history was at the same time the knowledge of the mysteries of the existence of the individual and society. In the course of history, the poet saw dependencies that, as it were, ordered knowledge about man and the world. This knowledge gives people the opportunity to shape the future destinies of mankind on the basis of indisputable laws of development. Tyutchev considered these laws as a structural element of an empire based on Christian ethics. Tyutchev's historiosophical thought, expressed in poetry, essays and correspondence, is based on fundamental antinomies: Russia – the West, Orthodoxy – Catholicism, empire – revolution. In his philosophical search, the poet seeks to find a comprehensive principle that would streamline the structure of the world both in the sphere of ideas and in the social sphere. All of the above antinomies are subject to the principle of unity. Russia and the West make up a single Europe. Both branches of Christianity constitute the Universal Church. The empire is based on unity and is the only social structure capable of development, while states born of revolution will always strive for collapse, because they are based on the interests of the individual, not society. It can also be concluded that the primary function, in Tyutchev's views on history and politics, is performed by Christianity, as a category that systematizes the process of history and determines the existence of the best political system.

Tyutchev's historiosophical concepts fit into the circle of problems that concern Russian society of the XIX century, but they cannot be read in the spirit of a single doctrine. Tyutchev conducts his own original searches. The poet was well aware of the realities of politics and public life of his homeland. More than once he expressed his negative assessment of power in poems and correspondence. His vision of the empire does not represent Russia as it was in his era, but the Russia he would like to see in the future. Kozhinov also believes this: "The strength and depth of Tyutchev's thought (let us recall at least its predictions) are the guarantee that we are not facing a purely subjective aspiration, but the embodiment of a national, national ideal" ^[4].

It should be emphasized that Tyutchev was primarily a diplomat who served Russia faithfully. He always put the interests of Russia as a state and the affairs of the Russian people above the interests of the government and the tsar. Being the closest adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Gorchakov, he had direct access to Tsar Nicholas I and, in fact, was the person who tried to change the course of Russia's foreign policy so that it was conducted for the benefit of the Russian people, and not the court nobility.