Maykov, Valerian Nikolaevich

Born in Moscow in a family

He received excellent home education (a family friend Goncharov taught him Russian literature). He entered the faculty of law of St. Petersburg University . It is known that of the professors , S. S. Poroshin, who read political economy , had a special influence on him.

In his very first literary work — the article “On the relation of productivity to the distribution of wealth” (1842) that remained in the manuscript — Maikov criticized Adam Smith 's school and carried out the idea of ​​the participation of workers in the profits of production. In 1842, V. N. Maikov graduated from the University ^[5] and entered the service in the Department of Agriculture. In parallel, he took up the natural sciences, in particular, translated the “Letters on Chemistry” by Liebig , which were not published ^[5] .

Weak health and liberal beliefs soon forced him to resign and spend more than six months in Germany , France and Italy , where he continued his studies in political economy, philosophy and chemistry ^[5] .

Participation in the compilation of the Kirillov Dictionary

Returning to St. Petersburg, Maykov joined the Petrashevsky circle and took an active part in compiling the Pocket Dictionary of Foreign Words Included in the Russian Language ( 1845 - 1846 ) ^{[~ 1]} , where he was the author of many important articles (Analysis, Criticism ”,“ Ideal ”,“ Drama ”,“ Magazine ”), advocated the“ public importance ”of art and the“ court of the mind over reality ” ^[5] .

Kirillov's dictionary, which is considered to be one of the most striking manifestations of the social movement that arose under the influence of revolutionary events in France of the 40s of the XIX century and a kind of analogy of Voltaire 's Philosophical Dictionary, was withdrawn from circulation shortly after the second issue. In 1849, during the investigation of the Petrashevsky case, the investigator I.P. Liprandi asserted that the dictionary was “filled with such insolence that hardly existed even in manuscripts put into general circulation” ^[4] . V.N. Maikov took part only in compiling the first, more moderate issue of the Kirillov Dictionary.

Collaboration with the Finnish Herald

In 1845, Maikov became co-editor of the journal Finnish Herald , founded at the same time by F. K. Derschau ; the first volume of the publication was opened by his programmatic (but remaining unfinished) article “Social Sciences in Russia”. Researchers noted that it was there that Maikov's readiness in the field of socio-political sciences and the rare ability “to easily and freely navigate in the most abstract concepts” first appeared. The article formulated the main thesis of all of Maykov's literary activity - the preaching of the need for an organic connection between science and art with living reality. The author, who was still fond of O. Comte (article “Analysis”), turned to his criticism here, demanding the creation of a social “philosophy of society”, dialectically correlating national and universal. In the second part of the article, Maikov intended to give an outline of the development of advanced thought in Russia, in particular, to analyze the activity of V. G. Belinsky , but it was forbidden by censorship and was preserved only in fragments ^[5] .

The article "Social Sciences in Russia", published in the rare "Finnish Herald", passed unnoticed by the general public, but had resonance in literary circles. In 1846, A. A. Kraevsky, on the recommendation of I. S. Turgenev, invited Maykov to lead the critical department of the journal " Domestic Notes " - to replace Belinsky. In his first major article (about A. V. Koltsov ), he entered into a dispute with Belinsky, whom he “reproached the unprovenness of his criticism”, seeing in it elements of literary dictatorship ^[4] .

Domestic Notes and Sovremennik

The relationship between the editors of the " Patriotic Notes " and the Belinsky circle, which then founded Sovremennik , were strained. Therefore, Belinsky opposed Maikova with undisguised irritation, mistaking him for a supporter of the enemy camp. However, after eliminating this misunderstanding in 1847, Maykov began cooperation with Sovremennik.

In the same year, Maikov organized a circle, which included, in particular, V. A. Milyutin and M. E. Saltykov , who had ideological ties with M. V. Petrashevsky . By this time, Maykov's views had noticeably evolved. Under the influence of Feuerbach and the Utopian socialists, he tried to formulate the idea of ​​a “harmonious man” and an “ideal civilization”. At the same time, he considered specific national features (primarily Russian, but generally any) to be a brake on the path to such an ideal ^{[5] [~ 2]} . So, in an article about Maikov, he argued that

We are convinced that a person who can be called a type of any nation cannot in any way be not only great, but even extraordinary ... a person, no matter what nation he belongs to, and whatever circumstances he may be exposed to in his conception, birth and development - nevertheless belongs by nature to the category of homogeneous creatures called people, not French, not Germans, not Russian, not English.

Death

July 15, 1847, Maikov, a guest in the Peterhof district , heated by heat began to swim in the lake and died of a stroke.

VN Maikov was buried in a village cemetery in Ropsha near St. Petersburg ^[6] .

Many print media responded to Maykov’s death with obituaries, expressing grief over the bereavement that befell science and literature. Very soon, however, his name was forgotten. In 1861, F. M. Dostoevsky left a sympathetic review of his work, and in 1868, I. S. Turgenev (Literary Memoirs). It was only in 1872 that Maikov’s work was first analyzed in detail by A. M. Skabichevsky in a number of articles of the journal “ Domestic Notes ”, where he significantly exaggerated the degree of disagreement between Maykov and Belinsky ^[7] .

In 1886, Maykov’s activity was thoroughly examined in the Bulletin of Europe in an article by K. K. Arsenyev . A real surge of interest in the heritage of V. N. Maykov was observed in 1891-1892, when A. N. Chudinov published Critical Experiments in the journal Pantheon of Literature edited by his brother L. N. Maykov . In other journals concerning the Critical Experiments, a number of articles appeared - A. N. Pypin (Vestnik Evropy, 1892, No. 2), MA Protopopova ( Russian Thought , 1891, No. 10), Ar. Mukhina (" Historical Bulletin ", 1891, No. 4), later A. L. Volynsky ("Russian Critics") ^[4] .

S. A. Vengerov in the ESB noted that the writings of V. N. Maykov were not widespread ^[7] , despite the fact that frequent comparisons with V. G. Belinsky created him a reputation as the “successor” of the latter. Maykov himself, aware of the peculiarities of his creative personality, in a letter to I. S. Turgenev directly stated that “he never thought of being a critic in the sense of an evaluator of literary works”:

Critical articles by Maykov (in particular, on A. V. Koltsov) were filled with theoretical reflections on various aspects of art, nationality, etc., but to a much lesser extent directly related to the creative side.

According to the biography of S. A. Vengerov in the ESB, Maykov was not “a gifted writer in the ordinary sense of the word” ^[7] . It was also argued that “the style of his critical articles is languid and dull, sometimes even dark” ^[7] , the studies of romanticism , the work of Iskander , Tyutchev are secondary ^[4] , and it was noted that Maikov’s appreciation of the novel by F. M. was really original. Dostoevsky's “ Double ”, regarding which at that time the opinion of V. G. Belinsky, who called it “nervous nonsense”, prevailed ^[7] .

The creative heritage of V. N. Maikov

Despite the critical attitude to the teachings of Auguste Comte, in science V.N. Maikov became known as one of the first Russian positivists . In the field of literature, V. N. Maikov was one of the first theoretical critics in Russia who, unlike most contemporaries, did not concentrate on analyzing specific works, but built his observations into the construction of his own, previously developed, “very harmonious aesthetic theory” ^{[ 4]} .

Following Belinsky, Maikov tried to defend the Gogolevskaya, that is, the so-called “natural” school, from reproaches that it was engaged in “dirty” reality, as if it was unworthy of artistic reproduction. At the same time, Maikov tried to substantiate his conclusions scientifically, using knowledge in philosophy and psychology, operating, in particular, with the idea that "each of us knows and explains everything to himself uniquely in comparison with ourselves."

If this is so, Maikov believed, “it’s not the subject that the artist has dealt with, but in our attitude towards him”:

What could be uninteresting and colorless of “some flat backwoods, two, three curved birches, and gray clouds on the horizon”, but you got accustomed to these “sad details”; when they are drawn to you, a whole series of dear memories will resurrect in your soul and such a “meeting with oneself sheds inexplicable charm on some landscape of a St. Petersburg artist, because one cannot but love oneself, be not interested in oneself”. The secret of the impression of art lies in the fact that it arouses in the reader and viewer a sympathetic, in Maykov's terminology, that is, an echo reminding us of ourselves. That is why "there is no object of the inexhaustible, non-captivating in the world, if only the artist, depicting him, can separate the indifferent from the sympathetic."

- ESBE on the creative heritage of V. N. Maykov ^[7]

Artistic work, Maikov asserted, is "a reconstruction of reality, accomplished not by changing its forms, but by raising them into the world of human interests, into poetry." It was noted that the idea that artistic thought “was born in the form of love or resentment” brought him closer to M. Zh. Guyot ^{[~ 3]} . It was noted, however, that in practice, Maikov did not always follow his own requirements, dividing works of art into truly artistic, "which are written without any extraneous purpose, according to an unaccountable demand for creativity", and "fiction" (to which the novel "Eternal Jew" was also counted) Eugene Sue and Iskander's novel) ^[7] .

The article "Social Sciences in Russia"

Published in 1845, the article "Social Sciences in Russia" set its main goal (according to the ESBE) to "put the philosophy of society at the head of the moral and political sciences" - in contrast to the "anthropological" direction that dominated before that, emphasizing the desire to ensure the welfare of the individual ^[7] .

From the point of view of the “philosophy of society” (which the author identified with the socialist), Maikov criticized Adam Smith ’s English political and economic school, which, he believed, “cleans its science of all moral and political impurities” and considers “wealth as a separate fact, independent of nothing, organically unconnected with anything. ” This view, according to Maikov, "false in science, is becoming fatal to practice." Political economy in England , he argued, "has lost the character of science based on the idea of ​​welfare and served as the basis for the monopoly of the aristocracy of wealth." From the same point of view, the author criticized German science:

The author compared Germany with modern India (“the same thought, renounced from life, immersed in the contemplation of itself, without any relation to life”), and set France as an example, where science “is not carried away by either the soulless analysis of the British or the ethereal synthesis Germans ”, and is full of“ organic nature ”.

It was noted that the "philosophy of society" as set forth by V. N. Maykov largely continued the ideas of Auguste Comte, known in the Belinsky circle on the articles in the " Revue des Deux Mondes ". In philosophy, Maikov was one of the first to criticize German metaphysics ; in political economy, he preached the idea of ​​“length” of workers in enterprises, Guyau was in tune with in critical articles on art (he expressed the same views many years later). Serious controversy caused Maykov's views on nationality; even Belinsky protested against them, finding that the young writer was already too “universal” ^[4] .

Comments

Sources

• Maykov // Small Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron : in 4 volumes - St. Petersburg. 1907-1909.
• Mukhin A. A. Belinsky's receiver (from the history of Russian criticism) // Historical Bulletin . Historical and literary magazine. SPb. Typography of A. S. Suvorin. 1891. T. 44. S. 186—203