Glinka, Alexander Sergeevich

Alexander Glinka was born on June 6 (18), 1878 in the city of Simbirsk to the family of lawyer Sergey Vladimirovich Glinka (1843-1887) ^[1] . Having passed the external examination for the certificate of maturity, he entered (1898), in the footsteps of his father, at the law faculty of Moscow University . For participation in the street student unrest in 1901 and on charges of releasing the illegal printed publication, “ Student Life ”, he spent some time in solitary confinement, and was then sent to his homeland ^[2] .

While still a first-year student, he published an article “ On Value ” in the “ Scientific Review ” (1900, No. 5). Published in St. Petersburg in 1902, " Two Essays on Uspensky and Dostoevsky ", in 1903 - " Essays on Chekhov " ^[3] . Having received a proposal from N. K. Mikhailovsky to work in “ Russian Wealth ”, in many respects he did not agree with the editors and placed in this journal only the article “ G. I. Ouspensky about the illness of the personality of the Russian man ” and several reviews ^[2] .

In the journal “ Peace of God ” he placed articles on Korolenko (1903, No. 7) and Dostoevsky (1905, No. 6–8), in Questions of Philosophy and Psychology (book 64) - “ Triumphant Amoralism ”, in Russian Gazette (1903) - " Man in the philosophical system of Vladimir Solovyov " ^[2] .

When the term of exile ended, Alexander Sergeevich Glinka lived for some time in the city of Samara and collaborated in the Samara Newspaper , and later in the Samara Courier ^[2] .

In 1903, he was invited to lead a critical section in the Journal for All , where he placed a number of articles on Gorky (1904, No. 1 and 2), Leonid Andreev (1904, No. 7), and Meterlinke (1904, No. 9), neo-idealism (1903, No. 12), Marxism (1904, No. 4), and others. A noticeable pronounced bias towards mysticism was the reason that Glinka had to leave a magazine that was common in an environment that was most suspicious of any mysticism, fearing her relationship to clericalism ^[2] .

After that, A. S. Glinka became close to S. A. Askoldov and took part in the reformed journal Novy Put . The most productive period of his activity fell on 1903-13, when he was considered the representative of a new religious idealism (along with his correspondents Askoldov, S. N. Bulgakov , N. A. Berdyaev , P. A. Florensky , P. B. Struve ).

In the middle of 1913 he got a job in Nizhny Novgorod , where from 1914 to 1923. read the course of Russian literature in local universities. In 1914 he published the work " In the monastery of St. Seraphim ", and a year later - the essay " Holy Russia and the Russian vocation " ^[1] .

From 1923 he worked as an economist in Moscow. In the 1930s collaborated with the State Policy Publishing House and the Academia Publishing House, for which he prepared in 1935 the publication “ G. I. Ouspensky in Life: From Memories, Correspondence, and Documents”. He died in 1940 ^[1] and was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery .

His wife is Olga Fyodorovna Znamenskaya (1877–1960), the daughter of a woman from Alexandra Znamenskaya (nee Delarus), who was at the forefront of the first public libraries of Simbirsk ^[4] .

The son of Gleb Glinka (1903–1989), named after his father in honor of Gleb Ouspensky, joined the literary group Pereval , published several collections of poems ^[5] . During the Second World War in 1941, he was captured, then went to the USA , where he lived in the state of Vermont, often published in the " New Journal ". His sister-in-law Elizabeth Glinka gained fame as "Dr. Lisa".

From 1905, he was an active member of the Questions of Life publication, where, among other things, he posted an extensive article: “The Mystical Pantheism of V. V. Rozanov ” (No. 1-3). A part of what Glinka wrote was collected by him in his book From the Literary Quest (SPb., 1905). The title of this collection, according to S. A. Vengerov , very correctly defines the main feature of the spiritual appearance of the Volga. He is a seeker of truth in the best sense of the word. It is alien to the timidity of people who want above all peace in the bosom of a particular outlook; his thought is always disturbing. Volzhsky’s “critic” can only be called from a formal point of view, because he writes about literary phenomena; the purely literary side of these phenomena does not interest him at all. In the book about Chekhov, he so directly states that his goal is “to examine the ideological content of Chekhov’s literary work from one strictly defined point of view ”. Analyzing the work of Gorky, he also directly refuses to analyze his artistic features. The ruler of the Volzhsky dumas - Dostoevsky - takes him exclusively from the statement of the religious and moral problem ^[2] .

In his quest, Glinka-Volzhsky experienced two main phases, complicated, however, by the fact that he did not merge with any of the sentiments he had experienced. In the first phase, the young impulses are all " looking for the present itself, where everything will become clear and understand the most important thing, what to do now, where to go, how to use young, fervent forces rushing to live and responsible business ." He was tormented by the tragedy of human existence, most of all - “ human humiliation ”, beckoned “with a dream of the ultimate harmony of universal human tranquility, universal salvation from evil, ” I wanted to “ live and work for this, give myself all, and rather, rather, more ... ” But how? The answer was given by Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, Mirtov and especially Mikhailovsky. “ He was my teacher and in the full sense of the spiritual father, who ideally fed me up. As a half-Marxist semi-Marxist student, he wrote long reading letters and now, having overcome his ideological dominion over me, I deeply love Mikhailovsky as if by blood with some kind of love and honor for the eternal, holy memory for me . ” This decisive significance of Mikhailovsky in the "spiritual ancestry" of the young writer " was surpassed by the new in-depth reading and study of Dostoevsky " ^[2] .

Intermediate link was the fascination with Kant and neo-Kantianism , in the direction from “ Critique of Pure Reason ” to “ Critique of Practical Reason ”, from epistemology to religion and religious metaphysics . “ In Dostoevsky and in the fact that behind him and around him, I experienced my own personal crisis of rationalism and consciously and freely went to genuine religion, without shying off from metaphysics and not being afraid of mysticism. Dostoevsky led me, of course, not in the socio-political aspects of his work, but in religious and philosophical insights. This is the biggest fold in my spiritual experiences. The complication of the old ideology with new strata went on slowly, with an eternal fear of stumbling, thinking and looking back, in fear of overcoming the expensive old with the new one. This is not the fear of whistles and smiles, which are pursuing in our progressive literature everything evading from the generally accepted pattern, but the fear of oneself, the desire not to interrupt the traditional successive connection without the need, to be in connection with the past, with the dead, a kind of fathers cult, ancestors. The growing complexity of religious and philosophical hobbies has always been for me the requirement of a living conscience, both intellectual and ethical, further substantiation and strengthening of that living work, which all impressions were called from early childhood ” ^[2] .