During the years of studying the Nizhyn gymnasium gogol. Life and learning in graduate school

Gogol studied at the Nizhyn "Gymnasium of Higher Sciences" for seven years, from 1821 to 1828. It was here that the character of the future writer, his artistic talent, were formed, and his civic self-awareness for the first time awakened here - during the investigation of the so-called "free-thinking case". This "case" is very important for Gogol's biography. Especially because it extremely clearly reveals the political atmosphere in which Gogol lived in the last years of his stay at the gymnasium, the period immediately preceding his entry into the great literary road.

The "case of freethinking" arose in the summer of 1827, a significant group of professors and pupils of the gymnasium, including Gogol, was involved in it. A large amount of materials found by us in a number of archives (Nezhin, Moscow and Leningrad) allows us not only to more fully reveal the actual history of this case, but also to establish its true political meaning.

On January 6, 1830, the head of the 6th department of the 5th district of the gendarme corps, Major Matushevich, whose residence was in Chernigov, reported to the head of the III department, Benkendorf, "some information" about the events that had taken place over the past few years in the Nizhyn Gymnasium of Higher Sciences. A resolution was superimposed on the report: "Inform Prince Lieven in the original." Some time later, Benckendorff forwarded all the materials he had received to Minister of Education Lieven "for investigation".

The Ministry of Education has long had signals about "troubles" in the Nizhyn gymnasium. But they were not given much importance. It was only after Benckendorff's intervention that the ministry caught on. It was decided to immediately send a “reliable official” to Nizhyn. The choice fell on a member of the main board of Aderkas schools. Lieven ordered him to investigate on the spot "the moral virtues and teaching abilities of professors", as well as "the morality and spirit of students", in order to be able to "take appropriate measures to eradicate evil, if it truly exists."

Aderkas stayed in Nizhyn for almost three months. Taking with him about two thousand pages of investigative materials, he returned to St. Petersburg. On September 14, he completed a final report addressed to the Minister of Education, Prince Lieven.

The main defendant in the “case of freethinking” was the junior professor of legal sciences Nikolai Grigoryevich Belousov, who began teaching at the Nizhyn gymnasium in 1825 and was soon appointed inspector of the boarding school. Unlike many old teachers - formalists and routineists - Belousov was a man of advanced convictions. He developed progressive ideas in his lectures, spoke in a fascinating way about the natural right of the human person, about the great benefits of enlightenment. He aroused sharp critical thought in the minds of his pupils. Belousov's lectures found a lively response from the gymnasium students, who had forbidden poems on their hands, and among them Ryleev's poem, "concerning the call to freedom." Under the influence of Ryleev, the pupils themselves composed poems of the same content.

The activities of Professor Belousov angered the reactionary part of the gymnasium teachers. They began to weave intrigues against him. The main organizer of the campaign against Belousov was the stupid and ignorant Professor Bilevich. He wrote slanderous reports about the disorder in the gymnasium, about the atrocities and freethinking of the pupils, and at the same time claimed that Belousov was to blame. Having collected several student notebooks with lecture notes on natural law, Bilevich presented them to the pedagogical council of the gymnasium. In an accompanying report, he pointed out that Belousov's lectures did not say anything about respect for God, for "neighbor" and that they were "full of such opinions and positions that inexperienced youth can really lead astray."

An investigation has begun. Professors and students of the gymnasium were called in for interrogations.

The Case of Freethinking sheds light on the atmosphere that reigned in Nizhyn and in which Gogol was brought up. This "case" was a kind of political echo of the events of December 14, 1825.

During the investigation into the Belousov case, it turned out that back in November 1825, “some boarders,” as the warder Maslyannikov testified, “said that changes in Russia would be worse than the French Revolution.” Maslyannikov gives the names of the students of the gymnasium, who, on the eve of the Decembrist uprising, mysteriously whispering, told each other rumors about the upcoming changes in Russia and at the same time sang a song:

Oh God, if you are all the kings with mud knead, Misha. Masha. Put Kolya and Sasha on a stake.

(Misha, Masha, Katya and Sasha - members of the royal family are meant.)

Among the pupils who sang this "outrageous" song, Maslyannikov names the names of Gogol's closest friends - Nikolai Yakovlevich Prokopovich and Alexander Semyonovich Danilevsky. Undoubtedly, Gogol himself was aware of this fact.

In the course of the investigation into the “free-thinking case”, it was discovered that Belousov was by no means the only source of seditious ideas in the Nizhyn gymnasium. He had like-minded people. Among them we can name the senior professor of mathematical sciences Shapalinsky, who at one time acted as the director of the gymnasium, the professor of French language and literature Landrazhin, the junior professor of German literature Singer.

About Professor Landrazhin, one of the pupils testified that he “distributes various books for reading to students, namely: the works of Voltaire, Helvetius, Montesquieu ...” And according to the testimony of the former inspector of the gymnasium, Professor Moiseev, Landrazhin, walking with the students, often sang to them “ Marseillaise".

In January 1828, Professor Landrazhin invited his students to translate some Russian text into French as part of their homework. A 6th grade student, Alexander Zmiev, used for this purpose a poem by Kondraty Ryleev, received shortly before that from a pupil of Martos, "which contains an appeal to freedom."

Landrazhin, of course, hid this fact from the director of the gymnasium, telling Zmiev: “It's good that this went to a noble person like me; you know what kind of things in Vilna made several young people unhappy; we have a despotic government in Russia; You are not allowed to speak freely."

During the investigation, it turned out that the said poem by Ryleev was well known to the majority of pupils of the gymnasium, who often recited it aloud and sang it. “It is known about this ode,” Yasnovsky, the director of the gymnasium, later reported, “that she went around the hands of the students.” Zmiev himself stated during interrogation that "the majority of the students usually sang these verses in the gymnasium."

Rumors about "free-thinking" moods in the "Gymnasium of Higher Sciences" soon became public property. According to the testimony of a student of Kolyshkevich, he was told by an official in Chernigov that rumors were circulating: “It is unlikely that he, Kolyshkevich, with some fellow students and Professor Belousov, will not go in a wagon,” i.e. to Siberia, into exile.

On the basis of the conclusion of Aderkas and the conclusions of the Minister of Education Lieven, Nicholas I ordered: "For the harmful influence on the youth" professors Shapalinsky, Belousov, Landrazhin and Singer "should be removed from their posts, with the inclusion of these circumstances in their passports, so that in this way they could no longer be are tolerable anywhere in the service of the educational department, and those of them who are not Russians are sent abroad, and the Russians are sent to their places of origin, putting them under the supervision of the police.

Undoubtedly, Gogol knew and read Shakespeare. His life and creative path fell on the years when the Russian reader discovered Shakespeare. In the thirties and forties of the XIX century, the works of the English playwright are of general interest. At this time, the literary ties between Russian literature and the work of Shakespeare, established in the 18th century, were strengthened. The previous era knew mainly adaptations and translations of fragments from German or French, transcriptions in which the original was remade in accordance with the tastes of the era and the translator's attitudes. Dramas are now completely translated from the English original (among them, for example, the popular Hamlet by N. A. Polevoy). Researchers have little information about whether Gogol read Shakespeare in the original. However, the fact that the Russian writer was acquainted with the work of the English playwright certainly deserves attention. The study of this problem will help open a new page in the history of contacts between Russian and English literature, as well as contribute to clarifying Gogol's creative biography.
This form of acquaintance with the works of an English playwright is possible under several conditions. First, Gogol had to know English very well. Secondly, the writer had to have an edition of Shakespeare's plays. Thirdly, he had to have the desire and opportunity to read it.
Did Gogol know English and to what extent? The future writer began to study foreign languages ​​at the Poltava district school (1818-19), where French, German and Latin were taught. He continued their development at the Poltava Gymnasium (1820-21), and then at the Nizhyn Gymnasium of Higher Sciences of Prince Bezborodko (1821-27). English was not included in the curriculum of these educational institutions. It should be noted that Gogol studied French and German especially intensively in Nizhyn. He read classical works of French and German literature in the original, played in the gymnasium theater, where the students staged plays by Molière and Schiller in the original. The guards in the class in which Gogol studied were French, who were obliged to speak with the wards only in their native language.
All this was supposed to instill in Gogol a taste for learning foreign languages. Indeed, upon entering the Gymnasium, the future writer did not know French and German very well, and then for a long time lagged behind in them. Although, with due diligence, Gogol could raise his grades. At the beginning of the 20th century, P. Zabolotsky, who carefully studied all the documents on the progress of the future writer, established that there was no reason to talk about Gogol's lack of education. Uneven study at the gymnasium only indicates that Gogol was passionately fond of languages, but as a creative and enthusiastic person, he could sometimes succumb to momentary weakness, boredom, and disappointment. Gogol's certificate testifies to the same, where the successes of the future writer in German are called excellent, and in French - very good. It is known from the memoirs of contemporaries that later Gogol independently mastered Italian, Polish and English and significantly improved his knowledge of Latin, Greek and German. In addition, in the last years of his life, Gogol read the Gospel daily in Church Slavonic, Latin, Greek, and English.
There are several pieces of evidence that Gogol studied the language of Shakespeare. One of them is cited by the first biographer of Gogol, P. A. Kulish, in the book Notes on the Life of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol (1856). “Toward the end of his life, he studied and, perhaps, knew English,” the researcher writes. Elsewhere, the biographer remarks more specifically: “Gogol began to study languages ​​thoroughly only in the last decade of his life and added to French a knowledge of Italian, Polish, German, English, Latin and Greek. In his papers, traces of studies in these languages ​​​​are preserved, and it seems that he read books in each of them.
Other evidence is more detailed and definite and comes from O. N. Smirnova, daughter of A. O. Smirnova-Rosset, a close friend and correspondent of Gogol. In her unfinished history of Russian literature, Essays and Memoirs, O. N. Smirnova writes about Gogol in the last years of his life (we are talking about the period between 1846 and 1850, when her mother lived in Kaluga): “He studied English by reading The Bible and Shakespeare, so that I can read Byron, Stern, and Fielding later. The Bible with his notes, which he read with my English teacher (who spoke very good Russian), was sent to this friend of our house after his death. She was a wonderful woman in every way, educated in many ways and outstanding in character. Gogol had great respect for her, spoke to her about his system of education and spoke of her as "the eighth wonder of the world, in which twenty years of teaching did not kill either the mind, or the heart, or the imagination." He added that most of the teachers and mentors lack animation and imagination, which is a huge gap for anyone who wants to educate others. The English Shakespeare, which he read, and the herbarium he made for me are still with me ”(translated by V.P. Gorlenko). Since the publication of the apocryphal "Notes" of her mother undermined the credibility of the information reported by O. N. Smirnova, this story requires verification. Apparently, we are talking about the governess Maria Yakovlevna Overbeck (Mary Overbeck), who lived in the house from 1839 to 1849 and whom A. O. Smirnova-Rosset appreciated very much: “I have a wonderful governess. God sent her to me, because I am completely unable to raise children, ”she wrote to V. A. Zhukovsky. M. Ya. Overbeck's praise of Gogol is reminiscent of his usual playful compliments. He repeatedly conveyed his regards to M. Ya. Overbeck through A. O. Smirnov-Rosset and spoke of her as a good governess. Apparently, they were in correspondence, which has not yet been discovered: Gogol reports the "news" from Miss Overbeck in a letter to A. O. Smirnova dated July 8, 1847.
Thus, the memoirs of O. N. Smirnova are confirmed by other sources, which allows us to rely on them. P.A. Kulish and O. N. Smirnova agree that Gogol studied English for some time. Unfortunately, we do not know anything about the duration of these classes, but they are unlikely to have been systematic, since Gogol visited the Smirnovs in Kaluga only on short visits.
To what extent could Gogol learn English? It is obvious that the knowledge of a governess, even if she is a competent native speaker of English, is completely insufficient for a deep and meaningful reading of Shakespeare in the original. In order to study such a complex author, one needs an experienced scholar who knows the history of the English language (diachronic aspect), as well as a fairly complete dictionary of Shakespeare's language or a thoroughly commented edition of the works of the English playwright.
The language of the great playwright is difficult, and this feature of it is explained by the fact that he did not write in modern English for M. Ya. Overbeck, but in a special version of the literary language of the 16th century - the so-called early modern English. This variant differs significantly from the English language of the first half of the 19th century. For more than two hundred years there have been great changes at all levels of the language, from phonetic to syntactic. This should have made it very difficult to read, and most importantly, to understand Shakespeare's texts, which initially included the active use of a language game.

NEGINSKY LYCEUM - "GYMNASIUM OF HIGHER SCIENCES"

Russian lyceums of the 19th century, these unique educational institutions that combined gymnasium and university education, wrote a bright page in the history of national public education. Among them, a special place is occupied by the “Gymnasium of Higher Sciences and the Lyceum of Prince Bezborodko”, which existed in the county town of Nizhyn, in the Chernihiv region. The Nizhyn Lyceum is famous primarily for the fact that the great Nikolai Gogol studied here. But not only this.

Over the twelve years of the existence of the gymnasium, eight graduations took place, 105 people graduated from it, including writers N. V. Kukolnik, E. P. Grebenka, V. N. Zabila, philosopher P. G. Redkin and other prominent figures who made a notable contribution to Russian and Ukrainian culture. The lyceum, especially at the initial stage, was distinguished by teaching methods advanced for that time, which contributed to the development of democratic and progressive traditions in domestic education.

The emergence of lyceums was largely due to the need to create cultural centers of regions remote from universities, and the emergence of lyceums in Ukraine (Volynsky, Nezhinsky, Richelievsky) was also caused by the need to strengthen ties between Ukrainian (Little Russian) regions, relatively recently (or even quite recently) included in the Russian Empire, with the imperial center. The opening of the lyceum in Nizhyn was a kind of recognition of the merits of this city in the history of Ukraine. It was here that in the 17th century the Councils met, at which the hetmans of the Left Bank were elected. A century later, a prominent Catherine's nobleman, statesman and diplomat, Prince Alexander Andreevich Bezborodko built a house in the center of Nizhyn and surrounded it with a huge park. Bezborodko bequeathed the land, along with three thousand souls of peasants, "to ensure" the future educational institution, which was to become a "hotbed of science and morality."

Alexander Andreevich himself did not live to see his plan come true, his dream was realized by his brother, Count Ilya Andreevich Bezborodko. Through the efforts of Ilya Andreevich and largely at his expense, on the site of an old house in the center of the park, according to the project of the famous academician of architecture Alois Ruska, in 1805-1817, a monumental three-story building was erected in the style of classicism, the facade of which is decorated with twelve slender white columns (colonnade "White Swan" ). The inscription on the pediment Labore et zelo calls to live "by labor and diligence". Here, in 1820, the "Gymnasium of Higher Sciences and the Lyceum of Prince Bezborodko" was opened. According to its charter, the educational institution was equated to a university and resembled the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum. Nizhyn received the status of a university city and became the only county center in the Russian Empire that had its own, as we would say now, university.

Only nobles were admitted to the Nezhinsky Lyceum, they studied there for nine years. Graduates of the gymnasium-lyceum, as well as those who graduated from the university, were exempted from exams for promotion to higher ranks. The lyceum was run by the trustee of the Kharkov district (Tsarskoye Selo lyceum reported directly to the Minister of Public Education), but it was supported by the founders.

In the charter, approved by Alexander I, it was written: "There are four types of management of the gymnasium: 1) moral, 2) educational, 3) economic, 4) police." The police approach to the education of morality, as a rule, gives rise to a very trivial product - the rod. They were also used within the walls of the Nizhyn gymnasium. Flogged and "Nikosha" by Gogol-Yanovsky, given by his father to the lyceum in 1821 after he graduated from the Poltava district (district) school. Nestor Kukolnik, who studied with Gogol in Nizhyn, recalled that during the flogging Gogol screamed piercingly. “He pretended so skillfully,” wrote the Dollmaker, “that we were all convinced of his insanity.”

However, the first director of the institution, Ivan Semenovich Orlai, very rarely and extremely reluctantly resorted to such educational measures. As the same Dollmaker testified, he "even fell ill while signing the verdict." In general, Orlai was a wonderful person in the full sense of the word. A native of Hungary, he found a second home in Russia and gave her his talents and knowledge. At the age of 19, he was already a professor, he listened to lectures in Vienna and Lvov, at the University of Königsberg, where philosophy was read "according to Kant's notebooks." At one time he was even a surgeon under Paul I, participated in the war of 1812 and operated on the wounded. When Orlai became a director in Nizhyn, he had the titles of both a doctor of medicine and a doctor of philosophy. A passionate admirer of the language of Horace, he called his students to him, treated them to dinner and talked to them at the table in Latin. At the lyceum, Orlai sought to introduce the methods of Pestalozzi, a very popular teacher in Europe at that time, the main thing in whose system was the provision on the need to establish mutual understanding between students and teachers. Choosing teachers, Orlai, with some exceptions, found, first of all, educated, thinking people who were able to instill in their students the values ​​of European culture. Many of the Nizhyn teachers (among them were Russians, Greeks, Hungarians, French, Italians, Swiss) had two higher educations, and many of them graduated from the university in their time, knew several languages ​​and were encyclopedically educated. It was these teachers who were the junior professor of German literature Fyodor Ivanovich Singer and the professor of French literature Ivan Yakovlevich Landrazhin, who not only knew their subject perfectly, but also gave pupils to read books from their personal libraries, took them at home, where literary and scientific interviews took place , read French and German classics in the original, translated Schiller, German romantics, and even Voltaire himself. Among the outstanding Nizhyn teachers are Kazimir Varfolomeevich Shapalinsky, who knew both mathematics and Russian literature equally brilliantly, and professor of botany Nikita Fedorovich Solovyov.

An extract from the “Journal of the Conference of the Gymnasium of Higher Sciences” speaks of Orlai’s management style: “Mr. Director expressed his desire that each of those present at the meetings on the account of the management of the gymnasium declare his thoughts freely and freely, even if something happens against any measures proposed by the Master Director himself, and whose judgments will prove to be the most thorough, to be recorded in the paragraphs of the journal under his name.

Perhaps the greatest wealth of the gymnasium was the library, the beginning of which was laid by the honorary trustee Count A. G. Kushelev-Bezborodko, great-nephew of A. A. Bezborodko. He tried to rely on the experience of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum (which he himself graduated from). The count donated two and a half thousand volumes to the gymnasium. These were mainly translated and historical books.

Not without reason in the gymnasium they loved history so much - it was the influence of the era. Representatives of the educated strata of society were impressed by the publication of eleven volumes of Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" (they also stood on the shelves of the lyceum library) and novels by Walter Scott. Gymnasium students even formed a historical society, where they independently translated the works of foreign historians and compiled a code of world history on the basis of compilations and independent research.

However, this was not the merit of the gymnasium historian Moiseev (Gogol called him a Cossack), who simply made me cram chapters from a textbook, and demanded to retell them at lectures. One day, Moiseev, wanting to catch Gogol on not listening to the lesson, suddenly broke off the story and asked: “Mr. Gogol-Yanovsky, what happened after the death of Alexander the Great?” Gogol (who spent the whole lesson drawing the view outside the window) jumped up and cheerfully answered: "The funeral." The class crashed. They also laughed at the teacher of Russian literature, Nikolsky, who limited himself in his predilections to Kheraskov and Sumarokov. Lyceum students slipped him poems by Yazykov and Pushkin, passing them off as their own. he ruled "opuses" and said that poetic experiments were created in violation of the rules of syllable. But the senior professor of political sciences, Mikhail Bilevich, who later played a downright fatal role in the history of the gymnasium, was not liked by the gymnasium students, they mocked him.

In such an environment, the pupil of "Nikosh" also studied. He often had a hard time, especially in the early years. There was everything here: ridicule (often very angry) from classmates, and difficulties in studies, especially in learning languages, and clashes with teachers (some of them openly persecuted Gogol) ... True, Gogol himself was not a diligent student, and besides, he had difficult character. But it was also here that his great talent was formed: during his studies, Gogol created his first literary works: the poetic ballad "Two Fish", the tragedy "The Robbers", "The Slavic Tale", "The Tverdislavich Brothers", the idyll "Hanz Küchelgarten", and also "Something about Nizhyn, or Fools the law is not written. Gogol's closest friends for life were his fellow students A. S. Danilevsky and N. Ya. Prokopovich. In the last years of his studies in Nizhyn, the future writer took an active part in the life of the gymnasium: he published manuscript journals, acted as a librarian, and played on the stage of the gymnasium theater, which appeared in 1824 with the permission of Orlai. The opening of the theater set off some kind of festive whirlwind that swirled the Nikosha as well. Gogol was accepted into the troupe and offered him the role of Creon in V. Ozerov's tragedy Oedipus in Athens. In general, it is clear why Gogol got it: Creon was ugly, proud and lonely.

By the way, all the troubles of the Nezhinsky Lyceum began from the theater. Rather, it became a formal reason for the emergence of these turmoil. In May 1825, professor of natural law Nikolai Grigoryevich Belousov appeared at the gymnasium. At the age of 15, he graduated from the Kyiv Theological Academy, then entered Kharkov University, which was considered the best educational institution in Ukraine (Kharkov was then called the Ukrainian Athens). The philosophical faculty was especially strong at the university, where from 1804 to 1816 Professor Johann Schad lectured, recommended to Kharkov by Goethe and Schiller. Two certificates issued to Belousov after graduation testified that he studied "with excellent success" at the ethical and philological department of the Faculty of Philosophy and at the Faculty of Law.

Orlai offered Belousov to teach natural and civil law, which Bilevich, mentioned above, had previously studied. Bilevich harbored a grudge against Belousov and began to wait for a convenient excuse to sit the young professor. Moreover, the situation favored this: in December 1825, well-known events took place on Senate Square, and the nature of Belousov’s lessons, his teaching methods and relations with students made it possible to expose the professor as a freethinker, a molester of youth and almost an accomplice of the Decembrists.

In August 1826 Orlai resigned. The period of his directorship began to be considered a time of unrest. But it was precisely because of these “disturbances,” because of the freedom of communication between professors and the director, and students with professors, that the spirit of the lyceum was born, which was not so easy to eradicate. However, there were plenty of people who wanted to eradicate it. Four months after Orlai left, the gymnasium conference received a petition, or rather, a denunciation from Bilevich, in which he reported (as if he had found out news) about the creation of a theater where "boarding school pupils will present various theatrical plays without special permission from the higher educational authorities." This was the first attack against Shapalinsky, who took the place of Orlai, and Belousov, who was patronized by the new director, who appointed him to the post of inspector. Bilevich, of course, knew that Orlai had given permission for the creation of the theater. But under Ivan Semenovich, he was silent, knowing about his connections at court.

The new denunciation was received by the Gymnasium Conference on April 16, 1827. It was Professor Nikolsky's report on the unlawful readings to which pupils indulge. It was also about the theater, for which they would have to be responsible "in the event of any government demands on this subject." Belousov was forced to inspect the personal property of the boarders and take away the forbidden works from them. Among them were Pushkin's poems The Prisoner of the Caucasus, The Fountain of Bakhchisaray, The Gypsies, The Robber Brothers, as well as Griboedov's Woe from Wit, Nalivaika's Confession and Ryleev's Voinarovsky. However, Belousov did not hand over the books and manuscripts to the administration of the gymnasium, but kept them.

But before the conference had time to discuss Nikolsky's report, a new paper arrived from Bilevich. The denunciation, dated May 7, 1827, was directed against students listening to law from Belousov. The pensioner Gogol-Yanovsky was also commemorated among them. Bilevich wrote: “I noticed some grounds for free-thinking in some students, and this, I believe, may come from a delusion in the grounds of natural law, which, although it is prescribed to be taught here according to the system of Mr. Demartin, he, Mr. Junior Professor Belousov, passes this natural right according to his notes, following in the foundations of the philosophy of Kant and Schad. So the word “freethinking” began to appear, which eventually grew into the “Case of Freethinking”.

Belousov lectured from his notes, not from a textbook. But the "crime" did not even consist in this, but in the very interpretation of natural law that Belousov gave. In the autumn of 1827, interrogations of high school students began about the nature of the lectures of the seditious teacher. Most of the evidence was in favor of the professor. Gogol also said that Belousov in the classroom "gave explanations according to the book", that is, according to the textbook.

Bilevich did not let up, there were rumors about the existence of some kind of society, the “Shapalinsky brotherhood”. The names of other "freethinkers" were mentioned - Singer and Landrazhin, the first of whom lived abroad and read Kant in the original, and the second fought in Napoleon's army against the Russians and in general could turn out to be a French agent. The "Case of Freethinking" ended with the dismissal of those responsible in 1829, after Gogol's departure from Nizhyn.

In an effort to prevent the spread of revolutionary ideas among young people, the authorities decided to change the profile of the gymnasium. In 1832 it was reorganized into a physics and mathematics lyceum, and in 1840 - into a legal lyceum. Their graduates were the famous Ukrainian fabulist L. I. Glibov, Ukrainian and Russian writer and ethnographer A. S. Afanasiev (Chuzhbinsky), the founder of the new Belarusian realistic literature F. K. Bogushevich, poet and translator N. V. Gerbel, famous engineers the founders of the Russian school of bridge building D. I. Zhuravsky and P. I. Sobko.

In 1875, on the basis of the legal lyceum, the Nizhyn Historical and Philological Institute was established, which trained teachers of classical languages, the Russian language and history for secondary schools. Peasants, philistines and representatives of other classes were allowed to enter here. Famous scientists E. F. Karsky, N. S. Derzhavin, N. N. Petrovsky, I. N. Kirichenko, V. I. Rezanov, artist N. S. Samokish, teacher P. K. Volynsky and other. In 1920, the educational institution was reorganized into the Nizhyn Institute of Public Education, in 1934 - into the Nezhin Pedagogical Institute. Today it is Nizhyn State University named after Mykola Gogol. It is in the same building with a "white swan" and the motto Labore et zelo. There is also a museum of the great Russian writer and a collection of paintings by Russian and Western European artists of the 16th-18th centuries. A memorial plaque was installed on the wall of the building in 1909: "Gogol studied here from May 1821 to June 1828."

There is no need to speak here about certain circumstances of Gogol's childhood. All this, as well as many other facts of his biography, was often and in detail described in various books. We allow ourselves to make only one exception - in relation to those few years that the future writer spent in the Nizhyn gymnasium. They left a deep imprint on Gogol's spiritual life. The first flashes of his work date back to the Nizhyn period, his civic self-awareness awakened here, it was by this time that those traits in Gogol's character began to take shape, which would subsequently affect his personality, and partly in his artistic world. The archival materials that I discovered at one time, which are only partially used in this book, made it possible to comprehend and understand a lot in a new way.

In 1820, a new educational institution was opened in Nizhyn - the so-called "Gymnasium of Higher Sciences of Prince Bezborodko". She belonged to the number of privileged educational institutions. Its task was to "prepare youth for the service of the state." According to the charter, she, along with the Demidov Higher Sciences School in Yaroslavl and the Richelieu Lyceum in Odessa, occupied "a middle place between universities and lower schools" and was almost equal to the first, differing from the second both in "the highest degree of the sciences taught in it" and in special " rights and benefits."

Nizhyn gymnasium was created as a closed educational institution. Severe discipline was established here, the observance of which was vigilantly monitored by educators and guards. The same goals were pursued by the extraordinarily complicated system of managing the gymnasium. General management was carried out by the director, inspector and supervisors, in the educational area - by the board. The leadership of the gymnasium, in turn, was under triple control: the trustee of the Kharkov educational district, the honorary trustee Count A. G. Kushelev-Bezborodko - the grandson of the founder of the gymnasium - and, finally, the Ministry of Education.

All this complex administrative structure, as well as the educational system, was aimed at instilling in students loyalty to the “king and fatherland” and qualities that would correspond to the formula: “Do not think, do not reason, but obey.”

Although the Nizhyn gymnasium was by no means considered an ordinary educational institution, the organization of education here was not entirely satisfactory. This was due primarily to the selection of professors and teachers, a significant part of which did not correspond well to their purpose.

The history of Russian literature was taught at the gymnasium by Partheny Ivanovich Nikolsky, a dry and arrogant pedant who read his course in strict accordance with the Old Testament instructions on rhetoric and rhetoric.

Among the routine teachers of the Nizhyn gymnasium, one more gloomy figure should be noted - Ivan Grigoryevich Kulzhinsky. A native of the clergy, Kulzhinsky graduated from the Chernihiv Seminary and taught Latin in Nizhyn for four years (1825-1829). He also labored in the literary field, writing sentimental novels, stories and unbearably viscous dramas, collaborated in the capital's magazines and later became a member of the Society of Russian Literature. As a teacher and writer, Kulzhinsky was extremely unpopular among the pupils of the gymnasium. When in 1827 his essay "Little Russian Village" came out of print, it immediately became the subject of ridicule of high school students, including Gogol. In a letter to his friend, G. I. Vysotsky, Gogol vividly described how high school students make fun of the "literary freak" Kulzhinsky.

Relations between Kulzhinsky and Gogol were hostile. And this is well felt in the tone of the memoirs written by Kulzhinsky in 1854.

At the head of this group of routine teachers was the senior professor of political sciences Mikhail Vasilievich Bilevich, who arrived at the Nizhyn gymnasium in December 1821. Prior to that, he served for fifteen years as a teacher of natural sciences and German at the Novgorod-Seversk Gymnasium, in which he also taught commerce, technology, and "experimental physics" at various times. At first, Bilevich was appointed to the Nizhyn Gymnasium for the vacancy of a professor of German literature, and two years later he was appointed professor of political science.

Bilevich, from the very beginning of his service at the gymnasium, proved himself to be an inveterate reactionary, an ignorant and mediocre person. The pupils of the gymnasium were afraid of Bilevich and hated him. Gogol could not stand him either, calling Bilevich and his associates "professors-schoolboys" (X, 85).

In May 1825, Nikolai Grigoryevich Belousov, a junior professor of political sciences, was appointed to the gymnasium, a year later he was also appointed to the post of inspector of the boarding school.

The twenty-six-year-old professor immediately fell in love with the pupils of the gymnasium, he was able to quickly establish good, friendly relations with them. Unlike many old teachers, Belousov was a man of advanced convictions, distinguished by a sharp mind, deep and versatile knowledge. In addition, he had great personal charm. “Justice, honesty, accessibility, good advice, in decent cases the necessary encouragement,” Nestor Kukolnik later recalled about him, “all this had a beneficial effect on the circle of students ...”.

Belousov was instructed to teach a course in natural law. In his lectures, he developed progressive ideas, spoke in a fascinating manner about the natural right of the human person to freedom, about the great benefits of education for the people, and aroused sharp critical thought in the minds of his pupils. The lectures of Professor Belousov found a lively response from the gymnasium students, and soon he became their favorite teacher. The same Nestor Kukolnik testified: “With extraordinary art, Nikolai Grigorievich presented us with the whole history of philosophy, and at the same time of natural law, in several lectures, so that a firmly harmonious, systematic skeleton of the science of sciences was established in the head of each of us, which each of us could already put into action at will, abilities and learned means. And in the unpublished part of this memoir essay, Kukolnik spoke of Belousov even more expressively: “He was one of the most learned people in Russia. He was appointed to shine brightly in the scientific and educational field; not fate, but people, the concept was not allowed to that.

Among the free-thinking part of the teachers of the gymnasium should also be named Kazimir Varfolomeevich Shapalinsky - senior professor of mathematical sciences, Ivan Yakovlevich Landrazhin - professor of French language and literature, Fedor Iosifovich (Friedrich-Joseph) Singer - junior professor of German literature, as well as the younger ones who were close to this group Professor of Latin Literature Semyon Matveyevich Andrushchenko and Professor of Natural Sciences Nikita Fedorovich Soloviev.

Almost all of these people were invited to work in Nizhyn by Ivan Semyonovich Orlay, who in 1821-1826 held the post of director of the gymnasium. He was a man of broad culture: doctor of medicine, master of verbal sciences and philosophy, author of numerous works in various fields of science. Contemporaries noted the progressive nature of his views and the courage with which he defended them. Orlai aroused great sympathy among the pupils of the gymnasium. Gogol respectfully mentions him in his letters. In the materials of the investigation in the "free-thinking case", his name is often mentioned among the main perpetrators of the "riots" in the gymnasium, although by that time Orlai no longer worked in Nizhyn. As Professor Moiseev wrote in one of his reports, the friendship between Orlai and Shapalinsky “was based on the connections of the“ secret society ”. The head of the sixth department of the fifth district of the gendarme corps, Major Matushevich, reporting in January 1830 to Benkendorf about the "unrest" in the Nizhyn Gymnasium, called Orlai a person prone to secret societies and having "intercourse with people convicted of malicious intent against the government."

The death of Orlai prevented Nicholas I from dealing with him in the same way as was done with a whole group of gymnasium teachers.

Gogol was enrolled in the Nizhyn "gymnasium of higher sciences" in May 1821. Timid and shy, he had difficulty getting used to the new conditions of life in Nizhyn.

A significant part of the memoirs of contemporaries about the stay of the future writer in the Nizhyn Gymnasium portrays Gogol as a carefree merry fellow, mischievous, eccentric, then a secretive and self-absorbed teenager, living apart from the interests of most school comrades, with little interest in the sciences taught. In addition, with the light hand of some memoirists, it was customary to portray Gogol the high school student as almost mediocre. Here is V. I. Lyubich-Romanovich’s statement, characteristic from this point of view: “... at the time when we knew Gogol at school, we not only could not suspect the “great” in him, but we did not even see the small.” I. G. Kulzhinsky, dissatisfied with Gogol's success in his subject - the Latin language, later recalled: "He was a talent unrecognized by the school and, to tell the truth, did not want or could not admit to the school." Warder Perion expressed the same thought with rude straightforwardness: "It would be too ridiculous to think that Gogol would be Gogol."

For a century, such testimonies were tirelessly cited by the authors of popular biographies of Gogol, passing from book to book, and became not only familiar, but also, as it were, gained a reputation as reliable facts.

But just a few years after leaving Nizhyn, almost all of Russia already knew Gogol.

It is known that already in Nizhyn, Gogol's versatile artistic talents had an effect. He could draw and had a penchant for painting. He was the organizer and soul of the amateur theater at the gymnasium. In Nizhyn, Gogol also showed an interest in literature.

The oppressive atmosphere of official scholasticism, which reigned in the classes of some teachers, forced the pupils of the gymnasium to seek satisfaction of their spiritual interests outside the school classrooms. The gymnasium students were fond of the works of Pushkin, Griboyedov, Ryleev; they followed the novelties of literature, subscribed to the magazines "Moscow Telegraph", "Moscow Bulletin", Delvig's almanac "Northern Flowers".

Interest in literature reigned among the pupils of the gymnasium in spite of Nikolsky. Some of them even tried to compose themselves. Here, besides Gogol, N. V. Kukolnik, E. P. Grebenka, V. I. Lyubich-Romanovich, N. Ya. Prokopovich, who later became professional writers, and many others, for whose biography, however, “ writing" turned out to be a passing episode. “At that time, literature flourished in our gymnasium,” recalled an anonymous classmate of Gogol, “and the talents of my comrades were already manifesting: Gogol, Kukolnik, Nikolai Prokopovich, Danilevsky, Rodzianko and others who remained unknown due to the circumstances of their lives or went to the grave early. This era of my life and now, in my old age, brings me touching memories. We led a cheerful and active life, worked diligently ... ".

This contemporary testimony is authentic and significant. It is confirmed by many materials at our disposal and suggests that the atmosphere of the spiritual life of the pupils of the Nizhyn gymnasium was quite intense and interesting.

Gogol's interest in literature arose early. Pushkin was his first favorite poet. Gogol followed his new works, diligently copying the poems "Gypsies", "Robber Brothers", chapters of "Eugene Onegin" into his school notebook. A. S. Danilevsky tells in his memoirs: “The three of us gathered (with Gogol and Prokopovich. - S. M.) and read Pushkin's Onegin, which then came out chapter by chapter. Gogol already then admired Pushkin. It was then still smuggling: for our professor of literature, Nikolsky, even Derzhavin was a new person. Gogol's letters addressed to his relatives are always full of requests to send him the books and magazines he needs. He strove to keep abreast of everything that happened in modern literature.

Already in the gymnasium, Gogol discovered a passion for literary creativity. T. G. Pashchenko testifies that this passion arose "very early and almost from the first days of his admission to the gymnasium of higher sciences." Gogol tried himself in a variety of genres - poetry, prose, drama. Going home in June 1827 for the summer holidays, he wrote to his mother: “Send for me a carriage, appropriate, because I am going with all the wealth of material and mental property, and you will see my labors” (X, 96). Information about the Nizhyn "works" of Gogol is very scarce. We know that he composed a number of lyrical poems, the ballad "Two Fish", the poem "Russia under the yoke of the Tatars", the satire "Something about Nizhyn, or the law is not written for fools", the tragedy "Robbers", written in iambic pentameter, the story "Brothers Tverdislavichi. These initial experiments of Gogol have not been preserved.

For a number of years, a literary society existed in the gymnasium, at whose meetings the works of school authors were discussed, handwritten almanacs and magazines were published, which also, unfortunately, have not come down to us.

Once, at a meeting of the society, Gogol's story "The Brothers Tverdislavichi" was discussed. The high school students gave a sharply negative review of this work and advised the author to destroy it. Gogol calmly listened to the comments of his comrades and agreed with them, immediately tore the manuscript into small pieces and threw them into the burning stove. Probably a similar fate befell his other works.

Gogol's school friends had a low opinion of his literary abilities, especially in the field of prose. “Practice in poetry,” one of his school friends, the Greek K. M. Basili, advised him, “but don’t write in prose: it’s very stupid with you. A novelist will not dance out of you, it can be seen now. Yes, and Gogol himself at that time gravitated more to poetry than to prose, although he generally did not attach any importance to his literary pursuits. Even the general direction of his creative interests was difficult even then to guess. “My first experiments, the first exercises in compositions, for which I got the habit of late in my stay at school,” he later recalled in his “Author's Confession,” were almost all of a lyrical and serious kind. Neither I myself, nor my companions, who also practiced writing with me, thought that I would have to be a comic and satirical writer" (VIII, 438). Although it was in the gymnasium years that Gogol, by his own admission, also confirmed by many of his “one-souls,” already definitely began to show some satirical inclinations - for example, in the ability to surprisingly subtly mimic the funny trait of an unloved professor or cut off some arrogant schoolboy with a well-aimed word . Gogol called this the ability to "guess a person." Grigory Stepanovich Shaposhnikov, one of Gogol's school friends, tells about him in his memoirs: “His funny and funny stories, his jokes and the most tricks, always smart and sharp, without which he could not live, were so comical that even now I can’t think of them without laughter and pleasure.”

Gogol's satirical powers of observation, his natural wit sometimes even manifested itself in his work: for example, in the above-mentioned satire "Something about Nizhyn, or the law is not written for fools", in the acrostic "This is the way of life of the wicked" on the high school student Fyodor Borozdin, nicknamed Rastrigoy Spiridon. Of Nizhyn's writings by Gogol, in addition to a few trifles and fragments, only one poem survived - "Housewarming". The poem of the seventeen-year-old Gogol is marked by the stamp of a well-known poetic culture. It is written in the form of a lyrical meditation, very close in its intonation to the traditions of a romantic elegy.

The lyrical hero of Gogol is imbued with a mournful look at reality; he lost faith in her goodness and harmony and

fell out of love with the joy of life And sadness called for a housewarming party.

But sadness is not the external pose of our hero. She is an expression of his mental disorder and longing. In the past, he was cheerful and bright, but then something happened on his way, and he began to fade:

Now, like autumn, youth withers. Gloomy, do not have fun for me. And I yearn in silence And wild, and joy is not a joy to me.

V. I. Shenrok suggested that the minor tone of Gogol's poem has an autobiographical basis and is caused by the sad circumstances associated with the death of his father. Partly here, probably, the influence of the romantic tradition on the young Gogol also affected.

It must be said that Gogol's spiritual development in these years proceeded very rapidly. He closely followed modern literature, greedily absorbed new ideas and moods that were forming in the minds of the advanced strata of Russian society. The echoes of the formidable political events that took place not long before in the north and south of Russia reached Nezhin, although in a greatly weakened form, but they gave the gymnasium youth enough material to reflect on the most diverse phenomena of modern life and art. How serious and thorough these reflections were can be judged, for example, by one of Gogol's school writings that has come down to us, entitled "On what is required of criticism."

According to the probable assumption of N. Tikhonravov, Gogol wrote it in the first half of 1828, that is, shortly before graduating from the gymnasium. The text of the essay takes less than one printed page. It is written concisely, concisely, and bears traces of the young Gogol's serious reflections on the chosen topic. Of the three surviving school writings of Gogol - on Russian law, history and the theory of literature - the first two are too descriptive and empirical in nature and are almost devoid of elements of independent analysis. The latter, devoted to criticism, provides well-known material for judgments about the level of Gogol's spiritual development.

"What is required of criticism?" - so the essay begins. The author emphasizes that he considers the solution of this issue "too necessary in our times", and formulates several conditions necessary for the successful development of criticism. It should be "impartial", "strict", "decent", and, in addition, it must serve as an expression of "true enlightenment." The critic must have the ability to correctly understand the idea of ​​the work. And, what is especially important, the critic, evaluating any work, cannot be limited only to the sphere of art, he must be guided by the “true desire for good and good” (IX, 13).

Timidly and uncertainly here Gogol gropes for ways to understand the relationship between art and reality. And although Nikolsky gave this work a “fairly” rating, which in those days meant the highest score, Gogol could not have grasped the main ideas of the work from the lectures of the routine professor and even clearly did not agree with his concepts about this subject.

In the upper grades of the gymnasium, literary life was in full swing. The works of metropolitan authors and their own compositions were hotly discussed, handwritten journals and almanacs were published. Moreover, as it turns out now, there were much more of them than Gogol's researchers and biographers previously assumed. Many handwritten works prohibited by censorship went around the hands of the gymnasium students. All this could not pass unnoticed by the reactionary section of the gymnasium teachers. And soon there was thunder.

In the autumn of 1826, warden Zeldner reported to Belousov, who had assumed the position of inspector of the gymnasium, that he had found a large number of books and manuscripts in the pupils, "inconsistent with the purpose of moral education." Since wide publicity of this episode was inevitable, Belousov ordered the papers and books to be taken away from the students, and on November 27, 1826, he reported the incident to the acting director Shapalinsky.

Bilevich and Nikolsky repeatedly demanded that Belousov submit these materials to the conference. Under all sorts of pretexts, Belousov evaded fulfilling this requirement, causing reproaches for patronizing the immoral behavior of students.

Even in the midst of the “case of freethinking,” when a dangerous political accusation hung over Belousov, he refused to give out the materials taken from the gymnasium students, disregarding the decisions of the conference and the orders of the new director of the Yasnovsky gymnasium, who took office in October 1827. To Yasnovsky's offer to show him the works taken away from the pupils, Belousov replied that he "has reasons to keep them." One day an incident broke out in this connection at the conference. Exasperated, Yasnovsky began to shout at Belousov and demanded that the student's essays be returned immediately. The professor said that he had no books and essays ... not preserved!

Belousov kept his tactics even after the arrival of the authorized Minister of Education - Aderkas, who repeatedly reminded him of the need to present the papers and books taken from the pupils. For three and a half years Belousov kept a secret. And, finally, he had to reveal it, when on April 11, 1830, the enraged Aderkas ordered him to immediately submit the materials in an ultimatum form.

In the files of Aderkas there is a “Register of Books and Manuscripts” written by Belousov. This document is of outstanding interest. It consists of four sections:

"A. Journals and almanacs, which were compiled by pupils of the gymnasium before my entry into the position of inspector.

Here for the first time we learn the names of a number of handwritten publications published in the gymnasium, in which Gogol undoubtedly took part. In addition to the well-known almanacs "Meteor of Literature", which in the materials of Aderkas is called "godless and ungodly", "Parnassian dung", this list includes: the journals "Northern Dawn" (1826, No. 1, January - consists of 28 sheets, No. 2, February - from 49 sheets and No. 3, March - from 61 sheets), "Literary Echo" (1826, No. 1-7, 9-13), almanac "Literary Gap, compiled on the same day + 1/2 by Nikolai Prokopovich 1826 ” and some untitled publication, “literary something” (1826, No. 2), as Belousov calls it. All listed manuscripts are dated by the same year. According to Belousov, in the same 1826, the students "composed and compiled various journals and almanacs, of which there were more than ten at that time."

I. A. Srebnitsky, analyzing the Nizhyn archive at the beginning of this century, noted with chagrin that it contained “absolutely no mention of the journal activities of Nizhyn gymnasium students, including Gogol.” The materials of Aderkas discovered by us significantly expand our understanding on this matter.

P. A. Kulish in his Notes on the Life of N. V. Gogol, referring to the story of one of the Nizhyn students, mentions the Zvezda magazine, published in the gymnasium. In 1884, an article by S. Ponomarev was published in Kievskaya Starina with a description of one issue of the magazine Meteor of Literature, which happened to be at his disposal. The author of the article suggested: is this the same magazine that Kulish mentions? “In its title,” S. Ponomarev wrote, “it was easy for a biographer to say: “Meteor”, “Star” are somewhat close to each other and could get mixed up in memory.”

Belousov's "Register" found by us allows us to bring more clarity to this issue. S. Ponomarev's assumption turns out to be incorrect. "Star" has nothing to do with "Meteor of Literature", this is another handwritten edition - apparently, the one that is called "Northern Dawn" in the "Register".

The name of the journal, naturally, suggests that the students of the "gymnasium of higher sciences" were familiar with the almanac of Ryleev and Bestuzhev "Polar Star". Probably, in memory of this edition, the Nezhins decided to name their handwritten journal "Northern Dawn". It was, of course, risky to reproduce the name of the Decembrists' almanac more accurately. It is no coincidence that in the "oral traditions" of the Nizhyn people, to which Gogol's first biographer P. A. Kulish refers, the handwritten journal appears under the name "Star". It is extremely interesting that Gogol was the initiator of this publication. Referring to the same "oral traditions", Kulish notes that Gogol filled almost all departments of the journal with his articles. Sitting up all night, he worked on his edition, trying to give it "the appearance of a printed book." A new book comes out on the first of every month. “The publisher,” continues Kulish, “sometimes took it upon himself to read aloud his own and other people's articles. Everyone listened and admired. By the way, Gogol's story "The Brothers Tverdislavichi" (an imitation of the stories that appeared in the then modern almanacs) and various of his poems were placed in the "Star". All this was written in the so-called "high" style, because of which all the editor's employees fought.

The fact that the "Northern Dawn" was conceived as an imitation of the "Polar Star" is indirectly confirmed by I. D. Khalchinsky, Gogol's Nizhyn "single trough". He recalled that the pupils of the gymnasium compiled "periodic notebooks of literary attempts in imitation of almanacs and magazines of that time." Khalchinsky also noted that the publisher of this journal was Gogol (together with K. M. Bazili).

"IN. Books.

In the list of books selected from students, several works by Voltaire attract attention.

Here we find several handwritten copies of Griboedov's comedy Woe from Wit, Pushkin's poems The Robber Brothers, Gypsies, The Prisoner of the Caucasus and The Fountain of Bakhchisarai, Nalivaika's Confession, and three copies of Ryleev's Voinarovsky.

And finally, D. Own student essays and translations.

This section lists four dozen student essays (poems, poems, articles).

Belousov also attached all the materials listed in it to the "Register".

Unfortunately, these precious materials, among which, undoubtedly, were the works of the young Gogol, have not come down to us. It is very likely that Belousov did not hand over all of the materials he had to Aderkas. He could hide some of them - the most dangerous -. After reviewing all the papers presented by Belousov and not finding anything “disgusting to the government” in them, Aderkas returned them to director Yasnovsky. These materials were not preserved in the funds of the Nezhin archive.

"Register" Belousov gives an idea of ​​the nature and breadth of the literary interests of the students of the gymnasium.

I must say that Gogol's life in Nizhyn was full of worries and anxieties. The failures associated with the first literary experiments, the joys and sorrows caused by the performances of the school theater, the rumors that reached the pupils about some disputes between the professors of the gymnasium, in addition, the sad news received from home (bad harvest, lack of money, illness of relatives) - all this constantly darkened Gogol's soul.

In March 1825 his father died. A sixteen-year-old boy suddenly found himself in the position of a person who should become the backbone of the family - his mother and five sisters. It's time to think about your future, about your place in life.

Meanwhile, an event took place in Russia that left a huge mark on the history of the country and the echoes of which reached faraway Nizhyn.

After the uprising of the Decembrists, a cruel reaction reigned in the country. Nicholas I unleashed against the people all means of violence and merciless reprisals, showing at the same time, in the words of Lenin, "the maximum possible and impossible in terms of such an executioner's method."

But the strengthening of feudal oppression and political terror contributed to the growth of opposition sentiments in the country. This was primarily evidenced by the continuously increasing number of peasant uprisings. From all over the empire flocked to St. Petersburg, to the head of the III department, Benckendorff, reports of agents about an extremely alarming "state of mind." Here and there, in the most diverse strata of Russian society, a “highly thoughtful aspiration” spontaneously burst out, suppressing which the government of Nicholas I proved powerless in the end. In the “Short Review of Public Opinion for 1827”, presented to the Tsar by Benckendorff, it was noted with what irresistible force the thought of freedom lives in the minds of enslaved peasants: “They are waiting for their liberator ... and gave him the name Metelkin. They say among themselves: "Pugachev scared the gentlemen, and Metelkin will sweep them away."

The annual reviews and reports of the III branch are full of reports of mass unrest among the peasants, "who dreamed of freedom", as well as of their merciless pacification.

The thunder of cannons on Senate Square on December 14, 1825 woke up a whole generation of advanced Russian people. The deep ulcers of feudal reality were more and more exposed, and this could not but contribute to the process of political stratification of society. More and more people became aware of the injustice of the autocratic, landlord system and the need for a decisive struggle against it. The memory of the Decembrists as heroic fighters and victims of the autocracy was sacredly kept in the advanced strata of Russian society.

By crushing Decembrism, Nicholas I hoped to radically destroy the ideas of liberation in Russia. But this task turned out to be impossible. “You can get rid of people, but you can’t get rid of their ideas” - the validity of these words of the Decembrist M. S. Lunin was confirmed by all the experience in the development of advanced Russian social thought in the second half of the 20s and early 30s.

The ideas of December 14 continued to inspire the liberation movement. In many parts of the country, mainly in Moscow and the provinces, secret circles and societies arose, uniting various layers of the noble and even raznochintsy intelligentsia. The members of these underground cells saw themselves as continuing the cause of the Decembrists. Without a sufficiently defined program and clear political goals, they heatedly discussed the lessons of December 14 and tried to outline new possible paths for the historical renewal of Russia.

Secret political circles arose in Astrakhan and Kursk, Novocherkassk and Odessa, Orenburg and among the student youth of Moscow. Members of these circles, Herzen recalled in Past and Thoughts, were characterized by a "deep feeling of alienation from official Russia, from the environment that surrounded them, and at the same time the desire to get out of it," and some - "an impulsive desire to withdraw her very" . After 1825, small in number, circles became the most characteristic form of political activity of the progressively minded intelligentsia, who were intensely searching for methods and means of revolutionary transformation of the country in the new historical conditions.

The ideas of the “martyrs of December 14” were especially greeted by young students. In March 1826, gendarme colonel I.P. Bibikov reported from Moscow to Benckendorff: “It is necessary to focus on students and, in general, on all students in public educational institutions. Brought up for the most part in rebellious ideas and formed in principles contrary to religion, they are a hotbed, which in time can become disastrous for the fatherland and for the legitimate government.

One case followed another. Benckendorff's overt and covert agents were knocked off their feet. They were especially troubled by Moscow University, which, after the defeat of Decembrism, became perhaps the main center of political freethinking in the country. Polezhaev, the circle of the Kritsky brothers, the secret society of Sungurov, then the circles of Belinsky and Herzen - this is how the baton of political freethinking, excited by the Decembrist movement, was passed in Moscow.

No less acute political events unfolded in Ukraine, in the immediate vicinity of Nizhyn. It is curious that the Little Russian military governor, Prince Repnin, reporting to Nicholas I on the state of affairs in the region entrusted to him after the Decembrist uprising, wrote in one of the reports: “Peace and tranquility are preserved absolutely everywhere.” It was an obvious lie, dictated by the desire not to take out dirty linen in public. The situation in Ukraine has never been so alien to "peace and tranquility" as it was at the time when Repnin wrote this report. For centuries, the accumulated hatred of the Ukrainian peasants for their oppressors was looking for an outlet. The struggle against the feudal lords took on increasingly violent forms, especially in the Kiev and Chernihiv regions. Revolts broke out in various places.

Similar facts, as well as the events of December 14 in St. Petersburg and the uprising of the Chernigov regiment in Ukraine (December 29, 1825 - January 3, 1826), broke out almost simultaneously, did not pass by Nezhin. Under the influence of the general political atmosphere, growing dissatisfaction with the feudal system, moods of political freethinking began to penetrate into the Nizhyn “Gymnasium of Higher Sciences”, which soon resulted in the “case of freethinking”, in which a significant part of professors and students were involved. Among these students was Gogol.

Nikolai Grigoryevich Belousov, a junior professor of political sciences, turned out to be the main defendant in the "free-thinking case". The reactionary teachers of the gymnasium began to weave intrigues against him. The organizer of the persecution of Belousov was the stupid and ignorant professor M. V. Bilevich. He wrote slanderous reports about the order in the gymnasium, about the atrocities and freethinking of the pupils, and at the same time claimed that Belousov was to blame for everything. Having collected several student notebooks with lecture notes on natural law, Bilevich presented them to the pedagogical council of the gymnasium. In an accompanying report, he pointed out that Belousov's lectures did not say anything about respect for God, for "neighbor" and that they were "full of such opinions and positions that inexperienced youth can really lead astray." Thus, a high-profile case was created, which acquired a completely distinct political character. An investigation has begun. Professors and students of the gymnasium were called in for interrogations.

The Case of Freethinking sheds light on the atmosphere that reigned in Nizhyn and in which Gogol was brought up. This "case" was a kind of political echo of the events of December 14, 1825.

During the investigation into the Belousov case, it turned out that as early as November 1825, “some boarders,” according to the testimony of the overseer N. N. Maslyannikov, “said that changes in Russia would be worse than the French Revolution.” Maslyannikov gave the names of the students of the gymnasium, who, on the eve of the Decembrist uprising, mysteriously whispered, told each other rumors about the upcoming changes in Russia, and at the same time sang the song:

Oh God, if you are Knead all kings with mud, Misha, Masha, Kolya and Sasha Plant on a stake.

Among the pupils who sang the "outrageous" song, Maslyannikov named Gogol's closest friends - N. Ya. Prokopovich and A. S. Danilevsky. Undoubtedly, Gogol himself was aware of this fact.

In the course of the investigation into the "free-thinking case" it was discovered that Belousov was by no means the only hotbed of seditious ideas in the Nizhyn gymnasium. He had like-minded people: professors K. V. Shapalinsky, who at one time acted as director of the gymnasium, I. Ya. Landrazhin, F. I. Singer.

About this latter, one of the students testified during the investigation that he, Singer, "often replaced lectures with political arguments." According to another testimony, Singer asked his students to read articles containing condemnation of the church’s decisions and, in addition, “for class translations, he chose and translated various articles about revolutions in the class.”

About Professor Landrazhin, one of the students testified that he “distributes various books for reading to students, namely: the works of Voltaire, Helvetius, Montesquieu ...” And according to the testimony of the former inspector of the gymnasium, Professor Moiseev, Landrazhin, “walking with the students, often sang to them“ Marseillaise ".

In January 1828 Landrazhin asked his students to translate a Russian text into French as part of their homework. A 6th grade student, Alexander Zmiev, used for this purpose a poem by Kondraty Ryleev, received shortly before that from a pupil of Martos, "which contains an appeal to freedom."

Landrazhin, of course, hid this fact from the director of the gymnasium, saying to Zmiev: “It’s good that a noble person like me got it; you know what kind of things in Vilna made several young people unhappy; we have a despotic government in Russia; You are not allowed to speak freely."

During the investigation, it turned out that the specified poem was well known to the majority of pupils of the gymnasium, who often recited it aloud and sang it. “It is known about this ode,” director Yasnovsky later reported, “that she went around the hands of the students.” Zmiev himself stated during interrogation that "the majority of the students usually sang these verses in the gymnasium." Rumors about “free-thinking moods in the “gymnasium of higher sciences” soon became public property. According to the testimony of a student of Kolyshkevich, he was told by an official in Chernigov that rumors were circulating: "It is unlikely that he, Kolyshkevich, with some accomplices and Professor Belousov, will not go in a wagon."

Some time later, Benkendorf himself became interested in the events in Nizhyn - the chief of the gendarmes and the head of the III department, who learned about them from intelligence reports. In 1830, in the first expedition of the III Department, a special dossier was opened “On the professors of the Nizhyn Prince Bezborodko Gymnasium: Shapalinsky, Belousov, Zinger and Landrazhin, who, according to Professor Bilevich, instilled harmful rules in students.” On January 31, 1830, Benckendorff sent a special letter to the Minister of Education, Prince Lieven, about "the teaching of sciences at the Nizhyn Gymnasium." The frightened minister immediately sent his special representative, a member of the Main Board of Schools, E. B. Aderkas, to Nizhyn to investigate the case on the spot.

In Nizhyn, Aderkas collected a large amount of investigative material. Based on the conclusions of Aderkas and the conclusions of the Minister of Education Lieven, Nicholas I ordered: "for the harmful influence on youth" Professors Shapalinsky, Belousov, Landrazhin and Singer "should be dismissed from their posts, with the inclusion of these circumstances in their passport, so that in this way they could no longer be anywhere are tolerant in the service of the educational department, and those of them who are not Russians will be sent abroad, and Russians will be sent to the places of their homeland, placing them under the supervision of the police.

But this was not the end of the matter. The Nizhyn "gymnasium of higher sciences" was actually completely destroyed and was soon transformed into a physics and mathematics lyceum of a narrow specialty.

The main material for the accusation of Professor N. G. Belousov was his lectures on natural law. In the archives of the Ministry of Public Education, we found notebooks with notes of Belousov's lectures, belonging to thirteen students of the Nizhyn gymnasium. In 1830, Aderkas took them, among many other materials, with him to St. Petersburg.

A comparison of these notebooks leads to the conclusion that they basically go back to one common primary source. From the testimony of a number of pupils of the gymnasium, it is clear that the fundamental basis for a significant part of the notebooks were the notes of Belousov's lectures made by Gogol in the 1825/26 academic year.

N. Kukolnik, for example, testified during the investigation that one of his notebooks under the letter C was "copied from the notebooks of a student of the 9th grade boarder Yanovsky (Gogol) without any additions, and these notebooks were written according to dictation from Professor Belousov's notebook." The puppeteer, moreover, stated that he handed over Yanovsky's notes to boarder Alexander Novokhatsky.

This circumstance was also confirmed by Novokhatsky. He stated that he “had a notebook on the history of natural law and the most natural law, written off by order of Professor Belousov from the beginning of the school year from the notes of the last course, owned by the boarder Yanovsky and given to the Kukolnik for use.”

On November 3, 1827, testimony was taken from Gogol. The record of the interrogation states that Yanovsky "confirmed Novokhatsky's testimony that he had given a copybook of the history of natural law and had given the most natural law to the Kukolnik for use."

Gogol's notebook, by natural law, went around the hands of the students. Characteristic is Novokhatsky's remark that his notebook was written off from Yanovsky's notes "on the orders of Professor Belousov." It must be assumed that Gogol's notebook was familiar to Belousov and was recognized as the most reliable record of his lectures.

Gogol's manuscript has not been preserved. But among the student notes that we found in the archives of the Ministry of Public Education, there is the very Kukolnik's notebook under the letter C, which "without any additions" was copied from Gogol's notebook. The summary consists of two parts: the history of natural law and law itself, i.e. its theory. The second part is the most interesting.

Describing natural law, Belousov sees in it the most perfect and reasonable basis of the social order. Evidence of natural law must be drawn from reason. Not faith in divine institutions, but the omnipotence of the human mind is the "purest source" of the laws of natural law. State laws are morally binding on man only in so far as they do not contradict the laws of nature itself. “A person has the right to his face,” says Belousov, “that is, he has the right to be the way nature formed his soul.” From this the idea of ​​"inviolability of the face" is derived, that is, the freedom and independence of the human person.

These provisions of Belousov provoked sharp criticism from Archpriest Volynsky, the clergyman of the Nizhyn Gymnasium, who saw in them an opportunity for students to assimilate views that lead to “the fallacy of materialism” and the denial of “any obedience to the law.”

Belousov's lectures were imbued with the spirit of denying class inequality, class privileges, Belousov defends the principle of equality of people. “All innate rights,” he says, “are for all people in unconditional equality.” Volynsky found such a conclusion "too free", because, in his opinion, equality of rights can only be discussed "regarding one animal instinct."

Some ideas of natural law receive from Belousov a very bold interpretation for their time. A number of his formulas are associated with the statements of the Decembrists. Recall, for example, the dialogue from "A Curious Conversation" by Nikita Muravyov:

« Question. Am I free to do everything?

Rep. You are free to do whatever is not harmful to others. It's your right.

Question. And if someone will harass?

Rep. This will be violence for you, against which you have the right to resist.

Natural law was expounded by Belousov in an abstract philosophical, theoretical plane, but many of the provisions of his lectures were easily applied to Russian reality. For example, when he said that "no one in the state should rule autocratically," then behind this brief note in a student's notebook we feel the position of a person who is indignant against the "autocratically governed" feudal state.

The content of Belousov's lectures allows us to conclude that in his views there were echoes, of course very weakened, timid, of some common ideas of the Decembrists and Radishchev. Although the name of Radishchev is not mentioned anywhere in the materials of the “free-thinking case”, there is reason to believe that this name was known to Belousov. A man of serious and versatile knowledge, who had a negative attitude towards feudal reality, Belousov could not pass by such a book as Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow. One of the provisions of Belousov's lectures - that the offended person has the right to remuneration and determines the amount of remuneration himself - in its general form echoes the ideas of the Decembrists and the thoughts of Radishchev, in whom this thesis, of course, is saturated with much deeper political content.

In many of Radishchev's works, the idea of ​​a person's natural right to revenge for the offense caused to him is defended. Speaking in The Life of Fyodor Vasilyevich Ushakov about the insult inflicted on Nasakin, Radishchev notes that, according to the unanimous decision of the pupils, Major Bokum "had to make Nasakin satisfaction for the insult." It is remarkable that this decision is substantiated by Radishchev's laws of natural law: "Without the slightest obstacle in his procession, a person in a natural position, when committing an insult, drawn by a sense of his own safety, awakens to repulse the insult." Very often Radishchev returns to this thesis in his Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow. Proving, for example, the innocence of the peasants who killed the cruel assessor, the writer says that they correctly determined the measure of punishment for "his enemy", because the citizen is obliged to use his "natural right of protection"; if the civil law does not punish the offender, then the offended one himself, “have enough strength to take revenge on him for the offense he committed” (chapter “Zaitsovo”). In another place, reflecting on the terrible cruelties perpetrated by the landlords on their serfs, Radishchev remarks: “Do you know what is written in the primary code in the heart of everyone? If I hit someone, he can hit me too” (chapter of “Lyubani”).

The idea of ​​a person's natural right to freedom and to revenge for the offense caused to him acquires a pronounced socio-political and revolutionary interpretation from Radishchev. Of course, we will not find anything of the kind in Belousov. His lectures were completely different.

Having adopted some enlightening ideas, he developed them only in the abstract-theoretical plane, without drawing any political conclusions from this in relation to the specific problems of Russian reality.

This was the fundamental difference between Belousov and the Decembrists, and even more so from Radishchev.

It must be borne in mind, however, that Belousov could not be completely frank in his lectures. He had to read them with caution and exercise the utmost care, and in some cases pronounce maxims that obviously diverged from his views. Hence the feeling of a certain inconsistency and inconsistency that arises when reading the abstract of Belousov's lectures. Undoubtedly, for Belousov, for example, the reasoning contained in the abstract about the “immunity” and “sanctity” of the person of the sovereign is strange. It is all the more strange that Belousov, as many students said about this, once said at a lecture: “The rights of majesty are touched when the sovereign is incapable of ruling.” Little of. According to the testimony of a student of the gymnasium Nikolai Kotlyarevsky, Professor Belousov once, at a lecture on natural law, speaking about the supreme power, asked the students: “If the representative of the people, the sovereign, is vilely and evilly using the power entrusted to him from the people, then what should be done with him? And when the students were silent, he, the professor, said that such a sovereign could be overthrown, killed. The correctness of this testimony was confirmed during the investigation by other pupils. The director of the Nezhin Gymnasium Yasnovsky, based on the words of a student Filipchenko, suggested that in 1826 many students of the 7th grade could hear these “absurd words” of Belousov, including Yanovsky (Gogol).

At the same time, it should be noted that Belousov's inconsistency is largely due to the immaturity and inconsistency of his educational position. While very positively evaluating Belousov's activities at the Nezhin Gymnasium, one cannot, however, argue that his "teaching" was "revolutionary", as some researchers do.

During the interrogations of students, the director of the gymnasium, Yasnovsky, persistently tried to find out from what source Belousov read his lectures.

D. I. Zavalishin tells in his famous “Notes” that members of the investigative committee asked the arrested Decembrists the same, stereotypical question: “In which book or from which writings were the revolutionary ideas drawn?” They answered: not from books, but from life, from "the given state of the state and society."

Belousov had no right to such an answer. He was obliged to read his lectures on a certain source recommended by the Ministry of Education. With all the more tenacity Yasnovsky pressed him for an answer to his question. However, Belousov's lectures had nothing in common with the ideas of de Martini's book recommended by the ministry. Belousov, in a number of his reports, stated that he read natural law from "the book of the author, approved by the government." But neither the title of this book nor its author was ever revealed to them. On this occasion, Aderkas was reported that Belousov read his lectures on the basis of his own notes, "extracted from the author, whom he never wanted to name."

Meanwhile, Bilevich, in a report dated September 3, 1827, tells about a curious episode that happened one day at a conference, when Belousov “decisively ... announced” that “he does not at all intend to follow the prescribed order and the author de Martini in teaching natural law and that he cannot file of this right otherwise than according to the same old notes of his. The same incident was reproduced later in the report of director Yasnovsky with the following addition: on August 13, 1827, Belousov allegedly declared at a conference that he would not read natural law except according to the notes presented, and as for de Martini’s book, he “mixes it with dirt."

Most of the students interrogated at the conference from October 29 to November 3, 1827, testified that Belousov read his lectures from his own notes. A few people didn't touch the issue at all. One of the students, Nikolai Kotlyarevsky, answered evasively: at first, they say, he read from a book, and then "stopped carrying a book."

“1827 November 3rd day, 9th grade student Nikolai Yanovsky, 19 years old, being called to the conference [confirmed Novokhatsky’s testimony that he, Novokhatsky, had], Novokhatsky’s testimony confirmed that he was a copybook of the history of natural law and the most natural right [written off by order of Professor Belousov from the beginning of the academic year from the notes of the last year that belonged to him, Yanovsky] gave [them] for use by the Kukolnik; moreover, Yanovsky added that Professor Belousov made an explanation of the difference between law and ethics from a book. Nikolai Gogol-Yanovsky personally signed this testimony.

The testimony was written by an unknown hand and corrected by Gogol. The text enclosed in square brackets was crossed out by Gogol. Words in italics are inscribed by him over the lines, instead of crossed out.

Hating Bilevich and all the "professor-scholars", Gogol, at the same time, warmly sympathized with Belousov. In Gogol's youthful letters from Nizhyn, one can find many enthusiastic reviews about the activities of the inspector and professor of natural law.

Gogol was connected with Belousov by ties of friendship, he often visited his house, used his library.

The campaign against Belousov made a deep impression on Gogol. The young man perceived it as gross injustice and arbitrariness, contrary to his ideas about the "natural law" of people, about the "high purpose of man."

And yet, with a generally very benevolent attitude towards Belousov on the part of the majority of students, only very few of them behaved during the investigation in such a way as not to give the accusing side material against him. Gogol was perhaps the most firm in his behavior.

From the very beginning of the conflict, Gogol's sympathies were entirely on the side of Belousov. Gogol's testimony cited above is very characteristic. There are two things of particular interest in this.

First. Gogol first confirmed Novokhatsky's testimony that the lecture notes on natural law were copied from his, Gogol's, notebook on Belousov's orders. But then he crossed this place out of the protocol of interrogation. Gogol, of course, knew that Novokhatsky's notebook was presented by Bilevich to the conference as a document that politically compromised Belousov, and that the latter, clearly in self-defense, declared these notes to be a forgery on the part of Bilevich. Gogol's desire to remain silent about any connection between Belousov and Novokhatsky's notebook is quite obvious. At the beginning of the interrogation, Gogol, apparently not yet understanding what, in fact, they were trying to get from him, confirmed Novokhatsky's testimony. And it was immediately entered into the protocol. But when Gogol was given the protocol for signing, after reading his testimony and reflecting on it, he apparently decided that the phrase about Belousov's order could be used against the professor, and crossed it out.

The second circumstance is even more important. As already mentioned, most of the interrogated students showed that Belousov, ignoring de Martini's book, read natural law from his own notes. Gogol was the only one among the pupils of the gymnasium who categorically stated that "Professor Belousov made an explanation of the difference between law and ethics from a book." Moreover, both Bilevich and Volynsky considered this explanation the most criminal section of Belousov's lectures.

Thus, in this case, too, we see Gogol's very obvious desire to help Belousov.

At first glance, there was nothing exceptional in this position of Gogol. The overwhelming majority of pupils of the gymnasium treated Belousov with the greatest love. He was an excellent teacher, he strictly but fairly fulfilled his duties as an inspector. Not only Shapalinsky spoke of him as a “capable and very worthy” professor, but director Yasnovsky could not deny that Belousov fulfilled his “teaching position” “with noticeable success” and that “his students always showed excellent knowledge during tests” . Even Aderkas recognized in Belousov a man who possessed "all knowledge in his subject."

Belousov was a man of strong will, firm and resolute. These traits of his character were fully manifested during the investigation in the "case of free-thinking." Having no illusions about the danger that threatened him, he defended himself boldly, with great dignity, without showing the slightest sign of repentance and cowardice. In his numerous testimonies, oral and written, he continued to fight Bilevich and the whole group of his like-minded people to the end. So he remained during interrogations at Aderkas. When Belousov was pointed out the most seditious provisions of his lectures, he did not renounce them, but only tried to muffle their political meaning somewhat. When, for example, Aderkas once directly asked him whether he considered the content of the natural law course he had read harmful, the answer followed, from which it was clear that he considered individual thoughts harmful, but not in essence, but "by the way of presentation and connection."

All attempts by Aderkas to obtain recognition from Belousov, according to which source he lectured, did not lead to anything. Belousov evaded answering and, under various pretexts, refused to submit his own notes. On this occasion, Aderkas indignantly reported to Lieven: "In vain I asked Belousov about his own notebook."

The question of the source of Professor Belousov's lectures is, of course, of considerable interest. Belousov himself tried in every possible way to hide this source and confuse the tracks. And he probably had good reason for it.

Meanwhile, Belousov’s report of December 16, 1827 contained one curious statement that has not yet attracted the attention of researchers:

“A small creation of the author, taken by me as a guide under the title “Ius naturae”, was translated in St. were used in the education of our all-August monarch, surprising the whole educated world with wisdom and justice, and this translation, as the general opinion among scientists says, was undertaken on behalf of the one to whom it is dedicated. Consequently, I had a reliable author in teaching ... ".

In 1820, a small booklet was published in St. Petersburg, on the title of which it was indicated: “Theodor Schmalz. The right is natural. Per. from Latin, ed. P.S.”

The author of this book is Theodor Schmalz (1760–1831), a well-known German lawyer and publicist, professor of law at the University of Berlin. Natural Law, published in 1820, was a brief extract from Schmalz's extensive work, A Guide to the Philosophy of Law (Halle, 1807).

The translator Pyotr Sergeev dedicated his publication to the rector of St. Petersburg University, Professor of Political Science and Doctor of Laws Mikhail Andreevich Balugyansky, who in 1813-1817 taught political sciences to Grand Dukes Nikolai and Konstantin Pavlovich.

It is not difficult to guess that it was this book that Belousov had in mind in the report cited above. It is enough to get to know her and compare with her the well-known Dollmaker's notebook under the letter C, so that there are no doubts on this score.

A significant part of the contents of this notebook almost textually coincides with Schmalz's book.

But the question naturally arises: why did Belousov so stubbornly refuse to name the author of this book? Why did he refuse to answer direct questions from Yasnovsky and Aderkas about the source of his lectures, clearly trying to confuse and confuse his accusers?

The fact is that the content of Schmalz's book, despite the fact that the translator dedicated it to M. A. Balugyansky, in itself was by no means orthodox.

However, the political reputation of Balugyansky himself soon turned out to be far from impeccable. In 1819 he was elected the first rector of Petersburg University. And less than two years later, this university was recognized as a hotbed of dangerous political sedition and subjected to destruction. It was carried out by the famous obscurantist Runich. Having collected a hundred student notebooks with lecture notes of professors, including Balugyansky, Runich announced that in these lectures "the authenticity of the Holy Scripture is refuted, the teaching of Christ the Savior is undermined at the base, destructive principles take root, contempt for the authorities established by God."

In protest against the "uniform inquisition" committed against professors, Balugyansky submitted a letter of resignation from the posts of rector and professor of the university. Although he himself was not among the accused professors, his defiant statement gave reason to suspect him of direct connivance with free-thinking, revealed at the university. The minister of spiritual affairs and public education, Golitsyn, reported to the tsar that Balugyansky, “having allowed his harmful spirit to sneak into teaching during the rector’s office, did not want, however, to participate in the charitable care of the authorities about expelling them and introducing a better one, but at the same time he did not want to wait for the end of this matter, from the implication of which he cannot free himself in any way. In the end, Balugyansky had to leave the university. After the expulsion of his student A.P. Kunitsyn and a whole group of progressive-minded professors, this was the only worthy way out.

But let us return to the content of Schmaltz's Law of the Natural. In conscientiously expounding the main enlightening ideas in the field of natural law, the author of this book, with all the moderation of his political views, often came into conflict with the official dogmas of the feudal-serf ideology. Belousov, in his lectures, further strengthened this side of Schmalz's book, and, thus, some of its formulations acquired a more distinct political sound from him.

As the investigation into the Belousov case continued, the name of Professor KV Shapalinsky came to the fore more and more. Mertsalov, the cleric of the gymnasium, characterizing Aderkasa Shapalinsky as a man "without any religion", at the same time expressed the assumption that "it seems that he, Mr. Shapalinsky, is the head of all evil." Director Yasnovsky gave a similar description to Shapalinsky: "This one owns the minds and, so to speak, commands everyone who is friendly with him." All this coincided with the observations and conclusions of Aderkas himself, who already had a lot of evidence that it was Shapalinsky who was the “main culprit of unrest and strife” in the gymnasium, that he not only fully shared Belousov’s convictions, but also encouraged him to “harmful” activities. Little of. Aderkas even associated an attempt to organize a secret society with the name of Shapalinsky. Aderkas informed Lieven that between Belousov, Shapalinsky, Landrazhin and Singer there was "some kind of sincere connection and that they were trying to form some kind of party." Lieven also repeatedly mentions the "spirit of the party" in his note to Benckendorff and report to Nikolai.

Professor Moiseev presented to Aderkas a letter dated July 29, 1826, intercepted by him when he was an inspector of the gymnasium, from a student of N.V. Kukolnik from Kyiv, to Nikolai Prokopovich. To Moiseev, this letter seemed suspicious and almost encrypted. He drew attention, firstly, to some ambiguous phrases and the request of the Dollmaker not to show this letter to anyone, and, secondly, to the mysterious letters that stood under the signature: “R. B. Sh.” Moiseev deciphered them as follows: "Worker of the Shapalinsky Brotherhood." Such a version seemed to Aderkas, although not proven, but plausible, especially since he received evidence from other persons about the existence of some kind of "Shapalinsky's secret society."

Based on testimonies and some of his own observations, Aderkas confirmed to Lieven that “many, judging by Shapalinsky’s decisive influence over the persons of his party and by their constant readiness to fulfill his will, and for other circumstances, suspect that they, with some others, are at least some secret connection." Among these "some others" was named the former marshal (leader) of the Pereyaslav povet (district) V. L. Lukashevich. This surname is well known from the materials of the investigation of the Decembrists - members of the Southern Society. He was a member of the Union of Welfare and then played an active role in a secret society in the Ukraine.

Shapalinsky and Landrazhin had known Lukashevich for a long time. In 1820-1821, the latter was a member of the United Slavs Masonic lodge, in which both professors played an active role at one time. By the way, the future Decembrists S. G. Volkonsky and Pyotr Trubetskoy were its honorary members. According to the historian V. I. Semevsky, a direct connection between this lodge and the Decembrist society of the United Slavs cannot be traced. However, the categoricalness of this statement is not motivated in any way. The archival material in the present case contains hints of a clear closeness between the two organizations. It is extremely interesting that Aderkas, in one of his reports to Lieven, reminds that, “according to the report of the investigating commission, the society of United Slavs rebels, opened in 1825, was suspected to have some connection with the Kiev lodge of the United Slavs, or even this latter served as a preparation for joining it. ".

One way or another, Aderkas came to the conclusion that there was an undoubted connection between the “case of freethinking” in the Nizhyn gymnasium and the Decembrists.

Two cousins ​​of Lukashevich, Plato and Apollon Lukashevich, studied at the Gymnasium of Higher Sciences. The first of them was a close friend of Gogol. In 1825, “shortly before the opening of the conspiracy,” as Aderkas pointedly emphasizes, VL Lukashevich visited Nizhyn and met with Shapalinsky, Landrazhin and Belousov. In the presence of Professor Andrushchenko, he asked one of them: "Comment vont nos affaires?" (How are we doing?). “This question, innocent at other times,” continues Aderkas, “I did not dare to ignore, taking into account the circumstances of the time and the very person who made it.”

Relations between Nizhyn professors and Lukashevich were not interrupted even after the defeat of Decembrism. At the risk of incurring suspicion in communicating with a person whom "everyone runs away", they secretly visited Lukashevich in his Boryspil estate.

This part of the investigative material attracted the special attention of the Minister of Education Lieven. And it's natural. It aroused a very clear suspicion that behind the "case of free-thinking" in the Nizhyn gymnasium there was something like a secret political organization or cell, which is a direct echo of the events of December 14, 1825. It is characteristic that one of the sections of Lieven's report to Benckendorf was entitled: "Suspicion of the existence of the Shapalinsky society." However, neither Aderkas nor Lieven considered this issue finally investigated. It was also necessary to interrogate a number of former students who were no longer in Nizhyn.

In addition, Aderkas believed that the investigation of such an important case was beyond the scope of his powers, because here, in fact, the competence of the organs of the III department already began. Therefore, the Minister of Education left the final decision on this issue "to the discretion" of Benckendorff.

Although the finale of the “case of free-thinking” and the cruel reprisal against its participants occurred two years after Gogol graduated from the gymnasium, the events he experienced were not in vain for him. The political meaning of the "deed" was quite clearly expressed already in 1828, and Gogol could not fail to realize it. Being involved in the conflict, he was well aware that truth and justice were not on the side of Bilevich and his associates. The persecution that Belousov began to undergo in front of Gogol's eyes came into inexorable contradiction with the idea of ​​the freedom of the human person, which the beloved professor so vividly expounded and convincingly preached in his lectures.

In the eyes of the reactionary section of the gymnasium teachers, Gogol was an almost odious figure. Not without reason, in one of Bilevich's reports, Gogol's name is mentioned as an example of "disrespect of pupils for their mentors."

"The Case of Freethinking" became a very memorable event for the future writer. Over the course of many subsequent years, he repeatedly recalled the name of the former professor Belousov in his letters, warmly recommending him to his close friend M.A. Maksimovich (X, 273, 328, 332).

Gogol closely followed the fate of Belousov. When in the summer of 1834 there was an opportunity to alleviate the fate of the professor, who was under the strictest police supervision, Gogol immediately found out about this and in a letter to his former Nezhin classmate V.V. I am very glad about this” (X, 335).

Gogol in those years personally met with Belousov. P. V. Annenkov testifies to this in his memoirs. In 1837, thanks to the efforts of his friends, Belousov managed to enter the service in St. Petersburg. Gogol was already abroad at that time. But the thought of the former teacher did not leave the writer even there. In April 1838, he wrote to N. Ya. Prokopovich: “Bow from me to Belousov if you see him; tell him that I am very sorry that I did not manage to see him in Petersburg” (XI, 135).

Undoubtedly, the memories of the events in the Nizhyn Gymnasium are inspired by the lines of Gogol's letter dated August 14, 1834 to Maksimovich that "there professors are big beasts", from which many "suffered" (X, 338).

These events made the young man take a closer look at the people around him, at life in general.

His letters from the gymnasium period are full of disturbing thoughts about his homeland and his place in life.

Who to be? On what path of life do you define yourself? This question has long haunted Gogol. In the summer of 1827, he writes with hatred about the "insignificant self-satisfaction" of the Nizhyn "existents", who despised the "high purpose of man", before whom he "must kowtow".

Among these vulgar "existents" Gogol calls "our dear mentors" (X, 98). There can be no doubt as to which "mentors" were meant here.

Gogol was a high school student when in 1825 an uprising of the Chernigov regiment broke out in the immediate vicinity of Nizhyn. In early October 1827, in a letter to his relative, Pavel Petrovich Kosyarovsky, Gogol mentions the name of General Roth. This is the same Lieutenant General L. O. Roth, who in January 1826 brutally suppressed the uprising of the Chernigov regiment. In mid-September 1827, Gogol inquisitively interrogated another of his relatives, Pyotr Petrovich Kosyarovsky: “Have you heard anything new in the incidents in the army? ..” (X, 109).

From childhood, Gogol was well acquainted with the family of the writer V.V. Kapnist, one of whose sons, Alexei Vasilyevich, was a member of the Welfare Union. Gogol often visited the Kapnist estate in Obukhovka. The Decembrists Sergey and Matvey Muravyov-Apostles, Lunin, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Lorer, sometimes Pestel were here. With these people, the young man Gogol could even meet by chance. And not only here, but also in Kibintsy - the estate of his relative, the former Minister of Justice D. P. Troshchinsky.

General A.I. Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky, who served in Ukraine in the mid-1920s, indignantly tells in his memoirs about the strange “liberal” reputation that the house of the former Catherine Minister enjoyed in the Poltava region. His main estate in Kibintsy with a home theater, an art gallery, a huge library attracted the noble intelligentsia from the surrounding estates. The house of Troshchinsky, according to the same Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky, “served in Little Russia as a center for liberals; there, for example, one of the Muravyov-Apostles, who was subsequently exiled to hard labor, and Bestuzhev-Ryumin, who ended his life on the gallows, were constantly there. It was in Troshchinsky’s house that Matvey Muravyov-Apostol mentioned here learned about the death of Alexander I and, as the “Little Russian military governor” Prince Repnin reported to St. Petersburg, excited, without saying goodbye to anyone, immediately left home, in Khomuttsy, to tell this news to his brother Sergei. Of course, old Troshchinsky, a convinced serf-owner and reactionary, was least of all aware of the nature of the conversations that some young people were having behind his back, in his house. Although he himself, who revered the "good old days", never missed a chance not to snipe about the current order in Russia.

Thus, three not far from one another noble nests - Obukhovka, Kibintsy and Khomuttsy - were places where many of the most prominent figures of the Southern Decembrist Society often met. Gogol often visited the first two estates with his relatives and, of course, saw some of those people whose names soon became known throughout Russia. And it is natural to assume, already expressed in the literature, that after the Decembrist uprising, memories of fleeting meetings with these people could not but sharpen the young Gogol's interest in them; to their fate, to their historical cause.

The uprising of the Decembrists, the poems of Ryleyev and Pushkin, Belousov's lectures - in a word, the whole political atmosphere that surrounded Gogol the high school student could not leave him indifferent to the acute issues of our time, could not but arouse in him serious reflections on the tragic phenomena of reality.

Reading the memoirs of the Nizhyn people, we can collect a lot of observations that depict the moral character of Gogol the high school student. His thoughts already at that time were drawn to the social contradictions of life, to the dramatic contrasts between poverty and luxury. “... His soul was always responsive to his neighbor,” said V. I. Lyubich-Romanovich. - ... In general, Gogol treated poverty with great attention and, when he met with her, he experienced difficult moments. The same memoirist recalls how Gogol once said: "I would transfer all the beggars ... if I had the strength and power to do so."

The moral image of the young Gogol is extremely characteristic of that part of Russian society, which, under the influence of the tragic events of Russian reality in the second half of the 1920s, was imbued with the spirit of citizenship, the pathos of sacrificial service to the motherland, the people. Of course, not all of these people were capable of heroic deeds. But the memory of the feat of the glorious generation on December 14 did not leave them indifferent to the great social drama that Russia is going through. Triumphant reaction could not suppress the voice of conscience of the advanced Russian public, drown out its patriotic and humanistic impulses.

The liberation ideas of the Decembrists, the progressive traditions of Russian literature, primarily Fonvizin, Griboyedov, Pushkin - all this, together with the events experienced in Nizhyn, opened Gogol's eyes to the world, gave a powerful impetus to the spiritual development of the future satirist.

The sister of the Decembrist Alexei Kapnist, Sofya Vasilievna Skalon, characterizing Gogol, “who had just left the Nizhyn Lyceum” in her “Memoirs”, notes his inherent seriousness and observation. Before leaving for St. Petersburg, she says, Gogol visited Obukhovka and, saying goodbye, said: "You will either not hear anything about me, or you will hear something very good."

Long before graduating from high school, Gogol was full of romantic dreams about his future. Least of all he thought about the writing field. He dreamed of Petersburg, and "with it, the service of the state." In his "Author's Confession", Gogol recalled how he then dreamed of becoming "a famous person" and doing "even something for the common good." This dream was undoubtedly inspired by Belousov's lectures for the first time.

Echoes of the Nizhyn affair are heard, for example, in Gogol's wonderful letter to Pyotr Petrovich Kosyarovsky dated October 3, 1827. He writes about the determination "to make his life necessary for the good of the state" and immediately very confidentially expresses to his relative "anxious thoughts" about the fact that he might "block the road." Of all areas of public service, Gogol is inclined to choose justice and gives this choice a meaningful justification: "Injustice, the greatest misfortune in the world, most of all tore my heart." And then Gogol directly points to the connection of these moods with the ideas gleaned from the lectures of Professor Belousov: “For two years I have been constantly studying the rights of other peoples and natural laws, as fundamental for all laws, now I am engaged in domestic ones. Will my high marks be fulfilled?..” (X, 111-112).

This is a very important confession of the young Gogol. The laws of natural law that Belousov expounded seemed to the future writer to be basic and, therefore, mandatory for everyone. But the laws still need to be implemented. Is it not in this that Gogol sees his "high outlines"?

With youthful excitement and sincerity, he writes to the same Pyotr Petrovich Kosyarovsky that he never confided his "long-term" thoughts to anyone. He explains the reason for his secrecy even in front of his closest comrades, among whom "there were many truly worthy ones," he explains with fears that they might laugh at his "folly" and consider him "an ardent dreamer, an empty person." Then Gogol muffledly mentions "the reasons for some more", about which he cannot "say now."

These mysterious reasons are obviously also connected with the case of Professor Belousov. The persecution that Belousov was subjected to gave Gogol plenty of reason to be careful even in outbursts of frankness.

The quoted letter is a most precious document that sheds light on a number of circumstances in the prehistory of Gogol's work.

A few months before graduating from the gymnasium, Gogol wrote to his mother that he "wasted the whole 6 years in vain ... in this stupid institution." He complains about "unskilled science teachers" and their "great negligence". We now know very well at whose address this stone was thrown. In a comic verse message written in 1836 in Paris by Gogol together with A. S. Danilevsky, the name of Professor of Political Sciences Bilevich is mentioned nearby, in the same company with a dance and fencing teacher.

Hating the "yoke of school pedantry", the culprit of which was the reactionary part of the professors, Gogol the high school student greedily absorbed advanced political ideas, ardently and selflessly defended by professors Belousov and Shapalinsky, Landrazhin and Singer. These ideas left an undeniable mark on Gogol's mind, helped him to determine his critical attitude to many phenomena of the feudal-serf reality of Russia, gave the right direction to his artistic thought, which later developed under the influence of Pushkin and Belinsky and fertilized his ingenious accusatory works.

Gogol said goodbye to Nezhin, firmly believing that he would signify his life with important achievements. Least of all did he think of personal success. On March 1, 1828, he wrote to his mother: “Revere me in any way, but only from my real field you will know my real character, believe only that noble feelings always fill me, that I have never humiliated myself in my soul and that I have doomed my whole life good" (X, 123).

To serve the public good of people is a dream that Gogol carried through his whole life.

The years of youth are the time of the formation of character, the determination of life priorities, the choice of one's vocation and place in society. It is no coincidence that many writers devote entire books to this period of their lives, such as, for example, “Youth” by L.N. Tolstoy or "My Universities" by M. Gorky. Gogol does not have such a book, but this does not mean at all that this period of his life passed unnoticed, gave the writer little for his later life. In the article we will look at what Gogol's childhood was like. Let's talk about who he communicated with, what his interests were connected with.

Gogol's childhood passed in Ukraine - in the village of Vasilyevka, where there was a small estate of his father Vasily Afanasyevich Gogol-Yanovsky, from where little Nikolai had the opportunity to travel with his parents to Sorochintsy, and sometimes to Poltava, and nearby was Dikanka, which is so well known to all of us from Gogol's famous book Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka. All these places were later mentioned in one way or another in the works of the writer, but the name of the city where he lived for seven years while studying at the gymnasium is unlikely to be immediately remembered by many admirers of Gogol's work. Nevertheless, Nizhyn is a city with which much was connected in the life of the future writer.

Having received, like most of his contemporaries from noble families, an initial education at home, Nikolai was sent to the city of Nizhyn, which was not far from his native places, to continue his studies. There were highly educated people in the Gogol-Yanovsky family, despite the fact that they lived far from the capitals, and their environment was more reminiscent of the heroes of Gogol's stories - "Old-world landowners", "The Tale of how Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich" and many others. In the Gogol-Yanovsky family, many were associated with the clergy. The great-grandfather of the writer, Father John Gogol, graduated from the Kyiv Theological Academy. Gogol's grandfather Afanasy Demyanovich also graduated from it.

Maybe that's why there are so many clerks, priests, priests in Gogol's works. Of course, we all remember Khoma Brut, the seminarian from the story "Viy", and the clerk of the Dikan Church, Foma Grigoryevich ("Evening on the eve of Ivan Kupala", "The Missing Letter", "The Enchanted Place") and many others. Gogol's father also graduated from the theological seminary in Poltava, but he remained a landowner, and having married, he completely devoted himself to family affairs. Gogol's father and mother were deeply religious and pious people, as evidenced by the fact that next to the house in Vasilyevka there is a church built by his parents in gratitude to God for the birth of their son. The image of St. Nicholas was especially revered - Gogol's mother Maria Ivanovna christened him and named him Nicholas - as she promised even before the birth of the child before the image of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, to whom she prayed for the salvation of her son. The same deep faith was characteristic of the writer himself, and he always carried the icon of St. Nicholas with him on all his travels.

But in the Gogol's house there was also a lot of secular literature. The writer's mother, Maria Ivanovna, was raised in the family of her wealthy aunt, Anna Matveevna Troshchinskaya. Here she received a very good education for those times: she knew literature well, knew how to play the piano, and dance. And her husband was fond of the theater, although, of course, in Vasilievka, remote from all centers of cultural life, there was no real big theater. But the Troshchinsky estate, which was located nearby, had its own theater, in which Vasily Afanasyevich not only played as an actor, but also designed performances, he himself composed comedies that were staged here. It was here that little Nikolai first developed an interest in theater and drama, which developed later - during the years of study at the Nizhyn gymnasium. So, what was this educational institution in which Nikolai Gogol spent his childhood?

Nizhyn Gymnasium of Higher Sciences was founded by Alexander I just a year before Nikolai Vasilyevich entered there in 1821. It became one of the new educational institutions that were then created in many Russian cities. Like the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, it was an educational institution where future educated officials, pundits, and military men were to be trained from the nobility. Sometimes the Nizhyn gymnasium is also called a lyceum.

Many remarkable people came from here, such as the writer Grebenok, the playwright Nestor Kukolnik. The bias in education was humanitarian, and in the first place was the study of history, literature, law and languages. The director of the gymnasium had the title of master of verbal sciences and a doctor of philosophy, and as a surgeon, during the war of 1812, he operated on the wounded in hospitals.

Other professors of the gymnasium also had a European education, were seriously engaged in science and literature. So, the young Latinist I.G. Kaluga in 1827 published the book "Little Russian Village", in which he processed the material of Ukrainian folklore. True, the professor of literature Nikolsky, who was not alien to literary pursuits, was guided by the tastes of the 18th century, creating his solemn odes and edifying poems.

Even outwardly, the gymnasium was not at all similar to what surrounded it. It towered among the provincial town like a temple of science. Here they read and translated Schiller and Goethe, composed poems, rewrote "Eugene Onegin" at night. The high school had a good library.

All this was in such contrast with the atmosphere that reigned in the town itself, which lived mainly in trade. Fairs, which were held four times a year, were considered the main event here. The streets of the town were drowning in mud - they paved only one, the central one. Pigs and cows roamed the Cathedral Square, and the inhabitants huddled in small one-story houses. The best buildings that were shown to visitors were the lyceum, the charitable institution, and the district court. This is the picture that Gogol showed in his The Inspector General, and then in Dead Souls. Already in the years of study in Nizhyn, the observant young man put aside in his memory those impressions that later helped him create a picture of the life of county and provincial cities of Russia. But the beginning of literary creativity is also associated with the Nizhyn gymnasium.

It was here that Gogol began to seriously engage in literature. Gymnasium students formed their own literary circle, published a magazine, read to each other works of their own composition and discussed literary novelties. But none of Gogol's youthful writings have survived. We can judge them only by the poem "Hanz Küchelgarten", which he published already in St. Petersburg and had such an unfortunate fate in criticism.

What other interests did Gogol the high school student have? Like many of his contemporaries, he was fond of drawing, but great achievements in this According to eyewitnesses, Gogol was an excellent actor. Moreover, he was especially successful in comic roles. So, in Fonvizin's "Undergrowth" Mitrofanushka was played by the Dollmaker, Sofya - by A. Danilevsky (female roles in the gymnasium theater were also played by boys), and Mrs. Prostakova - by Gogol.

As a classmate of Nikolai Vasilyevich and his closest friend throughout his life, A. Danilevsky, later said, if the future writer "entered the stage, he would be Shchepkin." But the experience that he gained while studying at the gymnasium, of course, was not in vain. One very interesting episode is known, showing Gogol's comic talent and acting skills. In 1835, Nikolai Vasilievich went to visit his relatives. His travel card indicated that he was an adjunct professor (he was then teaching at St. Petersburg University). But the stationmasters read the incomprehensible word "adjunct" as "adjutant." Who knows, maybe this is the adjutant of some important general, they thought. L Gogol did not try very hard to disappoint the guards of the postal stations. He wore a St. Petersburg dress, according to the latest fashion, and besides, he showed some strange interest in various trifles: he asked to see the stable, asked how many horses were at the station, what they were fed. Comrade Gogol, who traveled with him, also tried to play along. So the caretakers believed that some important person from Petersburg was coming, and the friends rolled all the way to Poltava without any obstacles.

Literary glory was still ahead, and the years of study, which, as we saw, gave a lot to the future writer, were already coming to an end. I had to choose my own path. It would seem that a graduate of such an educational institution should first of all dream of a career as a state official. But Gogol's choice fell on the literary field, although he did not openly tell anyone about it. He announced to his mother and friends that he was preparing himself for a legal career, but when he left for St. Petersburg, he carried with him his poem "Hans Küchelgarten" as the most valuable thing. This was the end of his years of study in Nizhyn, and this was the end of Gogol's childhood. Ahead was youth, a time of hopes and accomplishments, disappointments and new discoveries.