It is well-known that Griboedov named the play as “Woe for Wit”. However, in the theatre it became known as “Woe of Wit”. The substitution is rather serious, though it is possible to approach the play in two ways: starting with the restlessness of the mind, prior criticism was based on this notion, and ending with the psychological incompatibility of rather troublesome and even coarse character with the reality.
Nineteenth century is presented by a group of renowned names and in the shadow of Pushkin, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky (and the rest of the authors from the school text book) the names of the second-third line are almost invisible, however, the giants would not have been possible and unthinkable without their active participation.
The Journals of Alexander Vasilievich Nikitenko are ranked especially high among the considerable amount of memoirs that have been published in the past years. They are special for a number of reasons. It is not concerned with the fact that the serf of the Sheremetev became a professor of St Petersburg University, an academician and actual official councillor. There were not that many people like him, nevertheless several hundreds. Furthermore, it is not related to the fact that having fulfilled his ardent wish Nikitenko has occupied a lawful place in a complicated world of Russian literature – there are dozens of the same starting with amateurs like Khvostov and finishing with Bulgarin and Grech or Kratkov, whose role in our literature was far more complicated than it was presented in the textbooks. Nikitenko’s exclusiveness lies in his peculiar style of thinking.
According to the Soviet principles Nikitenko should have been put into the category “unnecessary people” with clear conscience that is if a term “coefficient of efficiency” is applicable to a person then our hero has one that is not much higher than that of early steam locomotives. Consistent with the mentioned principles he was predestined to shoot himself, become an inveterate drunkard or go crazy, at last. Nothing of that kind. The Journal that Nikitenko kept since the tragic 1825 (the notes got lost for an obvious reason) until 1877, when the Russian-Turkish war in the Balkans was just breaking out, had an amazingly even tonality. The author does not permit himself to be too delighted knowing how cruel the destiny can be. Furthermore, as a true Christian he does not permit himself neither despair nor despondency knowing that the latter is a sin. He almost does not show contempt for those who undoubtedly deserved it. He is active thanks to the natural inclination for it and a necessity to make his living. Finally, Nikitenko possessed such a rear ability of reflexive analysis that was aimed both at external events, which allowed him to see into the essence of the events without been fooled by its packing, and himself without downgrading his own efforts but not feeling overexcited with own significance.
Nikitenko has not forgotten the humiliation he suffered in his youth, and it is worth noting, not at the times of his villeinage, which the under aged school teacher did not give too much attention but at the times when he had just started his fight for personal freedom. He has not forgotten it and it was impossible to forget as he managed to free his mother and brother many years later but he did not have an inferiority complex. He appreciated the freedom obtained with the help of very kind people. He valued it so much that he refused a long-term practice in Europe for one reason – it would have made him bound to public service for a long time and he did not wish to put on himself a yoke of mandatory service. He managed to secure a special status and retained it, thus, becoming first expert in the field of humanitarian technologies in Russia – he was as much independent as an expert could be.
He worked on a contract basis in the university, wrote an infinite number of notes and projects for the constantly changing one another Ministers for Education, Minister for War, Minister of Finance. All of this was done on the basis of informal agreement and even though he did receive a reward for his work it was irregular and insubstantial. He compiles and re-compiles a censorial statute; for a period of time he even fulfils the duties of censor and in the times of Nikolai he gets arrested once or twice due to “carelessness”. All of this was done for the sake of minimizing the damage that would have been greater without his collaboration!
He gave lectures; sometimes he was pleased with the result and sometimes not. He also wrote reviews and biographic material, more rarely articles, published a magazine and abandoned its publication. He wrote very well, however, his reserved and reflexive type of thinking restrained him from attempting writing fiction, which saved him from tiresome blunders that are typical for self-confident amateurs. When he was twenty the future censor and teacher has build up his own writing style without feeling obliged to change it later on. It is worth noting that there are a lot of question marks in the journals and almost no exclamations, which were very much preferred by his contemporaries. However you look, he is an ideally balanced personality that is inclined to the melancholy Ecclesiast: “There is much sorrow in great wisdom”.
It is a rather rare type of personality in general and especially rare for Russia.
Nikitenko had a personal opinion not affected by the rumours about everything as he had met a great number of characters, lived through a number of events, read lots of essays in manuscripts. He felt very keenly for the Russian culture that was tearing between the narrow-mindedness of the administration and stupidity of its over-turners. That is why Nikitenko’s thoughts are rather insulting for the Russian conscience with its topicality. By the way, a more careful reading of his journals eradicates a popular opinion that the times of Alexander I were much better than the times of Nikolai II. Judging from the deeds of authorities, the chronist is tracing how for the past two decades since the reform of 1861 the government of the tsar liberator became progressive recoil from the aims of modernising the country.
It is injudicious to retell Nikitenko. It is much more appropriate to present a set of his thoughts from different periods of time for those people who do not have enough time to read his journals.
April 4, 1833
“There were times when it was impossible to talk about earth fertilisation without referring to the texts of the Holy Writ. Back at that time the Magnitski and the Runich demanded that the philosophy was taught according to the programme that was developed in the ministry for public education; that while teaching the logic one must try to persuade the audience that there are no laws of intellect and while teaching history one must have insisted that Greece and Rome were not republics but something like a State with unrestricted power like Turkish or Mongolian.”
May 20, 1843
“The current reign is very important: it presumes the end of the patriarchal way of life. The society does not believe in the fatherly nature of their rulers. This is the way it should be. What an absurdity a family that is composed of fifteen million children? Where is the family law? The head of nation understands this truth. He rejects with indignation the expression of luscious endearments: “Dear father”, etc. He says: “I wish to rule”. A great word since another thing is coming out of it logically, which will be pronounced by the people: “I wish to be the nation”.
October 1, 1844
“Visited our minister this early morning. It seems that a flattery reception prepared by the Muscovites has worked on him rather well: he returned from Moscow recently. The weak nerves of this living but rather unstable mind is unable to stand such a tickling. He is armed to the teeth against the “Patriotic notes”, says that they have a wrong intent – socialism, communism, etc. Evidently, this was evoked by Moscow patriots who desire to become leaders of the time at all costs. The minister wishes to give the “Patriotic note” no quarter. Meanwhile, it has not been too long since he has condemned the denunciation of Bulgarin that was composed in the same sense, has he?”
December 20, 1848
“Nowadays, patriotism that denies everything European without exception of science and art, and that convinces of Russia’s God blessing, which will survive with the aid of Orthodoxy without science and art has become very fashionable. The patriots of this kind do not have any idea about the history and suppose that France has proclaimed itself a republic and Germany is rebelling because there are such things in the world as physics, chemistry, astronomy, poetry, painting, etc. They do not know precisely to what extent the Orthodox Byzantium is stinking even though the science and art have been on the decline. It is evident throughout that the work of Peter the Great today has no fewer enemies than at times of Raskolniks' and Streletsky riots. Formerly, they did not dare to show themselves from their gloomy diggings where they have been forced by the government, which promoted education”.
March 27, 1849
“The main point of “precept” is that we must develop a science that would get on with the official authority that wishes to dispose of the people’s views and ideas at its own volition. This is not a negative intention to prevent the science from infringing upon the existing order of things but is an encouraging effort to make the science exactly what we want. In other words, it is a complete negation of the science, which is a science because it does not know any other kinds other than the types and laws of the human mind. The constraint of the science is in its supposed impingements on something that is evil and this is somewhat reasonable. However, to bring science to some other norms except those that are indicated by the mind during its steady development. This is really something inscrutable”.
July 2, 1853
“The idea to reform the ministry of public education has originated under the influence of irrational fear caused by the developments of 1848 in Europe. This when it became rather popular to blame the ministry of public education for everything. The sovereign has received several projects for its reformation but not exactly official ones. Some were distinguished by a remarkable illiteracy.
For instance, the project of Pereverzev who once somewhere was a governor; they say that he stole too much and was fired, remained unemployed for a long time and afterwards was accepted into the Ministry of Internal Affairs…
Considering carefully all these state and administration affairs you come at one sad conclusion: we are so deprived of the government officials! Some ignoramus can start using a ridiculous term and shake a number of organizations by it using as a cover imaginary devotion and diligence… The uncertainty of the primary principles; the superficiality, hastiness, inconsistency, inability to go deeply into the innermost and delicate correlation of things, which is, nonetheless, necessary when creating harmonious, full of consequences system.”
January 18, 1858
Radical reforms are rarely harmful.
Conceived with best intentions they hardly ever achieve their aim as they are groundless. The ground for the future – for the sake of which they are undertaken – consists of the present and past. Things that are cut of from one and the other do not proceed but whirl at random, fluctuate, wander, get entangled and create chaos, which is rather difficult to stop.”
April 10, 1858
“In the evening I shall be giving a report to the Minister of the committee for censorial statute. We have been busy for about two hours and were both rather tired. Indeed it is very difficult to provide for the freedom of thought. We want improvements and think that it is possible to achieve them without the public opinion, by means of the same bureaucracy which is bogged down in theft. In the meantime it seems that the government would benefit more from a useful and secure union with the press rather than a war with it. If we are to put on hobbles over the press then it will use secret methods and become totally uncontrollable. There is no authority that is able to control a secretly arising idea, which is aggravated and obliged to be somewhat cunning.”
April 26, 1858
“They are very surprising these gentlemen! They are crying out about the social benefit but do not want to do anything to achieve it. Many people think that this is bravery. But hardly this can be called so: there were not that many brave spirits and such bravery during the times of Nikolai Pavlovich. Is it possible that the point is only in that as to show your own feelings, your indignation, etc? If one wants to achieve the benefit then he should not do anything to harm it. The public figure is a responsible person: he is liable not only for his ideas but also for their suitability. It is not too difficult to provoke a passion; it is trickier to direct it. These gentlemen are ready to fling mud at you, drown you and burn if you dare to have your own opinion, which contradicts theirs. They long for the freedom of their thoughts and ideas, but not of other people.”
November 22, 1858
“Here is another trouble: there is no even one yesterday’s idea, however sound, which does not seem old today. The ardour that there was yesterday when some kind of measure was undertaken has cooled off. Every day something commences and the next day it is left off unfinished not because there will be something better but owing to some kind of irrepressible, blind urge to go forward – but where to? An invisible force is chasing, swirling, throwing us out of joint like a devil. Everyone pulls at his own direction and is not bothered about the fact that it should be appropriate and suitable but wants that the things exist the way he/she wants. We have as many parties as ambitions… If someone actually expresses a sound idea and gives it a go then he starts loosing the ground under him. This person puts on airs, becomes arrogant and whatever good there was in him disappears turns in a daze of pretensions and overconfidence. He already wants without a fail that only his idea exists in the world and he shows it off at every possibility.”
April 22, 1862
“We have experienced a personal despotism and God forbids us to experience despotism of masses – despotism of half savage, barbarian democracy.”
April 29, 1862
“Indeed, formerly people respected if not the law then the government or at least they recognized its power and authority and were afraid of it. Nowadays, there is a lack of restrain and everybody go the way they choose.
However, at least the minister must understand the meaning of it all and be neither a villain nor coward.”
January 13, 1863
“The so-called progressive minds of our time lack two qualities: the profundity of judgement and prudence of the types. They hurry to make hasty and shallow decisions on the basis of the little they have understood without giving attention to the consequent links of the idea, which must have stopped them on the nearest consequences and as such shaped up their ideas with a more sensible character and strictly consistent one.”
February 14, 1863
“Actually, the hatred of the European press to Russia and its happiness at the sight of it when it is confused by it are rather fascinating. Is it really not scared by the shadow of Nikolai Pavlovich? But is it fair or reasonable to mix the times of Nikolai and the present and as the result to take revenge upon the whole nation for the mistakes or fault of one person? Is this the humanity of Europe and is this what our ultra liberals learn from it?
April 16, 1864
“The Russian nation new until now neither religion nor morality or knowledge apart from that which was forced on them mechanistically and violently. No wonder that none of these got remained with the nation, that it did not turn into the moral power and impulse of soul. Judging from the appearance, ceremony, legend this nation is moral and religious without a slightest inner confidence and perception. The knowledge is also imposed on it by means of either threats or rewards. Is it not better to turn to its common sense, its human instincts, and its outstanding talents and especially to its needs, so that gradually an aspiration for knowledge and noble moral and religious feelings arouse? In this sense the attempt of Earl Tolstoy with his yasnopolyanskaya school, given that it had some point, if it was better and more soundly organised could have had good consequences.”
March 31, 1867
“What a scandal will be if the senate reverses a judgement of the court and orders to punish poor Protopopov, who was acknowledged as insane. Well, are we really taking seriously the laws and rights? This is simply a game of laws and rights. We wished for the courts not because we wanted them to resolve matters in accordance with the law, but the way they are used to, that is according to what the governors, ministers and administration decide.”
May 3, 1868
“There is a second warning to the “Moscow” in the “Northern post” #90. What a pity, gentlemen! The direction of our ideas is correct, our requirements are fair, and however, it is not correct to support a just cause with the curses: it will not win anyone’s opinion. One ought to be guided by the logic and facts, fair deeds and sound opinions but not by the insults, which should not be tolerated neither by an individual nor by the society or government.”
December 27, 1868
“It would be possible to state with confidence that Russia has nothing to be afraid of in the future with regards to its internal wellbeing owing to its two new institutions. Having put both legs on the railings it can move forwards cheerfully and calmly given that the will be no bureaucratic mischief, intrigues of some important persons and nihilistic escapades. However, I fear for Russia in one respect. There is one stinking and dangerous wound on its body, something like malignant carbuncle, and it is the general demoralization. The masses are devoid of the notion of honesty and duty. This moral infirmity is raging especially among the so-called experienced people of the manufacturers’ class.”
July 8, 1872
“A number of inconveniences is the result of the numerous public reforms and it would be unfair and apprehensive to complain about it. Nonetheless, the improbity, a lack of understanding of lawfulness and duty, in short the violation of social integrity – this is what makes it ill and unbearable for our society in the present state. This is caused not by the reforms but by what constitutes our morals and manners. That is why the reforms are not that much of a basis for good but a ground for the evil. Since, the similar condition is the heritage of the centuries, we need strengths in order to use for the better.”
September 27, 1872
“We have such an extreme circumstances that are rarely seen in the history. On the one hand, strivings are springing up in the society, that were provoked by the reforms and partially by the stagnation, which cannot be satisfied by the government. On the other hand, the government, as if it is scared by these strivings and its own reformatory actions at the beginning, has turned back. There is login in both. This is why the relationship of some kind of fight and hostility has originated between the alleged educated society and the authorities. The worst that is coming out of it is that the moral fundamentals of the society are shaking up greatly… It would have been strange and absurd to say that if there were more reasonable people in the society and more talented and conscientious in bureaucracy than there would not have been this disorder. However, this is if – when and where was it possible?”
June 14, 1873
“Those who made reforms got afraid of them. They expected that the reforms would lead to the most arranged, corresponding with their wishes life; that the morals and manners would immediately change for the better, the industry and agriculture would flourish, and fortune would overflow the whole country. The press would only praise those holding the reins of government, etc. All of these dreams did not come true. Things that were spoiled and distorted for centuries cannot be change in several years. The main task of the reforms was not in enjoying the welfare the elements of which are included in them, but in the fact that these reforms must have served as a ground for the welfare and make it possible. In a word, the reforms mean the future and not the present. For this reason they should not be undermined but turned into the wonderful consequences and be waited for.”
May 11, 1874
“As for the parties that usually mark the life and progress of the society, well they are possible where different social classes have been defined vividly and proclaimed itself, its numerous courses and where the interests of every social class and courses require combination of many forces. We are not ready for the parties yet. On the contrary, individualism is developed to such an extent that every person is representing a party for himself. As soon as several people come together in the name of some goal or idea then every person starts thinking how to make everyone kneel before him even though this might be harmful to the common goal or idea.”
November 3, 1874
“Every day we are losing more and more respect for the government. An opinion that the reforms of the present times and some benefits are a pure lie because they are undermined in every possible way is rooting deeper and deeper. The local administration, courts and press are constantly restrained by the orders of the supreme executive officers. This is not a secret for anyone anymore… Liberation of peasants, new courts, local administration, publicity – is this the fancy of the society and not the requirement, which if not satisfied will leave no opportunity for Russia’s existence? Everyone is discontented, everyone is suffering and they are suffering unbearably because there is no certainty of what will be tomorrow.”
January 16, 1877
“Our Slavophiles are more the Slavs than the Slavs themselves. Indeed, it is extremely difficult for the Slavs living in Turkey and it is absolutely natural that they have risen in rebellion. Nonetheless, the Slavs living in Austria are rather comfortable: they have social security and, certainly, they would have lost more than won if they are to be under the sway of the other country. As regards to the national unity the Slave will never achieve it since they are in constant disagreement.”
There is no reason to be surprised that the journals of Nikitenko, published in 1904, came out (abridged) in second edition only during the times of the Khrushchev thaw and its third edition was published in the present times when they are little read. Undeservedly little.
