this was written early in... the message to chaadaev was already quoted, he has more than one messageo chaadaev, this is such a part of a humorous epigram, but pushkin in april thirty-six years after the publication of the letter , he writes a critical response to chiodaev, where he analyzes it in sufficient detail, he writes himself that it turned out to be a huge letter, analyzes his point of view, i will not quote this letter in full, although it is very worth reading, because from my point of view alexander sergeevich here from the point of view of historical accuracy, not only from my point of view, was more right, of course, than pyotr yakov. he writes, as for thoughts, you know that i do not agree with you on everything. no doubts that the schism of the division of churches separated us from the rest of europe, that we did not take part in any of the great events that shook it, but we had our own special destiny. it was russia, this vast space, that was swallowed up by the mongol invasion. the tatars did not dare cross our western borders, leaving us in the rear. they retreated

speaking of resignation, there is a mysterious story with the resignation, which was discussed about chaadaevignation, her was discussed very strongly in society then, because chiodaev was, despite his youth, he was 23 years old at that moment. he was very famous in society, well, a bright figure, seryozh, as for age, we forget about the historical context, he became a student at moscow state university at the age of 14, yes, well, first listeners, yes, then students, yes, so 23 years was a lot at that time, in general then people matured much faster than now, this is not bad and not good, it’s just a statement of fact, a statement of facts, so many copies have been broken among. researchers among those among his contemporaries, there were rumors regarding the cause of his resignation, one of the rumors was that he allegedly cared so much about his toilets that he was therefore late, and he was sent there in connection with the news of the uprising of the semyonovsky regiment, and he went to alexander, who at that time was outside the russian border as a courier, who was supposed to report th

this is a historical podcast, we continue the conversation about pyotr yakovlevich chaadaev.eaven, born in the shackles of royal service, he would have been a brood in rome, a crossroads in athens. here he is an officer of the hussar, this was written early, you have already quoted the message to chaadaev, he has more than one message to chaadaev, this is such a part of a humorous epigram, but pushkin in april of the thirty-sixth year after the publication of the letter wrote a critical response to chiodaev, where there is sufficient detail analyzes, he writes himself that it turned out to be a huge letter, analyzes his point of view, i will not quote this letter in full, although it is very worth reading, because from my point of view, alexander sergeevich is here from the point of view of historical accuracy. not only from my point of view, he was more right, of course, than pyotr yakovich.

yuri mikhailovich lotman, our most famous philologist, historian, researcher, interpreted chaadaev’segiment, mentioning, of course, serfdom. at that time , schiller's drama don carlos, in which such a marquis pose is present, was very popular in russia. expression, by the way, yes by regarding the pose that can be taken, this part is taken from there, and so the marquis-pose, speaks the truth to the dictator, the tyrant, and thanks to this he must become, accordingly, close to him, in this logic, including literary logic, pyotr yakolevich yaadaev, according to lotman, expressed it to alexander, and at the same time, in order to gain alexander’s trust, it was necessary to refuse almost all rewards. and chiodaev tried to act as a critic and, accordingly, here his career inevitably had to end, and there was an element humiliation in this sense, because when chiadaev was dismissed, he was dismissed in the same rank, usually they were given higher ranks, and he was dismissed in the same rank of rotmister, in addition , his letter to his aunt was illustrated, which is very she took care of

this was written early, you already quoted the letter to chaadaev, he has more than one letter to chaadaevere, from the point of view of historical accuracy, not only from my point of view, was more right. of course, than pyotr yakovlevich. he writes, as for thoughts, you know that i do not agree with you on everything. there is no doubt that the schism, the division of churches, separated us from the rest of europe, that we did not take part in any of the great events that shook it, but we had our own special purpose. it was russia, this vast space, that was swallowed up by the mongol invasion. the tatars did not dare cross our western borders, leaving us in the rear. they retreated to their deserts, the tatars, i mean, and christian civilization was saved. for achievement. this goal we had to lead a completely special existence, which, having left us as christians, made us, however, completely alien to the christian world, so that through our martyrdom the energetic development of catholic europe was freed from any hindrance, that is, pushkin here looks at the role of russia in the pan-e

street, and then again the average man fell asleep safely, so osip mandelstam compared the trace left by chaadaevaves, such a deep trace, i will cling to mandelstam’s metaphor, mandelstam. a brilliant poet, this also manifests itself in prose, even in his articles, when a diamond scratches glass, i think that few of our audience listeners scratched glass with a diamond, like iron on glass, yes, but when a diamond scratches glass, it’s also very unpleasant sensation, yes, he doesn’t just cut it softly like butter, yes, it’s unpleasant, it’s painful, well, for the ear, yes, so this metaphor, it is actually very working, yes, and at the same time this is a trace, this is a trace that yes... so to speak, i will resort to the help of hercyn, he has these words: sad and the original figure of chadayev stands out sharply with some kind of sad reproach against the lazy and heavy background of the moscow nobility. i loved to look at him among this tinsel nobility, flighty senators, gray rakes. an honorable nonentity, no matter how thick the crowd was, the eye found him immediately, but strictly speaking,

the street, and then again the average man fell asleep, so osip mondushtam compared the trace left by chaadaeve left by glass diamond, such a deep trace, i will cling to mandelstam’s metaphor, malshtam is a brilliant poet, this also manifests itself in prose, and even in his articles, when... with a diamond on glass, i think that few of our audience listeners scratched glass with a diamond, here's the iron glass, yes, but when a diamond scratches glass, it’s also a very unpleasant sensation, yes, it doesn’t just cut it softly like butter, yes, it’s unpleasant, it’s painful, well, for the ear, yes, so this metaphor, it’s actually very working, yes, and at the same time this is a trace, this is a trace that is not impossible to erase, and this trace, i guess, so to speak, i’ll resort to the help of hertzin, he has these words: the sad and original figure of chadayev is sharply separated by some then a sad reproach against the lazy and heavy background of the moscow nobility, i loved to look at him among this tinsel nobility, flighty senators, gray-haired rakes of honorable insignificance, no mat

this is a historical podcast, we continue the conversation about pyotr yakovlevich chaadaev. even alexander sergeevich pushkin, who was complacent towards him and very affectionate towards pyotr yakovlevich, spoke out against chaadaev’s position. he wrote about him: he is higher by the will of heaven, born in the shackles of royal service, he would have been a brute in rome, a crossroads in athens, but here he is an officer. it was written early, you already quoted the message to chaadaev, he has more than one message to chaadaev, this is such a part of a humorous epigram, but pushkin in april of the year thirty-six after the publication of the letter, he writes a critical response to chiodaev, where he analyzes it in sufficient detail, he writes himself that it turned out to be a huge letter, analyzes his point of view, i will not quote this letter in full, although it is very worth reading, because from my point of view, alexander sergeevich is here , from the point of view of historical accuracy, not only from my point of view. view was more right, of course, than pyotr ya