A tutorial of a writer s success. Part II. Ch 3

http://proza.ru/2021/08/31/121 A tutorial of a writer s success. Part II. Chapter 1. http://proza.ru/2021/08/31/121

http://proza.ru/2021/08/31/124 A tutorial of a writer s success. Part II. Chapter 2. http://proza.ru/2021/08/31/124


Chapter 3. Home (parental) education

Heinrich Schliemann received his parental home education under the "guidance" of his father, who was a teacher by profession, who had some teaching experience [Штоль. С.16, 33] [Stoll. P.16, 33]. We can judge the effectiveness of this education, firstly, by the words, by the saying of Heinrich Schliemann himself, and secondly, by more objective evidence: by his, Heinrich's, scientific results.

The following benevolent phrase is devoted to the home (parental) education in the Heinrich Schliemann's Autobiography: "My father did not know Greek, but he knew Latin, and availed himself of every spare moment to teach it me" (Ilios. The city and country of the Trojans. By Dr. Henry Schliemann. NY. 1881. P. 5.).

The words "teaching" or "learning" ["training"] are not mentioned in the following phrases of the Autobiography: "Though my father was neither a scholar nor an archaeologist, he had a passion for ancient history. He often told me with warm enthusiasm of the tragic fate of Herculaneum and Pompeii, and seemed to consider him [such a person] the luckiest of men who had the means and the time to visit the excavations which were going on there. He also related to me with admiration the great deeds of the Homeric heroes and the events of the Trojan war..." (Ilios. The city and country of the Trojans. By Dr. Henry Schliemann. NY. 1881. P. 3.)

What is it? Father-son communication? Lectures? Conversations? A kind "Plato's dialogues"?

As for the scientific results of Heinrich Schliemann, for example, in the official document of awarding him the title of honorary citizen of Berlin, in particular, it was stated that Heinrich Schliemann "contributed to the creation of a new (Homeric) archeology - with his daring plan, as well as with his persistent work at the excavations, conducted under his leadership" [Вандерберг. С. 403] [Vanderberg. P. 403].

Currently, Heinrich Schliemann is recognized as the "founder of Mycenaean archaeology" [Гаврилов А. К. С. 300] [Gavrilov A. K. P. 300] [Богданов И. А., 2008 а. С. 26] [Bogdanov I. A., 2008 a. P. 26] [Богданов И. А., 2008 б. С. 311] [Bogdanov I. A., 2008 b. P. 311].

It is difficult to interpret and evaluate home (parental) training unambiguously.

Judging by the biographical works about the life of Nikolai Gogol, none of his parents taught him, using systematic, consecutive specific lessons with specific topics. It is possible, apparently, to talk about learning by action, by communication (by conversations, by discussions, by dialogues). Maybe about the "Platonic" type of training (education). 

Firstly, the father of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol (at different periods of his life) was a writer, director of performances (plays) staged in Kibintsy [in the village of Kibintsy, Mirgorod Uyezd] (the estate (in Mirgorod) of Dmitry Troshchinsky, a retired imperial minister, the former high level person from the Petersburg); Vasily Afanasyevich [Gogol-Yanovsky] acted-along with other family members-as an actor. It is not necessary to imagine of his talent on an exaggerated scale; in addition, everyone has their own individual talents. But still, not everyone has a close relative (father), a real author, director, producer.

Secondly, little Nikolai was the center of family attention and care from birth, which provided him with enough opportunities to communicate with his parents.

"Sometimes, going to the field to inspect the work, the father took Nikosha with himself. The face of Vasily Afanasievich smoothed. The son saw a smile on him. The father was having fun, amused Nikosha too — he gave to Nikosha oral tasks — to describe the grove seen in the distance, to describe the sky over the steppe or the morning at the manor, and the son willingly responded to such tasks. They finally were making up stories together, and those were the best moments of their unity" [Золотусский И. П.] [Zolotussky I. P.].

Thirdly, there were creative people in the circle of communication of the Gogol family (which seemed to be provincial, at first glance). (Among them: Vasily Kapnist (whose family descended from the Greek counts Capnissi) [Золотусский И. П.] [Zolotussky I. P.]).

"They say that once a neighbor on the estate (manor) arrived to Vasily Afanasyevich. It was the famous writer Vasily Kapnist - and Kapnist found five-year-old Nikosha [little boy Nikolai Gogol] with a pen in his hand. Kapnist, - says Marya Ivanovna [the mother of Gogol], - "took the paper from him.  Kapnist saw in this clumsy thing something similar to rihma [so!] [that is, a rhyme] and said, that is useful to entrust Nikosha to an excellent teacher" (...). Grigory Petrovich Danilevsky, with whom Maria Ivanovna shared her memories, embellished this episode: it turned out something like a blessing to a novice artist from a venerable one: "He will be a great talent. Fate, give him a  teacher-Christian!“ (…). But anyway,  Kapnist drew attention to the literary inclinations of the boy" [Манн Ю. В. С. 24] [Mann Yu. V. P. 24].

Kapnist and Gogol families were on the most friendly terms with each other. Kapnists lived in Obukhovka (in the manor of Obukhovka near Poltava).

"In July 1813, a memorable event took place in Obukhovka — Gavriil (Gavrila) Romanovich Derzhavin came here…

A solemn meeting was prepared for the famous guest and his wife, especially since their arrival coincided with the stay of Dmitry Troshchinsky in Obukhovka.

It happened  for Gogol's parents to visit the family of Kapnist at this time. Marya Ivanovna rememberd these days for a long time: "...And how we were treated by the hospitable hosts, how many pleasures were, how many surprises! Dmitry Prokofievich (Troshchinsky) and Derzhavin willingly participated in various witty inventions" ( ... ) " [Манн Ю. В. С. 31-32] [Mann Yu. V. P. 31-32].

Nikolai Gogol was then 4 years old.

I can't help but want to joke: Gavriil Derzhavin travels around Russia; blesses future geniuses: Pushkin, Gogol...

"The first success inspired us;
Old Derzhavin noticed us
And when he was going down to the grave, he blessed us." (Alexander Pushkin "Eugene Onegin", Novel in verse).

Various talented people appeared and operated in the environment where the Gogol family lived.

Among such people, Vladimir Lukich Borovikovsky (1757-1825) is called.

"Borovikovsky's artistic career itself was the point of interest to Gogol... ( ... ) ... all  happened according to the same "model": relative obscurity, a meeting with a reigning person and a rapid rise. "Model", which gave a lot of information and emotions to the heart of the ambitious Nikolai Gogol" [Манн Ю. В. С. 50] [Mann Yu. V. P. 50].

I will note as a comment: the model, perhaps, "gave a lot of data and emotions to the heart" of Nikolai  Gogol. But the author has not found any clear evidence of the meeting of Nikolai Gogol with tsar [a reigning person], Nicholas I of Russia, in the literature. (To consider as a meeting, for example, an exchange by glances — of Nicholas I, passing through Rome with the retinue, and Nikolai Gogol standing in a crowd of Roman residents?). (It is interesting that it is difficult to find a clear statement in the literature on the topic of a personal meeting (it seems that it did not take place) between Nikolai Gogol and Nicholas I. It it seems that there is no evidence of such a meeting; but there is always a risk: whether will appear any documents, memoirs...

Such an interesting and important question, on the one hand, remains without a clear formulation.

On the other hand, it (this issue) is "covered" [is presented] indirectly: "direct dependence on the court, proximity to the tsar, the opportunity, as they say today, to "get out" to tsar (to approach the tsar)"...

The environment carried out the education of little Nikolai Gogol in the mode of"self-fulfillment" (kind of directed event stream). (However, "self-fulfillment" is not always a reliable method of training).

Henri Troyat writes about the young years of Nikolai Gogol: "Wanting to somehow realize his desire to become an artist, he tried to compose poems that he read with pride in front of his family. In addition, he also painted and even organized an exhibition of own paintings" [Труайя А. С. 21] [Troyat H. P. 21].

Thus, despite the absence of the usual systematic sequential lessons, apparently, there are reasons to believe that in the childhood of Nikolai Gogol there was a home (parental) training. Perhaps, without those certain signs of consistency and systematicity that were present in home schooling in the childhood of Heinrich Schliemann. A seminarian who was involved in the training of little Nikolai and his younger brother Ivan is also mentioned, but the biography expresses a skeptical attitude to the results of his [seminarian's] training [Труайя А. С. 21] [Troyat H. P. 21].

The biographical literature presents quite a lot of critical assessments of the Kashirin family, the family, in which Maxim Gorky spent his childhood.

"When you read his book" Childhood", — wrote Korney Chukovsky, - it seems that you are reading about hard labor: there are so many fights, zubotychin [zubotychina - punch in the teeth, in the face (with a shade of educational influence)], murders. Thieves and murderers surrounded his cradle, and  it wasn't their fault, if he didn't follow their path. The boy was shown day after day the shattered skulls and shattered cheekbones. They showed him how to drive sharp iron pins into a woman's head, how to put a red-hot thimble on a  finger of the blind person, how to cripple his own mother with a club, how to throw bricks at his own father, spewing, shouting idiotic and vile abuse at him. Among his closest relatives, he could proudly name several professors of stabbings, knife attacks,  arsonists, thugs and murderers. Both of his maternal uncles — Uncle Yasha and Uncle Misha-both stabbed their wives to death, one uncle [stabbed] [only] of one [wife], and the other uncle - of two wives. They killed his friend Tsyganok. And they killed Tsyganok not with an axe, but with a cross! At the age of ten, he [Gorky] himself already knew what it was like to grab a knife in a rage and to rush at a person with an axe [in hands].“ Further, Chukovsky deduces from this hopeless life and the children's Gorky rebellion all the so-called "Gorkovism" [a bitter styly of life]..." [Быков Д. Л.] [Bykov D. L.]. 

The inner life of someone else's family [of other person's family] is a rather difficult topic for ethical assessments. The glass, as they say, can be either half-empty or half-full. Let's assume that the glass is half full; there are grounds for such an assumption.

In the life of little Aleksey Peshkov, who lost his father in early childhood (he died of cholera), who grew up in a difficult family environment, nevertheless, there was a family (parental) training. And the upbringing was not the only the parental one (meaning mother Varvara, she was Peshkova in first marriage, before first marriage - Kashirina), but it was also family upbringing (with the participation of grandfather and grandmother Kashirins).

"...The mother had a hand in his education. After one of her returns to the family, Varvara Vasilyevna energetically began to teach her son in her own way. "She bought books," Gorky recalled, " and I, using one of them — the "Native Word" (...), — I overcame the wisdom of reading the civil  books ["books of common access", that is, not Church books; Church books Aleksey read with his grandfather] in a few days... "[Груздев И. А.] [Gruzdev I. A.].

"Akulina Kashirina was not only the keeper of folk art, there is reason to think that she herself was an outstanding folk poet. ( ... ) Gorky recalled: "I was filled with my grandmother's poems, like a beehive is  filling with honey; it seems that I was thinking in the forms of her poems."  She had related him to the origins, poetic images and deep thoughts of folk art" [Груздев И. А.] [Gruzdev I. A.].

"For six years, Gorky studied with him the Church Slavonic literacy using the Psalter and the Horologion [or Book of hours], by such method people studied back in the days of Ancient and Moscow Russia. The grandfather was pleased with the success of his grandson, finding that "his memory is like a "stone", if what is carved on it, so the such information be saved forever, for all time" [Груздев И. А.] [Gruzdev I. A.].

It seems that not in every family a little boy is given so much time by the older generation for his education. Moreover, adults can always say, that they are busy with more important things.

The Kashirin family was not small; Varvara Vasilyevna, who returned to this family after the death of her first husband with her young son Aleksey, was a young, beautiful woman who entered into her first marriage without her father's consent, and who sought to arrange her personal life again.

If we assume that four families were united under one roof, and take into account the tendency of the gradually ruining of the" business "- thefinancial base of the united Kashirin family, then the appearance of a negative emotional background, aggression was quite understandable.

But the fact that this united family "lasted" for a so long time, and during its existence, it fed and taught little Aleksey — this was, in many respects, his luck.

But for a small person who has no life experience, the situation could look different.

The existence of a united family, of a "business", the work of uncles in this "enterprise", the material support from side of the members of this family, the education of the younger generation is something natural, and a negative emotional background, aggression, body punishments - all this is some kind of inexcusable, inexplicable reality. It's some "unnatural" thing, which cannot be justified.

It's hard to please a person. If there were no manifestations of aggression in the Kashirin family, but there would be a desire for a family peace, for satiety, then — according to the adult "progressive" Gorky — this would also not be good.

Maybe they should have become narodniks, revolutionaries?

But Maxim Gorky's assessment of Somov [revolutionary], whom he, Maxim Gorky, met on the path of life (Somov - "a person is not quite normal"), is also not at all unambiguously positive.

Romas' [revolutionary] was evaluated by Gorky positively, but his image described by Gorky makes a strange impression: Romas' projects can not be called successful: the negative, even tragic events occur around this figure, his family life did not work out.

According to the confessions of biographers Maxim Gorky, the first "normal" person whom the young Aleksey met on the path of life was Korolenko ("Gorky remembers him as the first normal person in his life" [Быков Д. Л.] [Bykov D. L.]).

But Korolenko was mainly an oppositionist, a human rights activist, a publicist, he did not have a bankrupting business, from which a large family was fed and lived (his position as a financially secure human rights activist, a publicist was very exclusive), and in Korolenko's family there were no adult sons who their the own hard work "were investing" in the business, nor (I assume) a young widow woman with her young son.

(If we recall the post-revolutionary critical works by Korolenko with negative assessments of the policy of the Bolsheviks, then the question arises about the final results and beneficiaries of Korolenko's activity. Whose mill he was pouring on a water?) 

It could be suggested that grandfather Kashirin would have become "dear to the heart" of Aleksey if he had been an oppositionist, a human rights activist, a publicist who had passed through exile.

But, firstly, Maxim Gorky mentions that he did not "feel" a "sympathy" for Korolenko. That is, everything assumed would not give guarantees of positive ratings.

Secondly, where and with whom would Maxim Gorky have grown up then? Would he travel (like a great-grandmother and grandmother) with his mother across the expanses of Russia; he (with mother) would ask for Christ's sake?

Could such a life start have left him with positive impressions? Would it have provided him with a good health?

It's hard to please a person! In general, if you leave the facts ("facts"! ... ) unchanged, if to rearrange the accents, if to change the point of view, then you could hear about Vasily Kashirin (Aleksey's grandfather) and his sons: "What a good guys are they! How much power [strength, energy] they have...".

The level of home upbringing, as well as of the home education that little Aleksey received in the Kashirin family, turned out to be exceptionally high.

"When in 1878 Bishop Chrysanf of Nizhny Novgorod came to the Sloboda-Kunavinsky primary School for a lesson, he was surprised to note Aleksey Peshkov's student... " [Груздев И. А.] [Gruzdev I. A.].

"Gorky amazed others with his encyclopedic nature and depth of knowledge. His education was not systematic. ("Education: at home [a home education]," he wrote in the questionnaire). A self-taught, he studied all his life: he read a lot, greedily absorbed knowledge, striking people who graduated from high schools and universities" [Нефедова И. М.] [Nefedova I. M.].

Pavel Basinsky quotes the words of Feodor Chaliapin: ""I respect a knowledge in people. Gorky knew so much! I have seen him in the company of scientists, philosophers, historians, artists, engineers, zoologists and I don't know of who else. And every time these competent people talked to Gorky about their special subject, they found in him a kind of classmate [colleague]. Gorky knew big and small things with equal completeness and solidity. If, for example, I would decided to ask Gorky how the bullfinch lives, then Aleksey Maksimovich could tell me such details about the bullfinch that if all the bullfinches were collected who lived during millennias, they would not know such data about themselves.“

There an irony behind the reverence is hidden here. But it is an easy irony, not not an offensive one" [Басинский П. В. Страсти по Максиму] [Basinsky P. V. Passions according to Maxim]. A slight, harmless manifestation of the skepticism of ignorance? ("Skepticism of ignorance" is a good term and a good sociological idea of Maxim Gorky, used in the article "On the Russian peasantry").

"...A former rag man, and sometimes, alas, a thief, who dragged firewood from warehouses together with such derelicts as him, - he, at the age of about twenty years in an illegal self-education circle, already read his own essay on the book by Vasily Bervi-Flerovsky [Bervi-Flerovski], not agreeing that pastoral and peaceful tribes played a greater role in the development of culture than hunter tribes.

A few years later, he freely studied the idealistic philosophers Nietzsche, Hartmann, Schopenhauer and the lesser-known Caro, Sully. Moreover, when studying, for example, Schopenhauer, he not limited himself to... the work "The World as Will and Representation", but he also read such a work of the great German pessimist, which, as a rule, few people can master: "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason"" [Басинский П. В. Страсти по Максиму] [Basinsky P. V. Passion according to Maxim].

From the side of Aleksey Peshkov himself, and from the side of his biographers, almost no negative assessments were addressed to Peshkovs — Aleksey's relatives from the side of his deceased father. They - relatives on the father's side - are simply practically absent in his life. To the relatives on the mother's side — mountains of criticism!

It is unlikely that now, after almost a century and a half after the earthly creative paths of Heinrich Schliemann, Nikolai Gogol, Maxim Gorky, it is possible to make any definite judgments about the effectiveness and results of home (parental, kindred) education. All such estimates will be only approximate, subjective. The "results" of training are evaluated by subsequent events,  actions, achievements of those trained, educated, "upbringed".

We will pay additional attention to one of the aspects.

Drawing the image of pastor Ernest Schliemann, Heinrich Alexander Stoll assumps the following phrase: "I need people, society, in the evening — a game of whist, seasoned with a strong male joke" [Штоль. С. 32] [Stoll. P. 32]. To Heinrich's question whether a pastor is required to ask the consent of the members of the church council for any actions in a church building, Ernest Schliemann, in the artistic interpretation of Heinrich Alexander Stoll, gives the answer: "The members of the council? - the father says contemptuously. — Whether I always need them? Of course, I can do everything if it is reasonable" [Штоль. С.25] [Stoll. P. 25].

Regarding the future second wife of Ernest Schliemann, Sophia, who was originally hired as a maid into the house of pastor, Heinrich Alexander Stoll formulates: "... A sixteen-year-old full-breasted Fiken Behncke, swaying her hips, entered the kitchen... " [Штоль. С. 45] [Stoll. P. 45].

Time passes, Heinrich "thinks about own father... ( ... ) ...His father was a slave to his passions, a passion for wine, for a luxurious life, for women, of which Fiken, as it's now became clear, was not the first" [Штоль. С. 62] [Stoll. P.62].

Visits to the influential relative Dmitry Troshchinsky, by Gogol's father and the whole family left a complicated impressions for little Nikolai…

"And one day, when the "benefactor" himself came to their house and graciously honored Vasily Afanasyevich with a game of chess, Nikosha approached the players and said to his father: "Dad, don't play with him. Let him go“". And when Dmitry Prokofievich, surprised by independence of little Nikolai, mentioned the rod, he added:"I don't care about you and your rod."

The frightened Vasily Afanasyevich wanted to punish his son, but the old man stopped him. "It will be man with a character," he remarked" [Золотусский И. П.] [Zolotussky I. P.].

To complete the picture, it would be correct to add another aspect of Russian reality, described in the words of Petr Chaadaev: "It is necessary, my dear, to take care of your skin "(Mon cher, on tient ; sa peau)" [that is, you need to take care of yourself, of own security] [Мережковский Д. С. Чаадаев] [Merezhkovsky D. S. Chaadaev].

The atmosphere of the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin allowed to play a "risky game" to assert and demonstrate personal independence, although it (this game) remained risky; maybe it could not be won, but there was a chance not to lose: this was a lesson that young Heinrich had reason to learn as a child.

For the serf Russia, in which Nikolai Gogol lived, such a risky game of asserting personal independence would be an unacceptable violation of class rules and would end tragically; "ordinary" people did not make such attempts in general, but people who were particularly talented (and with a certain position) did, but without success: the situation was returning "to its own circles"; perhaps young Nikolai learned this lesson intuitively as a child. We can assume that he also drew conclusions: independence, which does not violate the established order, is a system (a system that needs to be thought out and to be developed). A system that needs to be carefully thought out, a system that needs to be precisely, filigreed implemented.

Russia after the reforms of 1861-1865 (Aleksey Peshkov was born in 1868) was a society of great changes. A new opportunities, new knowledge, new dreams appeared. In this situation, unusual enthusiasm, unusual optimism, unusual activity were born. The "old" lost its value; the" new", invented, often mythical, attracted irresistibly. A new kind of "social sport" has emerged: jumping into the future. Leaving behind the past and the world of the past, someone got onto Capri, someone - with a sentence - in the frosty Siberia, someone (without delay) dropped out of the "world of the living".

The relatives of the young Aleksey did not give him an unambiguous example of behavior in the new conditions.

On the one hand, his grandfather, a "former" soldier's son and a former burlak [бурлак], "got out", became - for a while - a significant and successful figure.

On the other hand, in the new situation, both grandfather and uncles could not find a "way out into the future", they clung to the past in a seemingly hopeless situation. They became embittered and embittered more and more.

Did young Aleksey rely on luck and intuition? Or was he following, going behind the flow of events?

One way or another, we see into his biographies a person who did not have a clear "related" example of behavior, but who acted independently. He made decisions, he practically tried to leave the past in the past and jump into the future. Maxim Gorky turned out to be a master of sports in jumping into the future, he turned out to be a grandmaster who knows how to operate filigree - to play, using a knight.

As for corporal punishment in the childhood of Heinrich Schliemann, Nikolai Gogol, Aleksey Peshkov.

From the (auto) biographical materials, we can conclude that there were no such things in Heinrich Schliemann's childhood.

In the preserved memories of Nikolai Gogol about the case of flogging, a relief, a release sounds. After he, seized by a mystical fear, drowned the cat, he was overcome by regrets about the cruel act. He felt relieved and calmed down only when he told his father about what had happened, and his father had whipped him. It seems to me that in Nikolai Gogol's story about this case, one can feel a slight sense of gratitude of the son to the father. Nikolai Gogol, judging by this reminiscence, perceived corporal punishment as a relief, a kind of atonement for guilt, the end of a period of painful experiences, unpleasant emotions. According to one of the biographical versions of the young Nikolai Gogol, who began his studies, the institution authorities wanted to flog him; Nikolai faked a madness; not only he wasn't flogged, but the practice of flogging in the educational institution itself came to naught. A revolution without a revolution?

Corporal punishment was present in the life of little Aleksey Peshkov. It seems that they left a lot of resentment and a lot of bitterness in his memory.

We will make — for the volumety, volumness of the painting - one more addition.

Both Heinrich Schliemann and Nikolai Gogol were planting a trees.

In the biography of Heinrich Schliemann, Heinrich Alexander Stoll writes about the Astrakhan apple tree planted by Heinrich as a child in the yard of the father's house in Ankershagen, about the apple tree, which Heinrich Schliemann left together with his childhood and home in 1831, and which he, being a US citizen and a resident of Athens, visited in 1883 [Штоль. С. 389] [Stoll. P. 389].

Maple, linden, oak. "Gogol was loving and was planting only three these trees" [Гиляровский. 1902. С. 36] [Gilyarovsky. 1902. P. 36].

"And at the same time, he managed to do such things as campaigning for the cultivation of eucalyptus trees on the streets of Athens. He delivered a hundred young eucalyptus trees, which were dug up with roots, and distributed them to local homeowners. Of the hundreds of trees planted, only the one took root, the rest died. Schliemann like a child regretted the trees" [Мейерович М. Л. С. 154] [Meyerovich M. L. P. 154].

"I thank you very much for planting trees." (From a Letter from Nikolai Gogol to his sister O. V. Gogol, December 22, 1851). [Гоголь Н. В. Письма. 1848—1852.] [Gogol N. V. Letters. 1848-1852.]

It can be assumed that Maxim Gorky also was planting trees at the Crimean dacha or participated in their planting.