Philosopher Assingment
Prof Barnstead
Junghyun Kim
B00474053 

Pravda

Name: Ahmed Ahmed

ID: B00487821

For: Prof. Barnstead

                                                  Peter Chaadayev’s “Philosophical letters”

Peter Chaadayev, a muscovite philosopher and a social critic, is most famous

of his Philosophical letters in 1836 addressed to a lady in a series of eight in French,

which was considered “language of Europe”, and then translated into Russian.

            The philosophical letters provoked the occurring debate between Slavophiles

and westernizers. The slavophiles believed that Russian civilization was unique and

superior to western culture, which was mainly under the influence of the orthodox

Easter church, the village community and ancient popular assembly. They believed

That Russia being between both Europe and Asia made it special, as it would have the

Ways of both sides and become better for their advantage. The slavophiles became

extremely nationalistic. As for the westernizers, they believed that Russia’s

development depended so much on the adoption of western technology and liberal

government. Westernizers usually approach things reasonably and are very often

agnostic. In chaadayev’s philosophical letters he designed it into criticism of the

Russian history in general, such that in the ancient times they didn’t accomplish

anything in order to move forward or cause any impact whatsoever in the world

culture, and influence o the Roman Catholic church, in order to point up the

shortcomings of the Russian Orthodox church.

            According to the letter, Chaadayev was a slavophile, nationalist and a

Christian. Though he had those characteristics, he would recognize Russia’s

Cultural and political problems and not be ignorant about it. He wrote about how the

westerns, Asians and other parts of the world, each had a great history, in such a way

it gave them pride of where they come from and who they are. Their histories had

different events that gave each country its own reputation. As for the Russians, like

what chaadayev said, were enable to reach that point, that even or moment that made

them great and have a reputation spread throughout the world. Russia being in the

centre of the planet should have the knowledge of all the countries and be the centre

of attention. He claimed that everything in Russia, the technology, the tradition and

religious ways were copied from different countries (especially western countries) and

that nothing was made by them, nothing that is worth to be copied by other nations.

After this long complaints of how Russia is, Peter Chaadayev explained how these

things happened, how Russia did not cause any impact, and explain how Russians

should think in order to become superior to others. He wrote in detail of how a person

should be in the physical, mind and spiritual world. The Russian intellectual

Alexander herzen declared Chaadayev’s letters to be “a shot that rang out in the dark

night” that “shook all thinking Russians”.

            Chaadayev’s ideas in his letters were beyond expectations, he wrote details of

every single way of how a Russian should think in order to brace, modernize and

reanimate his motherland. Peter wrote many points that I greatly disagree with and

honestly find it nonsense. Being a Muslim, most of my responds to his letters would

totally be against them because he wrote in a way as if he knows everything about

how life is and about God. He explained about what God is planning for the humanity

and what he left us in the world or us to think about and solve.

In the beginning, he talked religiously to the lady that Christianity and the

church leads a person to the right path, the correct guidance and his or her soul to be

stable with no worries. Later on he explained how nature itself would offer things to

us like knowledge, reasoning and understanding of how things go on in life. These

nature thoughts is more like atheism, who think mainly about how nature started and

provided everything to us. His writings about Christianity and nature contradict each

other, therefore, making no point or true goal of his letter. Like I said, I am

disagreeing through a Muslim’s perspective which might be close or very different to

what other might think of course. I believe that Allah(God) is the one who allows

countries to discover or invent anything. The individual in that country who caused

that impact which gave that country a great history was permitted by God. He allowed

many things in the world, including sinful things in order to test our faith in him and

choose to do what is right.

            As for the few things of what he said that was quite true and reasonable, like

how the westerns worked together in order to get closer to being a perfect nation.

They abided to the Christian ways and rules and guided them to the formation of a

stable country physically and spiritually. In some of his writings, where he mainly

talked about the advantages of being religious and Christian instead of adding more

philosophical senseless words into it to the lady, was right because he did not make

things up at that topic. Being a Muslim I fully do not mind Christianity because I also

believe in Jesus thought we might have slight differences in some ways.

            This letter, in my opinion, keeps repeating itself over and over just in different

words with different examples just so Chaadayev would try to prove a point. I don’t

believe that philosophy is the way for explaining how things go in life just by random

long ideas.

            According to my religion, it is the holy Quran(holy book), which contains the

words of God himself, that has enough answers of what I need in order to live

spiritually stable and happy.

            It is kind of normal or anyone to seek the truth if there was so signs of God

whatsoever, but these signs did come from God to guide us, so there is no need to talk

a lot of senseless things unless that person is ignorant.

                                                            Bibliography

Chaadayev, Peter. (1969). The Major Works of Peter Chaadayev: A Translation and Commentary by Raymond T. McNally. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Chaadayev, Peter. (1991). Philosophical Works of Peter Chaadayev. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McNally, Raymond Ted. (1966). "Chaadayev's Philosophical Letters Written to a Lady and His Apologia of a Madman." Forschungen zur osteuropaischen Geschichte XI (Berlin 1966):24 - 128.

McNally, Raymond Ted. (1971). Chaadaev and his Friends: An Intellectual History of Peter Chaadaev and His Russian Contemporaries. Tallahassee, FL: Diplomatic Press.

For: Prof. Barnstead

By: Alex Berkis

HIST1020

Essay 2

Nicholas Chernyshevsky’s “The Aesthetic relations of Art to Reality”

The article discusses the reasons behind why art is created.  Art is created to give people the chance to see things that they don’t have the opportunity to in real life.  Paintings are reproductions of real objects or views in reality.  Copies of such painting are made but they are not the real thing, there can only be one original painting.  People use paintings and pictures to remind themselves of previous memories or simply to look at a beautiful scene that they cannot see in real life.  Art is simply “a reproduction of reality” (Chernyshevsky, 17).  Art is supposed to be as close as possible to the actual subject from the real world.  The goal of artists is to create a picture that is as life-like as possible.  In comparison to the real thing, art barely stands up.  It is only a substitute for the live action scene from reality.  Such artworks that are like snapshots of reality inspire pity from their audience with the question of why the artist wasted so much time.  Why didn’t he/she work on something that had some original expression to it? 

            There are three main categories that all types of art fall into: the beautiful, the sublime and the comic.  Even with these broad headings, there are still enormous amounts of works that don’t fit into any of them.  The most difficult art form to categorize is poetry.  Poetry tends to be more involved with the poets inner emotions about life and nature which are complicated and vary in theme.  The form of poetry is seen as beautiful but the poem’s category depends on its character not its form.  The topics chosen for most poems are those that ail the common person.  Regular things that are of interest to everyday people not just people with scholarly educations.   In the art of acting, the actor is judged on how close his/her performance is to the original aim.  The goal of acting and other art forms is to reproduce interesting aspects of life for the audience.  Love is a main theme in art, which is often used in poetry.  Sometimes, it seems that poets forget that there are numerous amounts of other topics that are of interest to the common person, other than love.  The point of the article, which is repeated several times, is that the purpose of art “is to reproduce what is of interest to man in real life” (Chernyshevsky, 25). 

            While art is about reproducing life and nature, people tend to spend most of their time focusing on their own emotional, internal world than the external one.  Artists do works about real objects in the world but mostly they focus on how people feel about such objects or other worldly issues.  Art is used to show and explain life to people. 

            Paintings and sculptures are the most visual type of art so people are able to see specific details within the works.  This kind of imagery is very difficult to include in works like music, writing, poetry or acting.  Poetry can only describe a certain amount of details so it usually leaves out specifics, instead allowing the reader to create more with their own imagination.   

When an artist is able to make a work of art mimic the real thing so well that you believe it could have been a snapshot that shows very real talent that the artist has.  By reproducing a real life subject the artist proves his/her real talent, therefore can move on to more expressive types of art.  There must be meaning behind art works for them to become anything to the artist and the audience.  The artist must understand the feelings and sentiment within the art to make it something real otherwise it is pointless. 

            It seems that the way to judge works of art is slightly different with each field.  A great acting performance looks for the actor to perform as close to the original directions and aim as possible.  This has become the opposite with painting as it is seen as a waste of the artist’s time to make a picture as exact as possible to the original as possible. 

            Throughout the entire article Chernyshevsky uses words like ‘we’ and ‘our’.  He is constantly speaking as if the reader shares his view and is involved in the art world.  He also only refers to the artist and people as men, using ‘he’ and ‘his’ to describe the unknown person.  This way of writing acts like it is including all of the readers personally with the use of ‘we’ but then he excludes the women with the continued use of ‘he’. 

            Chernyshevsky repeats his thesis several times throughout the article, so much so that I wonder if he thought that the readers might otherwise forget his point.  His focus is on all types’ art works, from painting, music, poetry, writing to acting.  In these categories he explains the differences and similarities in how they reproduce art.            This article became well known and significant in 1855 ( the year it was published).  While he wrote the article explaining the way art is created and interpreted by the world he created an underlying massage that attacked the integrity of works of art (Bowman, 387). 

            The article gives many examples and instructions on how art is made and how people look at it.  Chernyshevsky’s phrases and structure are simple and repetitive so that his audience (just like the art world) is the common person, not only scholars.  The idea that art is a reproduction of reality is made very clear as all forms of art use real life experiences as sources for their expressions.  I felt that he rambled too much, repeating his message many times.  He writes of the different kinds of art that people create but the differences within there relations of life are slim.  Even though this was a short article in which he raises some very good points, he could have easily explained them in fewer pages. 

Works Cited

Bowman, Herbert E. “Art and Reality in Russian “Realist” Criticism” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Mar., 1954),  386-392

 Chernyshevsky, Nicholas.  The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality.  16-28.

RUSN 1020.03
Philosopher Essay
Patrick Odell - B00495073
Barnstead, Fall 2007
December 13, 2007

Mikhailovsky: The Three Stages of History

Fatima Gabitova

Professor J.Barnstead

Russian 1020

11 December, 2007

The analysis of “Consolatio”

Confide – to tell the secret to the person you trust

Perpetual – continuing forever in the same way

Grove – a group of trees planted close together

Whiff – a brief smell, carried on a current of air

Byre – a building in which cattle are kept

Manor – the area in which a person works or which they are responsible for

Prematurely – happening or done too soon

Shrubs – a plant, especially grown in the gardens, with many small branches growing either directly from the ground or from a hard woody stem, giving the plant a rounded shape

Remorse – a strong feeling of guilt and regret about something you have done

Contempt – a strong feeling of combined dislike and lack of respect

Resent – to be angry about and to dislike being forced to accept (something or someone annoying)

Salutation – a greeting in words or actions, or the words used at the beginning of a letter or speech

Slander – a false spoken statement about someone which damages their reputation, or the making of such statement

Petty – unimportant and not worth giving attention to

Estranged – (of a husband or wife) not living with the person they are married to

Sill – a flat piece of usually wood or stone which forms the base of a window or door

Hasten – you hasten something by acting in order to make it happen sooner

Contemplate – to spend time considering (a possible future action), or to consider (one particular thing) for a long time in a serious and quiet way

Nauseating – something which is nauseating makes you feel as if you are going to vomit

Crucify – to kill (someone) by tying or nailing them to a cross and leaving them there to die

Persecute – to treat (someone) unfairly or cruelly over a long period of time because of their race, religion, political beliefs or homosexuality, or to make (someone) anxious and unhappy by refusing to leave them alone

Delirium – to be unable to speak because of being in state of fever

Stifle – to prevent (something) from happening, being expressed or continuing

Indignation – anger because of something which is wrong or not fair

Reluctance – an unwillingness to do something

Bolster – to support or make stronger

Catechism – an established group of questions and answers, esp. about a set of Christian beliefs

Martyr – a person who suffers greatly or is killed because of their political or religious beliefs, and is often admired because of it

Lineage – the members of a person’s family who are directly related to that person and who lived a long time before him or her

Alleviate – to make (pain, problems, etc.) less severe  

Condemn – to criticize strongly, usually for moral reasons

Retribution – deserved and severe punishment

Curse – to say a word or sentence asking a magical power to cause  something unpleasant to happen to something or someone

Morbid – too interested in unpleasant subjects, especially death

Resent – to be angry about and to dislike being forced to accept (something or someone annoying)

Simile – an expression comparing one thing with another

Homily – a piece of spoken or written advice about how someone should behave

Magnanimity – generosity and kindness towards enemies

Consecutive – (of events) following one after another without an interruption

Impudent – rude and respectful, especially towards someone who is older or in a more important position

Drooping – bending or hanging down heavily    

Heredity – the process by which characteristics are able to be given from a parent to their child through the genes

Mob – to gather around (someone) in a crowd to express admiration, interest or anger

Vengeance – the punishing of someone for harming you or your friends or family, or the desire for such punishment to happen
Guillotine – a limit on the amount of discussion allowed about a particular law in Parliament, which is made by setting a fixed time before a final vote must be taken

Inclination – a preference or tendency; a feeling that makes a person want to do something

Circumlocution – an indirect way of saying something, especially something unpleasant

Falter – to lose strength or purpose and (almost) stop

Rummage – to search for something by moving things around without care and looking into, under and behind them

Obliterate – to remove all sign of (something) either by destroying it or by covering it so that it cannot be seen

Decrepit – in very bad condition because of being old, or not having been cared for, or having been used a lot

Pungent – very strong, sometimes in an unpleasant way

Eradicate – to get rid of completely or destroy

Emerge – to appear by coming out of something or out of from behind something

Exaltation – a very strong feeling of happiness

Fussy – having too much decoration and too many small details, in a way that it is not stylish

Innocuous – completely harmless

Transcendental – extremely special and unusual and cannot be understood in ordinary ways

Conjure – to make something appear by magic

            The way Herzen presents his work is very different from other authors. In the chapter “Consolatio” a reader can notice that the whole chapter consists of the dialogues. In this chapter the dialogue occurs between a middle-aged doctor and a young lady. In this part of the book the correlation between the educated minority and the people is a very important question for Herzen.     

            The doctor thinks that the revolution is hopeless. It is made by the educated people, but the nation doesn’t need it, because that is exactly what happened to the revolution in 1848. To the educated people the reaction of the nation itself was very offensive.

            In “Consolatio” Herzen showed the point of view of empire and also revolutionary romanticism.

Part 2: reasoned response

            Russian philosopher, publisher, writer, and revolutionary Alexander Herzen was born in 1812 in Russia, during the war between Russia and France. Herzen’s revolutionary character and intellectual development was formed under the influence of the social experience of the Decembrists, the July revolution of 1830 in France, the Polish rebellion during 1830-1831, and under the influence of Pushkin. An aspiration to know the unity of people with nature, to understand matter, and an awareness of empirical experience can be found in his works of the 1830s. 

             Herzen wanted to change the society he lived in; he tried to wake the people up to change it with him. He wrote numerous philosophic novels. At that time these types of publication were banned. But Herzen’s articles were printed, because he had the ability to write the novels in such a way that nobody could even imagine what important thing was hidden inside them.

            Herzen loves Russia. He begins his work “Consolatio” with comparing France with Russia. He says that of all the suburbs of France, he likes Montmorency more, because it reminds him of the Russian woods. And when walking the streets of France he feels sad for a moment, because he then realizes that it is not Zvenigorod, but France instead. Instead of seeing a farmer’s house, he sees Jean-Jacques’s house. In his work “Consolatio” the author introduces the readers to the young lady and the doctor. Then the argument between the lady and the doctor starts after they begin talking about Mr. Rousseau.

             They start discussing his life, and the way he died. This way was a miserable way of life, because nobody loved him. Instead his enemies spoiled his life, discussing him in a bad way, and gossiping about him. This topic then leads them to the discussion of imperialism, and idealism.  The whole story then develops with the help of dialogues between the lady and the doctor. The argument between the lady and the doctor is an argument between the romantic and the empirical.

            At this point, we cannot exactly say whom Herzen supports more, the doctor or the lady. Sometimes it seems like Herzen himself is speaking with the voice of the lady, and sometimes with the voice of the doctor. That is why in the dialogues of the chapter we can see that after arguing with each other, the doctor and the lady agree. The opinion of the doctor is the antithesis of imperialism, whereas the opinion of the lady is the thesis of idealism.    

            Herzen shows the doctor as the representative of the educated minority. He has seen the world. He is not like an ordinary doctor anymore. His cultural horizon has widened. The lady, on the contrary, shows her romantic point of view. That is why “Consolatio” is special in the whole book “From the other shore”.

            In “Consolatio” the author presented the point of view of narrow empires, and the point of view of the revolutionary romanticism. The doctor is speaking about “narod”, people, but in real, we can imagine the silhouette of the small proprietor, bourgeois – the first  sketch  of the image of the “future” character of Herzen’s work in 1850-60s.When the  talk comes to the theme of bourgeois the lady and the doctor agree with each other.

            In “Consolatio” the “advanced” and educated minority is opposed to bourgeois. But “advanced” minority is not still the people of the future. They are the people of cataclysm epoch, the epoch of social revolution. They are those that are suffering from all the contradictions between two worlds. That is the character of the novel “From the offshore”. 

            The book “From the offshore” differs from all other Herzen’s works, because it has many chapters that carry the important question of society in 1850s. The main part of the book is “Consolatio”, which as other chapters of book is written in a dialogue between the lady and the doctor. The dialogue is the argument between representatives of the two worlds: empiric and romanticism. The thing that makes this chapter so special is that in this chapter the character of the future – the character from Herzen’s point of view is formed.

Bibliography:

1.      “A.I.Herzen. Sobranie sochinenii” (А. И. Герцен. Собрание сочинений в восьми томах. Том 3). Moscow: Pravda, 1975.

2.      Encyclopedia “Krugosvet”.  3 September, 2007. Yandex. 10 December 2007 (http://www.krugosvet.ru/articles/68/1006868/1006868a1.htm).

Russian Philosopher Essay

Ross Hacquebard:  B00492571

RUSN-1020

December 10^th, 2007

RUSN 1020.03 Section 2 Russian Culture and Civilization Under the Tsars

Billington Assignment 4

What were the Consequences of the Crimean War?

            The Crimean War started in 1853 and was a battle between Russia and an allied force which consisted of England, France, Sardinia, and the Ottoman Empire.  The battle took place in the Crimean area close to the black sea and was a battle that the allieds joined forces for to stop Russian expansion in to the Black Sea area of Europe.  The area in which the battle took place is modern day Ukraine.  It was noted as one of the first battles that encompassed true warfare and technological changes in battle and ended in 1856.  It was considered the first full armed conflict in Europe and would signify the future of warfare in Europe.  Women were first included in this battle, in which they served as nurses to injured soldiers.  The telegraph was newly invented and was utilized by the allied forces to increase communication and be able to give more direct orders.  The Russian defeat in this war reduced their military powers and presence within the Black Sea region which was signified by the Treaty of Paris which was signed to end the war.  The war signified a time of turbulence that would eventually lead to WWI in the next era of Europe.  The treaty was one of the first in its kind to encompass a wide array of measures, ones that would damage Russia’s presence in the region.  Russia also lost territories such as Romania and Serbia which were given independence from the Treaty of Paris.  The war was devastating for Russia, as many people felt the government was useless and signified a period of political reform through Alexander II who took control in 1855.  To be on the same level economically and politically as Western powers, Russians needed to go and give liberation to the Serfs who were the peasants of Russia.  They were now able to gain land rights and be truly recognized as people within their nation.  [1] It gave the death-blow to the repressive system of the Emperor Nicholas, and produced an intellectual movement and a moral revival which led to gigantic results.  Through the Crimean War, Russia also came to a new age that signified the next phase of Russia which did not include the royal family and the Tsar.  Russia’s once dominant hold on Eastern Europe was reduced from the war and they were given little subsistence for any future expansion in the future.  They also lost Austria which sided with the allieds during the war and in the future became a German stronghold.  It can be determined that the Crimean War changed Russian ideology enough to have them ready for a new regime that would later on in history contribute tothe Soviet Union.

Works Cited

-Ponting, Clive.  The Crimean War. London: Chatto & Windus, 2004.  

-Royle, Trevor. Crimea: The Great Crimean War, 1854-1856.  London: Abacus, 2000

- Saari, Peggy. "War And Conflict: Pre-Twentieth Century: What Was The Crimean War?." History Fact Finder. Ed. Julie L. Carnagie. UXL-GALE, 2001. eNotes.com. 2006. 8 Dec, 2007 <http://www.enotes.com/history-fact-finder/
war-conflict-pre-twentieth-century/what-was-crimean-war>

RUSN 1020.03 Section 2 Russian Culture and Civilization Under the Tsars

Billington Assignment 3

Who was Konstantin Pobedonostsev?

            Konstantin Pobedonostsev was famous for his political presence in Russia.  Never really a leader, he was always a confidante to many Russian politicians and leaders such as Alexander III. [1] Usually regarded as a prime representative of Russian conservatism, he was the gray cardinal of imperial politics during the reign of his disciple Alexander III of Russia, holding the position of the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod, the highest position of the supervision of the Russian Orthodox Church by the state.  He worked closely with the Tsars of Russia and was considered one of the most important political statesman of his era.  He was known for his intelligence and developed a literary work called The Course of Civil Law which became important for many Russians who were involved with civil law and wanted to know more about it.  He had an interesting stance on the nature of human beings, as he felt that humans were too problematic to guide themselves in to proper government.  His ideals on humans deemed them as creatures without morality and the proper intellect or desire to govern themselves.   He did not agree with Western ideals such as democracy and freedom which made his image stand out more to the Russian political spectrum.  His stance on modern ideals concerned with Science and humanity were concrete.  His thoughts on science and Darwinism were conservative as he wanted these aspects to be banned from Russian thought. Konstantin Pobedonostsev was the image of conservatism in Russia as his presence pushed for limited social reform.  The non-progressive ideals that he was in favour of did not gain him respect from the Russian people over the years to come.  His denouncement of other religions, especially the Jews would set a precedence in Russia for future generations.  Through the lack of progression in his ideals he was deemed as an obscurantist and a threat to the further development of Russia.  The ideals of Konstantin Pobedonostsev can be important aspect to the development of the Soviet Empire which was to rise in the generations after his role in Russia.  Through the beliefs that he instilled and the political presence that he had amongst rulers, Konstantin Pobedonostsev can be described as one of the most influential political statesman in Russian history.

Works Cited

-         Byrnes, Robert Francis.  Pobedonostsev, his life and thought. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1968.

-         Thompson, Ronald. The Government of the Soviet Union, 2nd edition. D. Van Nostrand, 1949.

            In the excerpt “Belinsky’s Letter to Gogol”, Belinsky one of Russia’s most renowned literary critics is not in favour of Gogol’s newly printed book Selected Excerpts from Correspondence with Friends.  Some would acclaim Gogol as being one of the heroes of Russian writers because of his satirical books of Russian social and political problems.  Belinsky’s letter to Gogol criticizes Gogol as well as a way of speaking his mind about Russian politics and a compliment to the Russian populace.  Gogol is unable to print this criticism freely at the time because of the oppression from the government so instead writes it as a direct letter to Gogol himself, this letter was not printed to the public until 1906.

            The letter begins with Belinsky mentioning his thoughts; Gogol seems to be saying he is better than the people who admired him and that Gogol could not be one who loves his country by the mere fact of mentioning the views in his book.  Gogol said that this book was written in the most sincerest way possible, Belinsky on the other hand cannot see how this is possible because it takes blatant shots towards the goals that the Russian population themselves wish to achieve, such as illiteracy, slavery and equal opportunity.  Gogol mentions how the serfs do not need to learn how to read and how the serf owners can make a better profit.  Belinsky compares former works of Gogol to his new book.  He cannot understand how someone who has gained such respect from the massive population decides to throw it all away.  He cannot understand why he would want to please the upper class who did not like him to begin with because of his previous works.  The writer of the letter continues to go on about what a disgrace the book is and how it has damaged Gogol's name.  Not only does he say it straight forward, but insults Gogol by references to his book with phrases like "Either you are ill...take a cure", "Your book shows greater intellect and even talent...though neither is very abundant" and "You are greatly mistaken if you believe your book has come to grief...because of the harshness of truths...".  Belinsky also criticizes Gogol and says that Gogol assumes these things about the Russian population because he views Russia’s society from a "beautiful faraway" and sees only what he wants to so everything should work how he wants it to work.  Actually witnessing everything taking place however, would have been a more accurate way to view Russia.  Belinsky still praises Gogol for his former works by saying how Gogol was able to write in a way that enabled the population of Russia to "view herself as in a mirror" perhaps as a reminder of what Gogol was to the population in hopes that he will change the path he seems to be taking.  Belinsky goes on to compliment the Russian population for also viewing Gogol's newest "contribution" to society as an insult.  He says Russians are not afraid of oppression from religion.  He says "If it isn't good for praying, it's good for covering the pots" he continues by stating "[Russians] have to much common sense...and positive a mind" to believe in hope of a god and states that Gogol clearly does not see this and therefore does not understand the Russian population at all.  Belinsky finishes by reminding Gogol to be a writer that the population admires.  He suggests for him to write about what is truly happening in society no matter how much trouble the upper class gives, and says he should not bend to the desire of the upper class in order to live a nice life while others are still suffering.

            I strongly agree with what Belinsky is saying in this letter, I feel he is greatly disappointed in the fact that someone such as Gogol has completely changed his views about the Russian politics and social status quo.  Belinsky acclaimed Gogol as the country’s “hope, pride, glory, one of the great leaders on its road to awareness, development, and progress.”  It seems that Belinsky greatly respected Gogol and all of his works up to that point, and all of a sudden, the print of this new book astounds him.  It is almost comparable to a child who idolizes an athlete and lives by the morals of that athlete preaches; to “work hard, study hard and be a good person” only to find out that their idol did none of these things to get to where they are at now.  Instead they find out that this athlete has cheated along the road of hard work, something like that could utterly destroy a child’s hopes and dreams, but just like a child isn’t willing to believe these rumours about their athlete so does Belinsky offer excuses to why Gogol may have printed this work.  Belinsky believes that this may be a result of an inflated ego brought on by all the admiration of the public.  He also suggests that Gogol is so far reserved from what is actually going on in the country that he thinks everyone is content and that things seem to be working out fine as they are and should continue this way, neither of these excuses I feel are acceptable and neither does Belinsky.  Belinsky just states that if this were the case then he would be willing to forgive Gogol for making a mistake, as would everyone else including me.  Belinsky also mentions that it may be a result of a mental disability being brought on by old age but knows this is not the case, I think he is just trying to exaggerate the stupidity of this book.  There is also a mention that the only people who approve of this one book of Gogol’s are the upper class political powers.  This is clearly because of the fact that it is what they want to hear.  Belinsky mentions this to Gogol probably to point it out that even though he printed one book in favour of these people in hopes of living a more comfortable life style; these people are not likely to forgive Gogol of all his life’s work and the image he obtained in the eyes of the lower class for one nice book.  It is almost as if Belinsky is posing the question: Is it actually worth it?  Because Belinsky clearly thinks it is not, Belinsky goes on to mention how Gogol insults the lower class.  He states that there is no need to teach them to read and calling the serfs “unwashed snout” which is insulting to anybody.  Belinsky feels this is unforgivable and that maybe they would not have such derogatory nicknames if people were not preaching about how things should remain the same.  This was one of my favourite quotes, Belinsky refers to the fact that Gogol used to be one fighting for these people and opposed to such terms and now he is the one saying it; it is as if Belinsky is trying to make Gogol hate himself.

            I do not agree with anything Belinsky has to say in his letter that mentions his own view of the politics in Russia.  This letter was for Gogol for which Belinsky could mention his displeasure of the book not a chance for Belinsky to tell Gogol about what he should be writing.  It seems like Belinsky contradicts what his whole letter was meaning to say by voicing his own opinion.  It is almost like a professor asking you for your own opinion and then telling you it is wrong because it is not what they want to hear.

            Parts of the letter seem to be trying to persuade Gogol to return to his old views of the society and politics, not in a begging manner but as a suggestion.  Belinsky continuously reminds Gogol those who admire him disapprove of this book where they did not disapprove of former works.  Belinsky also says that this letter does not just come from him but is the opinions of all the people that he and Gogol know and even those of which they have never met.

            I do not feel that Belinsky intends to become enemies with Gogol since it is just Belinsky’s job to criticize.  I think the Belinsky is actually trying to tell Gogol that if he does change political opinions it would be great lose to the forward progress of Russian civilization.  This is because he is such a great satirist of the political class, admired, and loved by people of the lower class who need someone to put their hopes and beliefs into, someone to fight for their needs.  It might also be a plan of Belinsky’s, instead of coming right out and saying it, he mentions the people who are beginning to hate him.  Another way of looking at it is he will be giving so much up and many will miss him.   

Bibliography of further reading:

"V. G. Belinskii." DOCUMENTS IN RUSSIAN HISTORY. Seton Hall University, Russian and East

European Studies Program. 3 Dec 2007 <http://artsci.shu.edu/reesp/documents/Belinskii.htm>.

"Nikolai Gogol." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 1 Dec 2007

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Gogol>.

"Nikolay (Vasilyevich) Gogol (1809-1852)." Books and Titles. 2002. 3 Dec 2007

<http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gogol.htm>.

"N I K O L A I G O G O L." 1997. Odessa Globe. 1 Dec 2007 <http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gogol.htm>.

"Vissarion Grigor'evich Belinskii." Books and Titles. 2002. 3 Dec 2007

<http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/belinsk.htm>.