В статье рассматривается интеллектуальное и творческое взаимодействие двух выдающихся мыслителей XIX века — Ф. И. Тютчева и Н. Н. Страхова. На основе анализа переписки, рецензий и фактов издательской деятельности автор раскрывает три ключевых аспекта их диалога: оценку Тютчевым и Страховым творчества друг друга, публичную поддержку в журнальной полемике и совместное участие в издательских проектах. Особое внимание уделяется письму Л. Н. Толстого о встрече с Тютчевым, рецензии Страхова на биографию поэта, а также эпизодам защиты статей Страхова в Совете по делам книгопечатания и публикация стихотворения Тютчева в одном номере со статьей философа. Делается вывод о духовном родстве, общности почвеннических идей и взаимной защите мыслителей в публичной сфере, что позволяет говорить о глубоком интеллектуальном союзе, выходившем за рамки личного общения.

Ключевые слова: интеллектуальное родство, высокая поэзия, духовная традиция, защита мысли, переписки, издательство.

1) Opinion on Tyutchev and his work in letters and articles.

In the article on the biography of F. Tyutchev compiled by I. Aksakov [1], N. Strakhov reviews this work and gives his definition of the poet's personality, characterizing him not only spiritually but also in the context of a thinker of the time: «And besides, Tyutchev is a Slavophile, a political writer, one of the people who eloquently and loudly preached their opinions among society». The statement reveals the poet's political attitudes, which, in general, were also not neglected by N. N. Strakhov when discussing the present. Warm and complimentary words always accompanied the correspondence of the philosopher's circle of friends, in which I. Tyutchev was mentioned. Thus, L. N. Tolstoy informs N. N. Strakhov on September 13, 1871:

«Soon after you, I met Tyutchev on the railroad, and we talked for 4 hours. I listened more. Do you know him? He is a brilliant, majestic, and child-like old man. Of the living, I know no one but you and him with whom I would feel and think so identically. But at a certain height, the spiritual unity of views on life does not unite, as happens in lower spheres of activity, for earthly purposes, but leaves everyone independent and free. I experienced this with you and with him. We see the same thing below and next to us; but who we are and why and what we live for and where we will go, we do not know and cannot tell each other, and we are more alien to each other than my children are to me or even to you. But it is joyful on this deserted road to meet these alien travelers. And I experienced such joy meeting you and Tyutchev» [2].

Complete peace occurs with the poet even in the happy event of an unexpected meeting between L. N. Tolstoy and F. I. Tyutchev, where the existential and thinking dispositions of the two speakers are revealed. The dialogic character of the poet's personality is also traced in the excerpt, showing that he found a response in the hearts of his interlocutors, calling himself with complimentary words. The meeting at Chern station (Moscow-Kursk railroad, between Orel and Tula) was so etched in the writer's memory that he sent a letter to A. A. Fet (later N. N. Strakhov) in 1871, August 24...26: "...met Tyutchev in Chern and talked and listened for four stations and now, every hour, I remember this majestic and simple and so deep, truly smart old man» [3]. The poet is well-established in the circle of the philosopher's friends as an intellectually close soul. And all the meetings and thoughts about the alienness of L. N. Tolstoy converge on the beautiful poem by F. I. Tyutchev «Silentium!":

How can the heart find words to show

Itself, or how another know?

Can he discern what you live by?

A thought when spoken is a lie.

In turning up the soil, you cloud the spring; —

Drink from its depths, and do not sing.

The review of F. I. Tyutchev as a poet is given very concisely by N. N. Strakhov, but skillfully: «As for Tyutchev's poems in general, there is no doubt that these are works of the highest order, full and pure poetry. Of course, there is a reason why they were not successful. It is clear in them that the poet does not surrender freely to his inspiration and his verse. The wonderful language is not sufficiently melodious and free; the poetic thought, although bright and graceful, does not burst forth recklessly and therefore does not wash over the listener. But this complete self-possession, this finishedness of thought and form does not exclude poetry; Tyutchev has impulses, moans and cries, subtleties and naivety, not inferior to any poets who are carried away and flooded in their singing. He has no non-poetic prose in his verses, and he gives us all his poetry in the form of real, pure gold, as it appeared in his soul. He was a man of deep education and fine taste, and this was reflected in both the content and the form of his verses. Whoever takes him as he is will experience the fullest pleasure that poetic creativity can give» [1]. The clever beauty of Tyutchev's poems lies in their extreme brevity and concentration. N. N. Strakhov gives an extremely accurate commentary on the nature and creativity of the poet, delving into negative aspects of the reflection of personality in lyrical form, but adding understanding to this shortcoming, leading to «complete self-possession», «impulses, moans and cries, subtleties and naivety», which shows the true magnitude of F. I. Tyutchev's poetic flight. How much pleasure can be obtained from the commentary, not to mention the poems themselves:

Only know how to live within yourself —

There is a whole world in your soul

Of mysterious-magical thoughts;

They will be deafened by external noise,

Daylight rays will disperse them, —

Heed their singing — and be silent!..

2) Publishing Activities.

In late September 1870, the St. Petersburg journal Zarya (No. 9) was published, where N. N. Strakhov defended lyrical poetry from the attacks of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin and N. H. Nekrasov: «But no matter how the journals led by Mr. Nekrasov tried to discourage readers from any poetry except that which Mr. Nekrasov is engaged in, they obviously did not succeed in this. For example, the success of Tyutchev, a very profound poet, very high in the structure of his lyre, clearly shows that we still have a significant audience for the highest types of poetry» [4]. Here we encounter the context of journal publishing and the position of the philosopher's circle of friends in a conflict initiated by N. H. Nekrasov: «One could more than repay Mr. Nekrasov for all the insults that for many years were inflicted on other poets in the journals that stood and stand under his leadership» [4]. Note that N. N. Strakhov defends his favorite poets (Ya.P. Polonsky) in this criticism, upholds the beauty of their word, believes that there are still people who value high poetry, opposing them to N. H. Nekrasov and his society, who instead of love for the Russian person are proud of their education and completely «maintain their contemptuous gaze at the people» [4]. Admiration for the poets' works as a whole went beyond personal correspondence and moved into the public sphere, where support was provided by the critic, philosopher, and publicist N. N. Strakhov.

But not only did N. N. Strakhov defended his revered circle, but F. I. Tyutchev also assisted in the philosopher's publishing. Thus, on May 7, 1864, the poet attended a meeting of the St. Petersburg Council for Press Affairs and «supported A. V. Nikitenko's proposal to allow N. N. Strakhov's article, which had been banned by the St. Petersburg Censorship Committee» [5, 111]. On this day, Nikitenko wrote that «Tyutchev came to amazement and indignation» [5, 111] because of the ban on Strakhov's article on Polish affairs, written on A. V. Golovnin's brochure. Nikitenko further wrote and asked: «Can this be brought to the sovereign's attention? Tyutchev took it upon himself to show the brochure to Prince Gorchakov. Won't he do this?" [5, 111].

Already from two fragments, it is traced how personalities united by a common problem defend each other's positions in the public area of book printing and criticism.

There was also a more specific meeting between Strakhov and Tyutchev. In May 1867, the poet sent a note to N. N. Strakhov: «Here are some verses on a contemporary theme for you, dearest Nikolai Nikolaevich. You may, if you see fit, give them for placement in that issue of Otechestvennye Zapiski — in which Strakhov's article will be printed, but without a signature» [5, 256–257]. The poem «Once here, mighty and beautiful»... (under the title «Modern» or «Smoke», which is a dispute among researchers) was written in connection with the story «Smoke» (Dym) by I. S. Turgenev. N. N. Strakhov's article against the writer's work was also supposed to appear on the pages of this journal. "...The editorial office used [the poem] for its own purposes, printing it not in the poetry section, but in the criticism section, immediately following Strakhov's article, which made the poem an exceptional critical response to Turgenev's story» [6]. The connection between Strakhov and Tyutchev is already traced here both in the form of the arrangement of two successively connected works by the editorial office and in the order of printing two reviewers of one story, which, in general, points to a joint response and reflection on the problems of modernity. Strakhov in his article analyzes the problems of understanding the Russian person by Europe, and Tyutchev gives a response in a poem about the conspiracy of the «society of arsonists» [6]. Two themes, two critics are addressed to contemporary problems, which unites them in their reflection on the West. Emphasizing the contexts of the article and the poem, one can highlight: love for the homeland, fear of understanding the person of Russia—all these problems converge on the ideas of «pochvennichestvo», which also united Strakhov and Tyutchev.

Based on the analyzed empirical material (L. N. Tolstoy's letter of September 13, 1871, A. V. Nikitenko's entry of May 7, 1864, the publication strategy of Otechestvennye Zapiski in 1867), it seems possible to put forward the following assumptions that require further verification on a wider corpus of sources.

First, the predominantly epistolary and journalistic format of communication. The absence of frequent personal meetings (only a single record of a long conversation at Chern station is known) suggests that the core of interaction consisted of mediated forms — correspondence, editorial agreements, synchronous publications. This did not reduce, however, the density of ideological exchange.

Second, functional asymmetry of roles. Strakhov acted as a «legitimizer», introducing Tyutchev's poetry into the philosophical-publicist discourse of «high poetry» and opposing it to the «civic» line of Nekrasov. Tyutchev, on the contrary, acted as a «non-public ally», using his administrative resources (including ties with Prince Gorchakov) to lift censorship bans on Strakhov's articles.

Third, ideological coordination in public performances. The situation of 1867 (Tyutchev's poem, placed by the editorial office not in the poetic department, but directly after Strakhov's article in the criticism department) is interpreted not as an accident, but as a purposeful (possibly silently agreed upon) action aimed at creating a single front of criticism of Turgenev's Westernizing position. This case requires further archival study to clarify the degree of preliminary coordination between the authors.

Fourth, their shared belonging to a broader «circle of tacit agreement». L. N. Tolstoy's letter, in which Strakhov and Tyutchev are named as the only living people with whom the addressee «felt and thought so identically», allows us to hypothetically reconstruct an informal community that also included A. A. Fet and other «pochvenniki». The unifying factor was existential and worldview resonance, thematically echoing Tyutchev's «Silentium!" (a thought that is not subject to full verbal expression).

Thus, it is proposed to consider the connection between Tyutchev and Strakhov as a multi-channel intellectual alliance that functioned at three levels: personal-worldview (commonality of «pochvennichestvo» attitudes), publicist (joint appearances in print), and institutional (mutual assistance in overcoming censorship barriers). Further research may be aimed at identifying unpublished correspondence and reconstructing the chronology of their contacts.

References:

1. Strakhov N. N.: Biografiya Fedora Ivanovicha Tyutcheva. Soch. I. S. Aksakova [Biography of Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev. Works by I. S. Aksakov]. Moscow, 1886.
2. Tyutchev F. I. v dokumentakh, stat'yakh i vospominaniyakh sovremennikov [F. I. Tyutchev in documents, articles and memoirs of contemporaries]. M., 1999. p. 246.
3. Sovremenniki o F. I. Tyutcheve: Sb. lit.-krit., memuarnykh i epistolyarnykh materialov [Contemporaries about F. I. Tyutchev: Collection of literary-critical, memoir and epistolary materials] / Comp. by V. G. Dekhachov. 163 p. Pionerskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1984.
4. Strakhov N. N.: Nekrasov i Polonskiy (staraya orfografiya) [Nekrasov and Polonsky (old orthography)] Zarya, 1870, September.
5. Letopis' zhizni i tvorchestva F. I. Tyutcheva. Kniga tret'ya (1861–1873) [Chronicle of the life and work of F. I. Tyutchev. Book three (1861–1873)] / Comp. T. G. Dinesman, I. A. Korolyova, B. N. Shchedrinskiy. — M.: «Indrik»; Muzey-usad'ba «MURANOVO» im. F. I. Tyutcheva, 2012. — 592 p.
6. Dryzhakova, E. Neizvestnye avtografy F. I. Tyutcheva [Tekst]: [pis'mo Tyutcheva k N. N. Strakhovu ot 9 maya 1867 g.] [Unknown autographs of F. I. Tyutchev: [Tyutchev's letter to N. N. Strakhov dated May 9, 1867]] / E. Dryzhakova // Russkaya literatura. — 1959. — № 2. — pp. 203–205.