The works of M. Y. Lermontov in the religious and philosophical criticism of V. S. Solovyov, D. S. Merezhkovsky and V. V. Rozanov

Balabaeva Angelina Sergeevna Research associate, A.M. Gorky Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences 121069, Russia, Moscow, Povarskaya 25a angelinabalabaeva@gmail.com

The period of the turn of the XIX-XX centuries is distinguished by many researchers as a special milestone in the domestic Lermontology. The year 1891, marked by the anniversary of the poet's death, became the starting point for the growth of academic and literary-critical interest in Lermontov. The first complete edition of the works of M. Y. Lermontov, edited by P. A. Viskovaty, dates from 1891^[1]. Modern researcher E. V. Glukhova has about 20 collections of works published in 1891 ^{[2, p. 132]}.

The 90s of the XIX century open a new period of literary criticism dedicated to the poet, who in turn contributed to the development of critical views on Lermontov representatives of the Silver Age, but the creative fruits of this period are not limited to symbolist criticism. It is then that the foundation is laid for the academic study of the poet's work. The compilers of the two- volume anthology "M. Y. Lermontov: pro et contra" directly point to three sets of studies that initiated the philosophical and philological study of Lermontov's legacy: "1) critical articles and essays by writers and thinkers of the turn of the XIX—XX centuries; 2) works of Russian Lermontologists of the 10-50s; 3) studies of our emigrants in the West and East" ^{[3, p. 6]}.

The works of V. M. Markovich devoted to the historical and literary analysis of the reception of Lermontov's creativity are of great help in the study of the perception of the Lermontov myth. It is noteworthy that Markovich considers not only A. Bely, V. Y. Bryusov and D. S. Merezhkovsky to be near-symbolist criticism, but also V. V. Rozanov and V. S. Solovyov (the latter, rather, as the forerunner of the symbolists). Here a separate question arises about the classification of critical methods and the possibility of distinguishing religious and philosophical criticism as a separate category. In T. V. Oblasova's monograph "The religious and philosophical trend in literary criticism of the turn of the XIX-XX centuries" this problem is widely covered. The researcher considers several approaches to classification based on chronological and typological criteria. In most classifications, the term "philosophical criticism" is somehow present, which, however, receives a different interpretation. Thus, E. L. Radlov, in a book dedicated to V. S. Solovyov, believes that all Russian literary criticism, starting with Belinsky, is philosophical, meaning by philosophicness "the desire to define a work from some fundamental point of view" ^{[4, p. 8]}. A.M. Pyatigorsky believes that literary criticism in Russia is a substitute for philosophy, since historically they turned out to be extremely close: literary texts became a natural material for philosophical reflection, and literary criticism borrowed a methodological apparatus from philosophy for its own purposes.

In a narrower sense, V. N. Konovalov writes about "philosophical criticism", meaning, firstly, criticism of the 30s - 40s of the XIX century (V. Belinsky, D. Venevitinov, I. Kireevsky, N. Nadezhdin, etc.), and secondly, criticism of the turn of the XIX- XX centuries, assuming they have a common subject and methodology. An even narrower interpretation, with which Oblasova stands in solidarity, is presented in the work of V. A. Keldysh: "philosophical criticism" receives a clarifying element — "religious and philosophical criticism" - and thanks to this allows us to attribute to this category a rather limited group of authors whose methodological, ideological base was religious philosophy. It seems obvious to include here the above-mentioned V. S. Solovyov, V. V. Rozanov, N. A. Berdyaev and other philosophers who combined their primary task with their own literary, journalistic activities, whose statements primarily illustrate their philosophical constructions. But is it legal to include D. S. Merezhkovsky in this galaxy, or is he a representative of the so—called symbolist criticism? It seems to us that the figure of Merezhkovsky is at the junction of these two typological characteristics: some of his works tend to attempt a religious and philosophical interpretation of Russian literature, are closely related to his (and Z. N. Gippius) ideas about the religion of the Third Testament, fit into the context of his historiosophical quest. Russian Russian literature history and Lermontov's work certainly provides a rich ground for mystical and religious interpretations of his fate, the very significance of his figure in the scale of the history of Russian literature determines the fact that Lermontov's assessment is necessary when trying to build a genealogy of Russian verse and Russian prose.

We believe that Solovyov, Rozanov and Merezhkovsky can be considered in a general context, but not near-symbolist, as V. M. Markovich wrote, but religious and philosophical criticism. The specific choice of the three authors is due to several reasons. Firstly, the proximity of interests: the problem of the correlation of life and creativity (the correlation of ontological, aesthetic and ethical principles) acts as such a common leitmotif, in addition to this — attempts to build a literary genealogy, to determine current creative (and not only creative) guidelines for modernity and, of course, to link them with the historical and spiritual future of Russia on the threshold of a new century. Secondly, taking into account the chronology of publications, we can confidently assume that each subsequent statement of the three critics was published taking into account the opinions of their predecessors.

In addition, all three are united chronologically by an earlier polemic about Pushkin, the tone of which was set by V. S. Solovyov's article "The Fate of Pushkin" (1891). In the most general form, Solovyov offers a religious and philosophical interpretation of the history of the Pushkin duel, and considers the poet's death as a combination of his personal will and God's Providence, that is, he sees in it logic and consistency, and not the vicissitudes of an ominous fate. In the circle of miriskusniki – participants of the anniversary Pushkin issue of the magazine "World of Art" – an almost collective opinion was formed that Solovyov's ethical criticism is retrograde. Merezhkovsky at the time of writing the article "Pushkin's Holiday" was convinced of the genealogical inheritance of poets of his circle to Pushkin. Rozanov's position has changed repeatedly: from dislike of Pushkin as a poet irrelevant to modernity ("A Note on Pushkin", 1899) to recognition of the need for Pushkin for the moral and aesthetic improvement of the younger generation ("Return to Pushkin", 1912).

So, our task is to examine the critical works of three authors and find out how the "philosophic" nature of their critical method is realized. Namely: which philosophical theories are reflected or illustrated on the material of Lermontov's poetic heritage. Further: what enriches the artistic myth of Lermontov, how the poet's figure is embedded in the genealogy of Russian literature, how his work is actualized at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. All this will allow not only to enrich the history of the reception of Lermontov's poetry during this period, but also to better understand the essence of ethical, aesthetic and religious concepts that critical philosophers rely on.

V. S. Solovyov

The analysis of Lermontov's personality and creativity by V. S. Solovyov is a continuation of the same ethical trend in the philosopher's criticism that was started in the article "The Fate of Pushkin": the moral inconsistency of the poet comes to the fore, the discrepancy between the talent given to him and the realization of the latter in reality. The philosopher considers Pushkin and Lermontov geniuses, with the only difference that Solovyov considers Lermontov's guilt to be unrepentant (cf. with how Pushkin transformed in the last days before his death), and his fall is consistent and natural.

Throughout his life, Lermontov was overcome by three demons with varying strength: bloodlust, shamelessness and pride. The philosopher borrows a semi–autobiographical Lermontov passage, known from the first line of the manuscript - "I want to tell you." The "tendency to destruction" that the hero of the passage has in childhood is attributed by Solovyov to Lermontov himself. Cruelty to nature eventually turns into cruelty to others and, above all, to women. Shamelessness, according to Solovyov, is found in the so-called "junker" or "ironic" poems, and Pushkin's erotic muse is contrasted with Lermontov's "pornographic" muse, of course, not in favor of the latter. The third, most serious sin of the poet is the sin of pride/pride. This is a remarkable detail: Solovyov writes about "pride" in a conversation about egoism and misanthropy, and when it comes to the poet's God-fighting moods, he switches to the concept of "pride".

Why are there exactly three sins? From a formal point of view, the number of these sins can be explained by Solovyov's practice of formalizing most of his constructions in the form of a triad, starting, first of all, from the Hegelian dialectic. A. F. Losev points to this in his monograph dedicated to Solovyov: "<...> he not only understood the essence of the Hegelian triad, but he himself constantly used it in his reasoning. The number "three" turned out to be so familiar to V. Solovyov that he very often used it even not in the sense of dialectics, but in the sense of just an ordinary system of reasoning or a story" ^{[5, p. 176]}. In his key work on ethics, The Justification of Good, Solovyov also carries out the idea of the trinity of qualities underlying moral relations. These are: shame (in relation to what is lower than a person), pity/compassion (for what is equal to him) and reverence (for what is higher than a person).

It seems that this triad was the reason for the allocation of three sins in Lermontov. Developing Solovyov's thought, we can build the following oppositions: shame — shamelessness, compassion — bloodlust (cruelty), reverence — pride (pride). Neglect of these fundamental concepts causes the final pathos of Solovyov's article: our task, as descendants, is to "expose the lies of the demonism sung by him [Lermontov]"^{[6, p. 366]}, thereby easing his posthumous "burden".

This appeal turns out to be all the more relevant because Solovyov is associated with the scourge of his generation: he sees Lermontov as a harbinger of the philosophy of Nietzscheanism. The idea of the exceptional significance of himself, his own superiority, which he discovers in the fate and work of Lermontov, turns out to be consonant with Nietzsche's concept of the superman. Solovyov agrees with them in the main thing: in the premise that a person needs to overcome his nature. But the basis of this transcendence should not be the selfish superiority of the individual personality, but the victory over the main "evil" of human reality — death. Instead of postulating the exclusive meaning of his own "I" — man—godhood — Solovyov sees the development of the human being in the idea of God-manhood, in following the path of the first God-man - Christ.

Lermontov's pride is most vividly realized, according to Solovyov, in Lermontov's God-fighting. The desire for the divine was never crowned with success for him, but it never faded away in him ("he was torn to the point of malicious despair to her [divine Vetilue – so Solovyov, borrowing an image from Pushkin's unfinished poem "Judith", denotes the divine principle – A. B.'s note] and did not achieve it"). Longing for the higher principle is transformed into a rebellion against the deity — it is noteworthy that Solovyov does not try to romanticize this rebellion in any way. On the contrary, he desacralizes him as much as possible, deprives him of a superhuman chosen halo. In connection with the poem "Demon" Solovyov writes: "Despite the splendor of the verses and the significance of the idea, it is just as impossible for me to speak with full seriousness about the content of the poem as it is to return to the fifth or sixth grade of the gymnasium" ^{[6, p. 364]}. The philosopher refuses to see a serious metaphysical background in Lermontov's God-fighting.

One can find in Solovyov's article, along with didactics, a kind of patronizing notes: this is especially noticeable in the finale of the article, where Solovyov calls for a correct attitude to the memory of Lermontov. Namely, it is necessary to expose the sin of demonism and individualism sung by the poet in order to "ease the burden that lies on this great soul" ^{[6, p. 367]}. This disposition of forces evokes two associations: from the biblical story and from the lyrics of Lermontov himself. First, the biblical story about the sons of Noah: Japhet, Shem and Ham. For Solovyov, who knew the Hebrew language and thoroughly knew the Holy Scriptures, such a parallel, it seems to us, could be obvious. Secondly, Lermontov's poem "Duma", his final lines:

And our ashes, with the strictness of a judge and a citizen,

A descendant will offend with a contemptuous verse,

The bitter mockery of a deceived son

Over a squandered father.

("Duma", 1838)

Of course, we will not find a direct dependence of the image of Lermontov in the article on the image of his father who squandered his fortune in his poem, but the semantic connotations are clearly present: Lermontov's state is his genius, which he did not realize properly and, like the buried talent from the parable, left in vain.

Subsequent criticism was discouraged not only by Lermontov's critical assessment, but also by some kind of critical "blindness" that the philosopher showed in relation to the poet. Thus, religious motives, primarily related to the image of Eternal Femininity, were completely excluded in the Solovyov article. The theologian and literary figure S. N. Durylin rightly pointed out that the whole palette of images associated with Eternal Femininity in Lermontov — the image of the beloved, mother, Mother of God, nature — all of them are reflected in the poetic work of Solovyov himself. Durylin even cites as an example an allusion to Lermontov's poem "How often, surrounded by a motley crowd..." in Solovyov's poem "Three Dates": Sofia appears to the lyrical hero in one of his three visions with "eyes full of azure fire".

It seems to us that the reason for such "blindness" lies in the ideological crisis of Solovyov's later work. Researchers, for example, the Polish scientist Jan Krasicki^[7], characterize the last decade of Solovyov's philosophical activity as an eschatological period, the destruction of theocratic hopes and disappointment in the evolutionary nature of history. The idea, close to St. Augustine, of evil as a lack of good, as well as the innate desire of all living beings for Good, is replaced by the belief that evil has a substantial nature, and the world is an arena of direct confrontation between Good and Evil. In such a coordinate system, the detection of evil and the fight against it becomes an urgent task. The idea of man-divinity, the harbinger of which Solovyov sees Lermontov, directly contradicts the idea of God-manhood, which is thought by the philosopher as the only possible spiritual path of mankind to progress. Therefore, for Solovyov, it is necessary to point out, first of all, the fallacy of such a worldview, the inadmissibility of its aestheticization and romanticization of Lermontov's demonism.

D. S. Merezhkovsky

The article by D. S. Merezhkovsky "M. Y. Lermontov (Poet of Superhumanity)" (1909) attracts attention not only with a new reading of the poet's personality and creativity, but also with interesting parallels between Solovyov and Lermontov, whom Merezhkovsky calls "Abel and Cain of Russian Literature" ^{[8, p. 168]}, assuming them to be extremely close friends a friend. And it is this closeness, according to Merezhkovsky, that causes the sharp condemnation of Lermontov by Solovyov.

The theme of childhood appears in connection with Lermontov in a positive way: if for Solovyov the content of the poem "Demon" corresponds to the thoughts of a young high school student and does not represent anything serious, then the opposition to Merezhkovsky "Pushkin — Lermontov" is also realized in the opposition of adulthood (with its inherent cold rationality, reasonableness) and childhood (with direct and unclouded a view of the world).

The New century represents a new childhood of a culture that radically rethought itself relative to the bygone XIX century. Childhood is at the same time the period in which a person is closest to God. It is interesting that such an antithesis in connection with the religious question shows an interesting difference in the attitude towards Christianity as a personal feeling in Merezhkovsky and Solovyov. If for Merezhkovsky it is the "children's prayer" that is relevant in the dying hour, only a pure children's religious feeling is significant, then Solovyov, on the contrary, does not idealize unconscious faith — religiosity that has passed through the crucible of doubt, backed by a rational conviction that God exists, that His truth is the only true one, is valued much higher by him.

For Merezhkovsky, the image of Lermontov is a unique example in Russian literature of a poet who "did not resign himself" to the end of his life. He declares his God-fighting to be "holy", recalling the biblical story about Jacob, who fought with God in the guise of an angel, demanding a blessing. It is no coincidence that Merezhkovsky sees in Lermontov one of the angelic souls who are sent to earth to make the final choice between good and evil. His rebellion is potentially productive, the self-determination of the human personality depends on its outcome. Lermontov's "litigation with God" has a metaphysical nature, it is not about "earthly" disputes, but about much higher matters. 

Lermontov's revolt against God paradoxically, at first glance, suggests the presence of some kind of shrine in the soul, which it is impossible to renounce "even under the threat of eternal perdition." Litigation with God can be conducted only if the Deity is recognized as such, as well as if there is a belief or phenomenon for which the struggle is being waged. It is closely related to the question of theodicy — the justification of God before the fact of the existence of evil. The poet's God—fighting, according to Merezhkovsky, has two outcomes - apostasy and sonship of God. The presence of a certain religious ideal and the desire to "reconcile with God" presupposes a path to sonship with God, which was not destined to end.

Interpretation of Lermontov's prophetic gift, which Solovyov saw in the legendary pedigree of the poet (the latter is a descendant of the Scottish bard-prophet Thomas Lermont), Merezhkovsky interprets differently: Lermontov's view is directed not to the past, but to the future. Recalling the "Divine Comedy", Merezhkovsky cites a gnostic legend about angels undecided between light and darkness (in Dante, the "flock of angels" is punished for "not having risen, it was not true // To the Almighty, observing the middle"), who are sent to earth to make the final choice. 

Solovyov's reproach of Lermontov's "shamelessness" gets a completely different explanation from Merezhkovsky: this is nothing but a desire for "forgiveness", a desire to get away from your unearthly nature and become "like everyone else". In general, in many ways, this article is a response to Solovyov's "Lermontov" — recognizing Solovyov's article as a traditional desire to "beat Lermontov by Pushkin" (as if forgetting that two years earlier Solovyov had made an equally rigorous analysis of Pushkin's fate from the point of view of higher morality), he seeks to protect his honor. And just as Solovyov cites biographical or pseudo-biographical evidence of Lermontov's demonism, so Merezhkovsky finds reciprocal facts that speak of his high ideals: "Lermontov's grandmother, after the death of her grandson, mourned him so that her eyelids weakened and she could not lift them. She knew something about the "poisonous reptile" [P. A. Viskovaty quotes the words of Lermontov's enemies, who called for "teaching the poisonous reptile a lesson" – A. B.], which Vl. Solovyov and Dostoevsky did not know"^{[8, p. 179]}.

Along with the motif of childhood, as a period approaching the divine truth, an even more important theme sounds in Merezhkovsky's article — Eternal Femininity. This is the point at which Solovyov and Lermontov, Abel and Cain of Russian literature, "unexpectedly met and embraced like twin brothers" ^{[8, p. 201]}. Eternal Femininity here appears synonymous with Sofia, but, of course, in the interpretation of Merezhkovsky, not Solovyov.

However, the main features of Sofia are preserved in Merezhkovsky: she combines the images of the Mother ("this song of the beloved reminds [Lermontov] of the song of the mother"), the Mother of God ("He came to the Mother in addition to the Son"), the eternal virgin, the beloved and even Mother Nature ("The Religion of Eternal Femininity, Eternal Motherhood is leaving their roots are in the "mother raw earth" — in the element of the people").

In all these aspects, Sofia Lermontova is related to Sofia Solovyov: it is enough to mention the classification of Sofia's images in A. F. Losev's monograph ^{[5, p. 200]} about Solovyov, or the memoirs of the philosopher's nephew about the lyrical cycle of Vladimir Sergeevich to his beloved Finnish Lake Saimaa ("Saimaa Solovyov called his last love" ^{[9, p. 330]}. What is the difference between the ideas of the Eternal Femininity of the philosopher and the poet according to Merezhkovsky?

"Vl. Solovyov's Eternal Femininity, although it "descends to the earth," but it is doubtful that it reached the earth" ^{[8, p. 200]}. Merezhkovsky does not find in Solovyov's sophiology the deification of matter. Moreover, the general view of Solovyov's philosophy allows us not only to talk about the significant role of the material principle, but also about its inseparability in the idea of the world. Losev, in a conversation about the idealism of the philosopher, remarks: "of all the types of idealism that have existed in the history of philosophy, Sophia idealism is in the material sense the most saturated" ^{[5, p. 507]}. Beauty, one of the three components of the Absolute, is tangible, accessible to human senses, an active element of the historical process — it is "not an object of contemplation, but an instrument of transformation of both the whole existing and the world as a whole" ^{[5, p. 564]}.

Sofia Solovyova is also the Church, the Bride of Christ, who cannot exist outside of Christ. In the parallel triads that line up in Solovyov's ontology, the Soul-Sophia discovers its connections with the Holy Spirit of the Trinity. Merezhkovsky goes further — the religion of the Third Testament presupposes the replacement of the Holy Spirit by the Most Holy Theotokos — Eternal Femininity ^{[10, p. 68]}. The introduction of the feminine principle into the canonical trinity raises, among other things, the problems of love and the same deification of matter-flesh. It is interesting at the same time that, according to researchers, the idea of the "sanctity of the flesh" was learned by Merezhkovsky and Gippius from Solovyov — "when the path to salvation is seen not only within the framework of gender issues, but also in the reunion of man with God, where the "sanctity of the flesh" serves as a pass for those returning to the gates of paradise, and love-falling in love is the base that should become the source of a new cult"^{[10, p. 73]}. 

Solovyov really recognizes the importance of the natural principle in the matter of love: "An angel or a pure spirit does not need enlightenment and spiritualization; only the flesh is enlightened and spiritualized, and it is a necessary object of love" ^{[11, p.31]}. However, the recognition of the significance of the flesh serves only as an argument for the need for its transformation; it is valuable for its future transformed essence, and not for the current sinful, earthly state. It seems that for Merezhkovsky, matter is important precisely for its imperfection — how important is the love of Lermontov's Varenka with his earthly "birthmark". His philosophy of the sanctity of the flesh, as it were, reads into the Lermontov context this equivalence of the spiritual and the earthly.

Rethinking Christian dogmas and the Christian worldview in general is an important marker of the religious philosophy of the Silver Age. And if we, following N. K. Bonetskaya, can call Solovyov the "father of the Silver Age" ^{[12, p. 309]}, then Merezhkovsky is rather already his active figure, who adopted the concepts of Sophia, sexual love and the Universal Church, but hyperbolized them, bringing them to an extreme bordering on paganism. The hermeneutic method, which, according to the researcher of Merezhkovsky's philosophy, he uses as a critic, the author of "Eternal Companions", brings interesting, but controversial from the point of view of traditional theology, fruits.

V. V. Rozanov

The figure of V. V. Rozanov, in our opinion, most vividly illustrates the image of a critic of the religious and philosophical direction. The close connection of the philosophical and journalistic principles proper in his writings, which has become a byword for his inconsistency and fragmentary nature (with which, however, many researchers do not agree) force him to "catch" individual theses in a wide range of works. Thus, thoughts and impressions about Lermontov can be found both in articles dedicated to the poet, and in philosophical monographs as illustrations for theoretical positions ("On Understanding"), and in essayistic "Fallen Leaves" and "Fleeting". S. M. Telegina cites Rozanov's own confession: "Lermontov" I go out alone on the road" and "When the yellowing field is agitated" or "I, the Mother of God", "The branch of Palestine" are magnificent "fleeting""^{[13, p. 124]}.

A common place is the statement that in his interpretation of Lermontov, Rozanov reads into the poet's lyrical texts his own philosophy, first of all, the theory of gender. At the same time, despite the prevailing positive assessment of his work, Rozanov expresses himself inconsistently: Lermontov is a poet of "anti—Christ", then - "our golden Gospel", in one case he is a poet of world pantheistic harmony, in the other — a poet of world discord, in contrast to Pushkin. In the case of the religious interpretation of Lermontov's personality and creativity, S. M. Telegina's idea that fluctuations in Rozanov's assessments correlate with periods of fluctuations in his own ideological attitudes seems convincing. The 1900s are characterized by her as Rozanov's fascination with Judaism and paganism, rapprochement with the Merezhkovsky couple, the circle of the magazine "World of Art". During this period, the most radical anti-Christian arguments of the philosopher fall out. The last period of creativity marks a return to the bosom of tradition: "In Rozanov's articles about the "Demon", the juxtaposition of paganism and Christianity leaves a feeling of ambiguity and understatement; for all his love for the "dear Egyptians", Rozanov, who "stayed above the abyss", did not pass the point of no return. This period was painful for the philosopher. Russian Russians loved the Orthodox Church as an exponent of the Russian national spirit, and believed that "only the Russian people and their church are one"^{[13, p. 161]}.

The first statement in print was his article "The Eternally sad Duel" (1898), the writing of which was caused by the publication of Martynov's son, designed to whitewash the memory of his father. In it Rozanov puts forward the thesis that Russian literature, contrary to popular belief, "went" not so much from Pushkin and Gogol as from Lermontov. These attempts to determine the place of Lermontov and the genealogy of Russian literature are original. Each of the three philosophers we are considering has made such an attempt; it is worth noting, however, that all three considered Lermontov primarily as a lyricist, not a prose writer. Solovyov contrasted Pushkin, as an organic poet, with Lermontov, a poet of reflection focused on his own self. The subsequent lyrical tradition sought to harmonize these opposites, to synthesize pure inspiration and rationality. Merezhkovsky, pursuing his main idea about the poet's "non-peacefulness", contrasts him with the entire pantheon of Russian classics. In this regard, Lermontov, dear to Rozanov's heart, is not put in opposition to him in order to identify individual characteristic features, but rather, the whole set of Lermontov's features is revealed separately in Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy. The four of them, in turn, are more relevant than ever at the turn of the century, are modern "orgiasts" — passionate exponents of concrete thought, delving into the most secret corners of the human spirit, as Rozanov writes in the anniversary article "A Note about Pushkin".

Already in his early works, the philosopher's pantheistic moods manifest themselves: he repeatedly emphasizes the living, even anthropomorphic nature of nature, the presence of God in it: "In Lermontov, nature is essentially vital. The idea of “death“ as ”non-existence" is completely absent from him. Death only opens up a "new world" for him, with the caresses and charms of almost here"^{[14, p. 298]}. It is noteworthy that the Christian God in subsequent articles is reincarnated into an abstract "god", outside of a specific religion, or even completely anti-Christian. Rozanov declares that "god" (with a lowercase letter!) in the poems "When the yellowing field is agitated..." and "I go out alone on the road..." — rather, the god of ancient religions, the pantheistic god: "for here, as you already want there, but, in any case, it is not about "Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate", that is, not about firmly known historical Person"^{[15, p. 101]}.

In addition to being dissolved in nature, this god, this religion, blesses the fact of birth. It is known how much Rozanov was in awe of family and marriage. In this respect, Christianity for Rozanov is a religion of death, which sees a sinful nature in the act of conception and birth, in the sexual question itself. Here Rozanov partly approaches Merezhkovsky, for whom Lermontov's "earthly" feeling of love — for a woman, for nature — is contrasted with the ascetic "filia" of traditional Christianity, which for him is embodied in Solovyov. A. A. Golubkova, in confirmation of the idea that the sexual issue was relevant in connection with Lermontov, writes about the fact that "in the works concerning the theory of gender, he [Rozanov] cites Lermontov's work in confirmation of his thought about the religious nature of the "giving birth to the depths of man""^[16].

A separate plot is Rozanov's perception of Lermontov's demonism. The philosopher devoted three articles to the analysis of Lermontov's poem "The Demon", and, in addition to the literary work itself, to the phenomenon of the "demon" in the poet's personality and work. It seems that the "demon" for Rozanov is close to the Socratic "daimon" (), a spirit that has no negative connotations, a kind of "god", a guide to the divine world. The philosopher examines the entire history of the editions that the poem "Demon" acquired, but finds traces of this "spirit" in all of Lermontov's poems. At the same time, in the denial of the specifically evil or good nature of the Demon, one cannot see amoralism, which is partly noticeable in Merezhkovsky: according to Rozanov, it is a reflection of the ancient myth about the seduction of an earthly woman by a higher being – a myth evaluated positively (as communion with a host of deities), and not negatively (as temptation by the sin of adultery). Here we return again to the idea of sex and the union of the sexes as the source of all life, as a sacred sacrament contained in all nature.

Thus, it seems obvious that each of the three interpretations is based on some philosophical beliefs of each of the critics. A common tendency is to actualize Lermontov's work. However, for Solovyov, this actualization is presented with a minus sign, in the context of the philosophy of Nietzscheanism that was spreading, and with it the aestheticization of evil, immoralism, and sharp individualism. Merezhkovsky, on the contrary, sees Lermontov as a model for inspiration when creating a renewed, "improved" Church of the Third Testament – with attention to the issue of gender, to the ontological equivalence of Good and Evil. Rozanov also evaluates Lermontov positively from the point of view of the need to turn to the pagan-Jewish foundations of religion, as opposed to traditional Christianity (however, Rozanov's position correlates with his different attitude to Christianity throughout his work). The theme of God–fighting in Lermontov is consistently debunked by Solovyov - obviously in an attempt to desacralize and de-aesthetize the demonic principle, while Merezhkovsky declares this God-fighting "holy". The demon in Rozanov's understanding is close to the pagan idea of a spirit, a genius accompanying a person throughout life and is deprived of a negative halo. In general, the problem of religiosity is omitted by Solovyov, his opponents rightly point out that it is in his main manifestations – the image of Eternal femininity and the question of love – that Lermontov approaches not only Solovyov, the philosopher, but also Solovyov, the poet.