M. O. Menshikov about N. N. Strakhov: obituary as a manifestation of common views and the basis for bringing together the destinies of Russian critics

Krizhanovsky Nikolay Igorevich ORCID: 0000-0002-2764-7117 PhD in Philology Associate Professor, Department of Publicistic Writing and Journalism, Kuban State University 350040, Russia, 350040 G. Krasnodar, krai, g. Krasnodar, ul. Stavropol'skaya, 149 nicolaykri@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Mikhail Osipovich Menshikov (1859-1918) was an outstanding Russian publicist, journalist, and critic who received an education as a navigator of the navy in the 1870s and rose to the rank of staff captain by the early 1890s. Even during his service, he published in the newspapers Kronshtadtsky Vestnik, St. Petersburg Vedomosti, Morskaya Gazeta and began to work closely with the liberal-narodnik publication Nedelya by P. A. Gaideburov, where, after resigning in 1892, he became a member of the editorial board and from 1894 sometimes performed the duties of an editor. In the 1890s, Menshikov joined the circle of the capital's writers and journalists, established himself as a talented, hardworking and original author of notes, correspondence, literary criticism, journalistic works and journalistic investigations. In 1901, after the collapse of the editorial board of the Week, the publicist was invited by A.S. Suvorin to Novoye Vremya and for sixteen years he published several times a week as a leading analytical journalist. Since 1902, Menshikov began publishing a series of articles in the newspaper "Letters to Neighbors", which were subsequently published in separate pamphlets by month and combined into an annual volume. By the beginning of 1917, fifteen volumes of Letters to Neighbors had been published.

The genre of the obituary is a rare phenomenon among the many hundreds of works by M. O. Menshikov. If you look closely at the publications of this genre, you can see that almost all of them are about people with whom the publicist was well acquainted or closely communicated: about S. Ya. Nadson, P. A. Gaideburov, V. A. Gaideburov, N. A. Rykachev, N. S. Leskov, J. P. Polonsky, A. K. Scheller, F. F. Pavlenkov, E. K. Gaideburova, V. S. Solovyov, A. P. Chekhov, L. N. Tolstoy.

Apart from this row is the obituary of N. N. Strakhov, with whom Menshikov, as far as we know, could be familiar, but did not communicate closely and had no personal correspondence. What made the publicist write in 1896 about the great Russian critic who passed away?

When reading the obituary, another question arises related to understanding the creative evolution of the publicist: how was Menshikov able in the mid-1890s to understand so deeply and then express in the text the essence of Strakhov's work as a patriot and national thinker? After all, the publicist worked for the liberal-narodnik newspaper Nedelya and in his youth was fond of revolutionary ideas ^{[11, pp. 76, 141-143]}. In addition, a number of contemporaries of M. O. Menshikov (N. M. Mikhailovsky ^{[34, p. 121]}, P. M. Pilsky ^{[34, p. 179]}, I. I. Kolyshko ^{[34, p. 238]}, etc.), as well as some researchers of his work, talk about a fundamental change in the views of the publicist before the transition in the "New Time" and after: "... the ideals of Menshikov, the publicist of the "Week" and Menshikov, the publicist of the "New Time" turned out to be in many ways opposite" ^{[10, p. 101]}.

Of course, the work of Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov was known to Menshikov. This is evidenced by several facts, which we will refer to below. In the early 1890s, the publicist twice mentioned in his diary about reading the works of N.N. Strakhov. For example, in February 1890 (and this is the first known appeal to the work of a critic), after reading the article "From the preface to the works of Apollo Grigoriev," he wrote out several key quotations. One of them expresses, closely related to the works of A. A. Grigoriev, the formulation of Insurance's understanding of the essence of art and its ideal: "Art is not a simple image of life: it is certainly a judgment on it, a judgment in the name of the highest principles, only those that do not exist in distraction, but those who live and strive to be embodied in the life depicted. The ideal of the human soul (here and further emphasized by M. O. Menshikov – N. K.), according to Grigoriev, always and everywhere remains unchanged. <...> ...art is inherently national. Creativity is concluded<It is used in the creation of types, i.e. images of definitions<<url>>, organic<who > the warehouse of mental life" ^{[38, l. 22]}. In another extract from the same work, the critic's understanding of the essence of Pushkin's work is contained: "Pushkin's activity represents the struggle against various<with > ideals, with different<history> historical<eski> <url><there are > types of mental life" ^{[38, l. 22]}. If we comprehend both passages together, it becomes obvious that they attracted Menshikov primarily with the idea of embodying the national principle in art. Only in the first quote we are talking about the general approach of Ap. A. Grigoriev and N. N. Strakhov to the tasks of art and creativity, and in the second – about the essentially national creative activity of A. S. Pushkin. And by and large, these quotes reflected the ultimate goal of the entire work of both Strakhov and Menshikov himself, which consisted in reflecting and affirming the national ideal in criticism and journalism.

On November 4, 1894, in the diary of a publicist, it was casually noted that he had read "several pages" of N. N. Strakhov's book on philosophical anthropology and the theory of scientific knowledge "The World as a Whole" ^{[39, 53 vols.]}.

There are other diary entries related to the conservative author. M. O. Menshikov's desire to get to know the famous critic and thinker better, to communicate with him is evidenced by a diary entry dated December 4, 1891: a not-quite-sober friend of the writer I. L. Leontiev (Shcheglov), who came to visit the publicist, "volunteered to introduce" him to N. N. Strakhov, D. V. Averkiev and other famous writers and critics ^{[37, L. 28]}. Subsequently, this promise remained unfulfilled, but the combination in the record of two surnames of writers who knew Ap. A. Grigoriev closely and were friends with him indicates Menshikov's purposeful interest in getting closer to representatives of the conservative trend.

In a diary entry made on June 27, 1892, Menshikov joyfully noted that for the article "On Literature and Writers" he received many praises from famous people: "... Ge (delight), Shcheglov (delight), Skabichevsky (delight), Sipovsky, Velichka, Potapenka, Leskov, Strakhov, Suvorin, Yakovleva..." ^{[1, p. 360]}. The mention of Strakhov's praise among the influential writers, publicists and critics in the 1880s and 1890s speaks eloquently about the attention to the high assessment of the elderly Russian critic.

Today we can say almost for sure: in the 1890s Menshikov and Strakhov met and could be familiar. The most likely meeting place is the meetings of the Russian Literary Society in the autumn–winter of 1892-1893. The playwright D. V. Averkiev, an old friend of N. N. Strakhov, was a member of the board of the society, and the critic himself was its permanent member ^{[52, p. 189]}.

N.N. Strakhov was in the society on October 26 at the famous speech by D.S. Merezhkovsky, which became the basis of the work "On the causes of decline and new trends in modern Russian literature." There is evidence of this in a letter from Leo Tolstoy to Sophia Andreevna dated October 30 or November 1, 1892. The count, referring to Strakhov's message that had not been preserved the day before, informed his wife: "Strakhov writes very interestingly about reading the poet Merezhkovsky about literature. Signs of a complete disintegration of the morality of fin de siècle people are also among us" ^{[40, p. 432]}. It seems to us that L. N. Tolstoy's comment in the message ("signs of ... disintegration of morality") simultaneously shows the opinion of both the critic and the writer in relation to Merezhkovsky's report. Strakhov's letter touched Tolstoy, so an entry appeared in his diary on November 6, 1892: "A letter from Strakhov about decadents. After all, this is art for art's sake again. Narrow socks and pantaloons again after wide ones, but with a touch of modern times" ^{[48, p. 76]}.

Strakhov noted in 1894 that the main thing in decadence is the disastrous rejection of national traditions, the betrayal of the Russian poetic school of Pushkin, Zhukovsky and Batyushkov and the imitation of the worst European (French) trends: "... instead of preserving the excellent traditions of this (Pushkin's. – N. K.) school, our new poets, being Obviously, they are very little familiar with it, they begin to write according to the guidance of their own taste, not brought up on reading the luminaries of their native poetry, or they imitate modern European poets, who always find readers among us. It came to the point that even imitators of the French decadents appeared" ^{[46, p. 4]}.

Menshikov was not present at this speech by Merezhkovsky (which is indirectly confirmed by one of his publications in The Week ^{[15, Stb. 1650-1654]}), although he repeatedly came to meetings of the Russian Literary Society. And he was not just present, but by the beginning of 1893 he was one of the active participants. This is evidenced by an entry in the journal of the publicist, dated January 18, 1893. On this day, A. P. Chekhov came to the editorial office of the Week to meet with Gaideburov. The writer did not recognize Menshikov in civilian clothes, so the publicist was the first to greet him. Chekhov, hurrying, asked: "Do you go to a literary society? – I do, I'll be there today. – Well, we'll meet there, we'll talk" ^{[37, L. 47 vol.]}. Further in the diary it is noted that in the evening at a meeting of the society, where the performer of epics and folk songs Ivan Timofeevich Ryabinin performed, they "could not talk to their liking. So, a few phrases at different ends of the evening ..." ^{[37, L. 47 vol.]}. Many listeners came to the meeting with the storyteller: "There were: Grigorovich, T. Filippov, Avenarius (compliment to my notes), Merezhkovsky, Chekhov, Kigne, Chervinsky, the poet Krestovsk<a mess.> etc . etc . I took Nezelenov for Vinogradov's teacher... Repin drew Ryabinin, and I came out just behind the storyteller's back on the leftmost plane (the drawing was preserved and published ^[2]. – N. K.)" ^{[37, L. 47 vol.]}. The following entry speaks about the role of a publicist among authoritative figures of literature and art: "... on my initiative, 20 rubles were collected" ^{[37, l. 47 vol.]}. That is, Menshikov was "one of his own" in the meeting and acted as the organizer of the charitable care of the Russian folk talent, who knew more than 6,000 lines by heart. That is why we believe that Menshikov's meeting and acquaintance with Strakhov at the meetings of the Russian Literary Society is quite possible.

It should be noted that in Menshikov's works in the 1890s - early 1900s, references to decadence as a phenomenon and to the work of one of the first decadents and symbolists, D.S. Merezhkovsky, are always associated with a reaction of rejection. The publicist expressed the general rejection of decadence in art in an early article "Literary ailment" (1893), calling this phenomenon borrowed from the West poetry of "the decline of culture and the decomposition of social life" (p. 429). In the works "Two Truths" (1893), "About Love" (the treatise was first published in 1897 with the title "Elements of the novel"), "Slander of adoration" (1899), "Nadson" (1902), "Filthy Paganism" (1902), "About the Coffin and the Cradle" (1902), "Among the Decadents" (1903) Menshikov drew attention not only to the aestheticization of evil, but also to the "disintegration of morality" associated in the new phenomenon of culture, as in the work of D.S. Merezhkovsky, with the rejection of Christianity and the cult of paganism, with the glorification of extreme egoism and passionate unrestrainedness.

Thus, the opinions of Strakhov, Tolstoy and Menshikov regarding a new phenomenon in Russian literature, one of the forerunners of which was D. S. Merezhkovsky, were extremely similar.

A significant source of information about Stakhov was for the publicist the writer L. I., who was close to him. Veselitskaya (literary pseudonym – V. Mikulich). He met her in the summer of 1893 thanks to N. S. Leskov. Veselitskaya communicated with Strakhov, who in letters to Leo Tolstoy spoke very highly of her works: "I read Mimochka poisoned herself (this was the name of the work by V. Mikulich; here and further italics by N. N. Strakhov. – N.K.); daughter's conversations with her mother are lovely..." ^{[9, p. 929]}; "With what pleasure I read this real scripture, not made up, not fake pieces of paper..." ^{[9, p. 948]}; "Zarnitsy (another work by V. Mikulich – N. K.) gave me great pleasure. I read and reread it. What a charm it is when something is not composed, but really poured out of the soul!" ^{[9, p. 953]}. The opinion of L. N. Tolstoy on the work of L. I. Veselitskaya is more restrained: "Yesterday we read Mimochka, the 2nd part. Well, but there are exaggerations and imitations of oneself" ^{[39, p. 459]}.

Lidia Ivanovna, after getting close to the retired military and journalist of the Week Menshikov, sincerely became attached to his five-year-old son Yakov, abandoned by his mother Evgenia Shapiro, and took maternal care of him: she became a mentor and educator of the child, which Mikhail Osipovich, who was often employed in the editorial office of the Week, was inexpressibly glad. He was so fond of the talented writer that in the second half of the 1890s he considered marrying her.

It seems that M.O. Menshikov and L.I. Veselitskaya, as two writers of similar views, could not help but talk about the famous critic N.N. Strakhov. Evidence of such communication between Menshikov and Veselitskaya was a letter from L.N. Tolstoy to N.N. Strakhov dated April 26, 1895: "I learned the other day from Menshikov, the cat<I learned this from Veselitskaya that you are sick, and lonely, and sad, and my heart wanted to help, ease, calm you down" ^{[9, p. 992]}.

In turn, Strakhov, as a great lover of books and reading (as Menshikov mentioned in his obituary), was familiar not only with the publisher of The Week, P. A. Gaideburov (confirmation of this fact can be found in correspondence with L. N. Tolstoy), but also with the works of Menshikov, who was gaining popularity in the early 1890s years of a retired staff captain, the author of many publications about public life and literature in the newspaper "Nedelya" and the magazine "Books of the Week".

The critic's attention to Menshikov is described in his book by the biographer of N. N. Strakhov V. A. Fateev, arguing that the Russian Zoologist knew "many publishers from A. A. Kraevsky to A. S. Suvorin and his main collaborators M. O. Menshikov, B. P. Burenin and V. V. Rozanov" ^{[51, p. 563]}. However, we note the inaccuracy in Fateev's statement: Menshikov became an employee of Novoye Vremya only five years after N.N. Strakhov's death – in the spring of 1901, therefore, the Russian philosopher and literary critic could read Menshikov's articles only at the time of his work in Gaydeburov publications.

* * *

After Strakhov's death, which occurred on January 24, 1896, at the end of January-February, writers who were well acquainted with the deceased (V. V. Rozanov, B. V. Nikolsky, K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, N. Ya. Groth and others), published several obituaries in various publications:. M. O. Menshikov published his obituary a little later – in March 1896 on the pages of the monthly magazine "Books of the Week" ^[17] and, as we have already indicated, the only time he created material in this sad genre about a man with whom he did not communicate closely.

Nevertheless, several internal reasons could have prompted the leading critic and publicist of the newspaper Nedelya to write an obituary. It seems that the main reason is that the literary interests and preferences of Menshikov, who recently entered the big world of journalism, literature and criticism, intersected with the interests and preferences of the Russian critic, publicist and philosopher who left the world. A. S. Pushkin, F. M. Dostoevsky, I. S. Turgenev, N. A. Nekrasov, Ya. P. Polonsky, L. N. Tolstoy are those authors about whom N. N. Strakhov wrote a lot and who attracted the attention of M. O. Menshikov, a critic. Like Strakhov, Menshikov looked closely at the relationship between Westerners and Slavophiles. Like Strakhov, he sincerely and wholeheartedly loved Leo Tolstoy.

From the early 1860s until the end of his life, Strakhov was an admirer of the artistic talent of Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy. One of the first critics created a number of in-depth works about the works of the great author of "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina", including "The Works of gr. L. N. Tolstoy" (1866), "War and Peace. The work of Count L. N. Tolstoy..." (1869-1870), "Literary News" (1869), "Teaching the People" (1874), "How people are alive" (1881), "A look at current literature" (1883), "A French article about L. N. Tolstoy" (1884), "Talk about Tolstoy" (1891), etc. Thus, Strakhov became a powerful defender and apologist of Tolstoy's artistic genius.

Menshikov also became an admirer of Tolstoy's talent and a follower of some of Tolstoy's ideas in the late 1880s - 1890s. He wrote about the works of the great creator of the article "The Thirteenth volume of the works of Count L. N. Tolstoy" (1891), "The Great Childhood. On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the literary activity of Mr. L. N. Tolstoy" (1892), "The work of conscience. (About the article "Non-doing" by Mr. L. N. Tolstoy)" (1893) and "Lost their way (About the story "The Master and the Worker" by L. N. Tolstoy)" (1895). In them, Menshikov sometimes coincided with the judgments expressed in the articles by the Insurance Company. This, for example, concerns the understanding of the artistic task of L. N. Tolstoy's works.

Here is Strakhov's opinion about the realism of the author of the novel "War and Peace": "... the artist is looking for traces of the beauty of the human soul, looking for that spark of God in every depicted person, in which the human dignity of the individual lies, in short, he tries to find and determine with all precision how and to what extent the ideal aspirations of a person are realized in reality" ^{[45, p. 272]}. Strakhov expressed a thought close to this in his work "The Talk about L. N. Tolstoy": "... the center of his teaching is not any dogmas, but Christian rules of life, an exposition and explanation of our duties. He is not a preacher of any theory, but of practical Christianity, a teacher of morality. All his thoughts gravitate here..." ^{[47, pp. 113-114]}.

Menshikov formulated his understanding of the essence of Tolstoy's work in 1891 as follows: "... Tolstoy seeks the fundamental law of happiness and finds it in Christ's teaching about selfless love" [33 p. 338]. In 1895, he wrote: "The religious thought of the "Master and Worker", it seems to me, is the same one that L. N. Tolstoy has been living for the last 15 years: the thought of a Higher Will that sends a person into the world for love, in which there is the good of life. Therefore, one should not have one's own will, one should not resist God, but one should joyfully submit to His will, revealed by conscience" ^{[32, p. 543]}.

Both critics sought to protect the work of Leo Tolstoy from picky and narrow-minded literary day laborers. So, in 1891, in the work "Rumors about L. N. Tolstoy", Strakhov noted: "People rise up against Tolstoy with a scream, not noticing that they themselves have no right to give a voice in religious and moral issues" ^{[47, p. 112]}. Menshikov also wrote about such people, defending the author of the story "The Master and the Worker" from the unjustified attacks of a certain brisk "Kharkiv journalist", "Moscow critic, historian Ilovaisky" ^{[32, p. 534]} and "a huge chorus of provincial critics" ^{[32, p. 535]}.

Another feature that unites Strakhov and Menshikov is the use of the works of L. N. Tolstoy, highlighted by Ap. A. Grigoriev, of the leading national heroic types: "predatory" and "humble" to characterize the figurative world ^{[3, p. 524]}. Strakhov applied Grigoriev's formula in the analysis of the epic novel "War and Peace" and expanded its understanding. According to the critic, in a large historical novel narrative, the author showed the clash of the "humble" and "predatory" types with the victory of the former not only at the national but also at the global level: "... this huge motley epic – what is it but the apotheosis of the Russian humble type? Isn't it here that it is told how, on the contrary, the predatory type saved himself before the humble one – how on the Borodino field the Russian people defeated everything that one can imagine the most heroic, the most brilliant, passionate, strong, predatory, i.e. Napoleon and his army?" ^{[45, p. 306]}.

Grigoriev's formula was used by the Insurance Company in understanding the story of L.N. Tolstoy "The Master and the Worker" (1895). The critic participated in preparing it for publication and was one of the first readers. In letters to the author in January-February 1895, he highly appreciated the work: "My God, how good it is, priceless Lev Nikolaevich! <...> A whole drama, the simplest, clearest and amazing!" ^{[9, p. 977]}; "What a skill to understand the soul, and what a kind understanding of the soul!" ^{[9, p. 986); "How good, priceless Lev Nikolaevich, how amazing and incomparable!" [9, p. 986]}. In a letter dated February 21, 1895, Strakhov outlined the central characters of the work in Grigoriev style: "Vasily Andreevich is now rushing in front of my eyes, and even began to shield Nikita. <...> Nikita and you [Eli] Andr[eich] is like two layers of the Russian people: one layer is active, and the other is passive. The active one seems very nasty, but he saves the passive one and dies himself. Nikita will endure everything and will not harm anyone; but Vasily Andreevich — oh, how good he is! Broken energy... No, revived energy!" ^{[9, p. 986]}. As we can see, the critic's special attention was attracted by the "active" ("predatory") image of Vasily Andreevich Brekhunov, who was spiritually transformed in a moment of trials. Strakhov admired the ability of the author of the story to create a vivid, truthful picture of life with the help of details and actions of the characters: "For the first time I read in a hurry, tearing myself away for several hours, and still I have every trait in my memory. Vasily Andreevich, Nikita, Mukhorty became my old acquaintances. How clear it is that you [Eli] And [ndreich] are drunk! His fear, his salvation in love is amazing! amazing! And Mukhorty left him for Nikita..." ^{[9, p. 977]}. In one of his letters to L.N. Tolstoy, Strakhov reported on the spiritual and penitential impact of the story on him: "... I constantly catch myself thinking self-important thoughts; talking about Vasily Andreevich, you wrote about me. <...> How can I erase my selfishness, how can I acquire Nikita's good-naturedness and calmness?" ^{[9, p. 995]}.

If Strakhov, who was seriously ill a year before his death, succinctly expressed his understanding of the story in correspondence with Tolstoy, Menshikov devoted a large article to the work "Lost their way. (About the story "The Master and the Worker" by Mr. L. N. Tolstoy)" (first published in the magazine "Books of the Week", 1895, No. 3). In it, the publicist of the "Week", like Strakhov, highly appreciated the writer's new story: "'The master and the Worker' is a corner of life, transferred with all its colors to paper" ^{[22, p. 536]}; "Tolstoy paints life as it is, and the heaviest drama comes out very simple and everyday" ^{[22, p. 540]}. According to the critic, Tolstoy gave in his story "expensive lessons of literary skill" ^{[22, p. 538]} for young writers. Menshikov also pointed out the obvious superiority of the realistic representation of reality in L. N. Tolstoy's The Master and the Worker over the works of D. N. Mamin-Sibiryak ^{[22, pp. 539-540]} and M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin ^{[22, p. 541]}.

Understanding the content of the story by M. O. Menshikov also refers us to the typology of the heroes of A. Grigoriev: "Take Brekhunov: here is a man - a "master", energetic, insatiable, who has conquered a man-a "worker", always pursuing some personal special goal. He is self–satisfied - his will is separated from the interests of other beings, and, carried away by his will, he inevitably takes away their happiness" ^{[22, p. 543]}. Developing the contrast between the "predatory" master and the "humble" worker, the critic distanced himself from Grigoriev's national thought and came to Tolstoy's idea of non–resistance to evil by force, which combined with the idealistic idea of the people and its artistic embodiment in the story Nikita: "The people themselves are not capable of violence; all kinds of violence are created by people who are outstanding from the people and degenerated into a predatory type. The people always and everywhere obey meekly; the rapists are fighting. Popular non-resistance is a natural property of the masses, their inertia. Non-resistance gives life to predators, but maybe it also saves humanity from total destruction" ^{[22, p. 550]}. It is not difficult to see the historical fallacy of Menshikov's naive understanding of the image of a people capable of riots and cruelty in any era. In these reflections on the story, the critic's idealization of grassroots, natural folk life manifested itself, the source of which, as it seems to us, were the works of L. N. Tolstoy, first of all "Confession" (1882), "What is my faith?" (1884). Menshikov found the historiosophical meaning of contrasting the heroes of the story in the fact that "Brekhunov is a dying paganism", and "Nikita is a true Christianity growing out of the elements of the people" ^{[22, p. 552]}. The critic supported his thesis with the idea of Christianity as a kingdom not of this world, the lot of whose confessors is "service to others and the inevitable merging with the people, a sense of equality and love for man" ^{[22, p. 552]}. Paganism, on the contrary, is "the domination of external worries and material joys, the seizure of wealth and the inevitable violence against one's neighbor" ^{[22, p. 552]}. It seems to us that Menshikov in these arguments "distanced himself" from understanding the meaning of Tolstoy's story, since he made Nikita the non-resister a key figure in his analysis, "pushing" into the background the image of Vasily Brekhunov with his deathbed selfless act, which testified to the spiritual growth of the "predator" hero.

The critic puts the natural, instinctive principle in the image of the humble Nikita above the religious one: "Nikita is a true Christian not by science, not by religion, but by his instincts. He absorbed his Christianity not from books, but from the surrounding nature along with life" ^{[22, p. 553]}. Menshikov's confidence expressed in the article in the salvation for humanity of Tolstoy's idea of non–resistance to evil makes even the idea of patriotism irrelevant for him: "... under certain conditions, he (Nikita's worker. - N. K.) is still able to kill a Turk and precisely under the guise of God's will. However, there will be a time when the last act will become impossible for him, and no tricks can convince him that this is the will of God. As consciousness unfolds, he will move further and further away from participating in evil, and evil will disappear" ^{[22, p. 554]}. Thus, Menshikov's arguments about the story "The Master and the Worker" combined ironic responses to unfounded attacks by critics on the work, and well-aimed critical remarks about Tolstoy's artistic method and skill as a narrator, and the naive idealism of the publicist manifested in the analysis of the text, associated with the non-resisting ideas of L.N. Tolstoy. Unlike N.N. Strakhov, M.O. Menshikov put the image of Nikita in the foreground, interpreting him as a spontaneously wise and naturally sensual exponent of Tolstoy's concept of Christian non-resistance to evil. And the essence of this concept, as Menshikov argued, lies "in the possibility of continuous rebirth, and hence the willingness to give oneself into the material for another life" ^{[22, p. 546]}.

L.N. Tolstoy, having got acquainted with the article by Mikhail Osipovich, in a letter to him did not agree with the assertion of the superiority of the natural principle of man over the rational in understanding the images of the characters of the story ^[4]. Soon the count read an article by L.P. Nikiforov about "The Master and the Worker" and asked Menshikov in a letter on August 26-29, 1895 to publish it in the "Books of the Week" ^{[49, pp. 148-149]}. The article that the writer liked developed in its own way the idea expressed by Strakhov about the inner transformation of Vasily Brekhunov. Nikiforov focused on the essentially changing hero-master and noted that the image of Brekhunov, and not Nikita, deserves the most attention: "... they would inevitably have died both if at the last minute Brekhunov had not realized that everything he had been doing all his life was not at all what was needed and did not dare I would like to warm up that Nikita, whom he forced to starve and freeze all his life and led astray from the real path" ^{[35, p. 252]}. In contrast to Menshikov, Nikiforov formulated the thesis: the truth is not in indifference to Nikita's life, "not in passivity, but in a good active deed" ^{[35, p. 252]}. It remains only to note that Nikiforov, who was close to revolutionary circles, could mean by "active work" not a spiritual revival, but rather a social revolution.

L. N. Tolstoy, in the above–mentioned letter to Menshikov about the article "Mistakes of Fear", noted that he did not accept his praise of Nikita's image, since the love of an employee is "the lowest degree of love", it is "direct, unreasonable, benevolence, the same to the evil and the good, p<that's why > h<that is, it does not distinguish the evil from the good" ^{[49, p. 148]}. Pointing out that there is another, higher degree of love, the writer explained the criticism: "I understand that Nikita can seduce with his spontaneous Christianity, but about them you can only say that they are the tree from which<good saints are easily made, but it cannot be said that a person who works on the only work peculiar to man, who tries not to resist evil with violence, who bears the whole burden of this, but is still unable to tear out irritation at the evil from his heart, is inferior to<I have not yet started this work..." ^{[49, p. 149]}

Thus, Menshikov and Strakhov, when comprehending the story "The Master and the Worker", having caught the skill of the author and the general Christian attitude, interpreted it in different ways: Menshikov - comprehending first of all the nature of the non–resistance of the humble worker Nikita, and Strakhov – striving to express the deep, national-essential features of the content of the story that determine the behavior of its characters, and highlighting the moral essence of the image of Vasily Brekhunov.

We will not touch on the extensive issue of personal relationships with L.N. Tolstoy Menshikov and Strakhov: a number of scientific papers have been written about this ^{[4; 5; 6; 7; 36; 43; 50; 51]}. First of all, it should be noted that both critics saw in the writer's artistic work a great manifestation of his genius, and they had their own special relationship to the ideas expressed in journalism. Thus, Strakhov, according to V. A. Fateev, sincerely maintained friendship with the writer, but "Tolstoy's moral teaching and his Protestant interpretation of the Gospel contained many elements that he considered erroneous and even heretical" ^{[51, p. 421]}, Menshikov, in his articles of the 1890s, somewhat coincided with L. N. Tolstoy's journalistic thought, but, as a rule, he understood it in his own way, which is proved by the critic's perception of the "Week" of the story "The Master and the Worker", and the statements of the publicist himself, who did not consider himself a follower of the Yasnaya Polyana elder. So, in the spring of 1900, Menshikov, objecting to P. P. Pertsov, who called him "the most authoritative of Tolstoy's men", "the most talented and correct" ^{[19, stb. 595]}, unequivocally wrote about the coincidence of his views with Tolstoy's ideals and differences from them: "I deeply and invariably respect the moral aspiration of L. N. Tolstoy, his anxious, prophetic conscience, his conviction that everyone needs to work on themselves first of all. But I don't take anything else from him, I take my own; if we have some ideals in common, then I feel that I was born with them and they are mine as much. Involuntary coincidences with such a vivid and powerful thought are the best joy of life for me, it is a huge support that has greatly contributed to the discovery of my own nature for me. But it would be untrue to say that I share the whole worldview of the great writer. I don't even know all of it, and from what I know, not everything is peculiar to me" ^{[19, stb. 595]}.

The discrepancy between the opinions of the publicist and the writer is recorded in the works of modern researchers of their biography and creative heritage. Thus, G. V. Zhirkov calls Menshikov a "failed successor" ^{[5, p. 664]}, and D. V. Zhavoronkov notes that "the publicist was not a "blind" follower of the writer," repeatedly arguing with him in the 1890s ^[4].

Over time, the critic's attitude towards Tolstoy's journalism has changed. In 1900, Menshikov defended the writer in the newspaper Nedelya, sharply opposing, as he saw it, the unnecessarily ironic and vulgar display of the ethical teachings of the great writer in Vladimir Solovyov's work "Three Conversations..." ^[16]. However, since 1904, the publicist sharply criticized Tolstoy's attitude to the Russian-Japanese war and openly opposed other anarchist speeches of the writer in the press (see, for example, the articles "Leo Tolstoy, Mendeleev, Vereshchagin" (1904), "Two Prophets" (1907), "Tolstoy and the Power" (1908), "The Falsity of Tolstoyism" (1912), etc.), remaining an admirer of the artistic talent of the Yasnopolyansky creator until the end of his life.

Strakhov, being an admirer of the count's literary talent and his friend, did not share the beliefs of the great Leo expressed in journalism and expressed, in our opinion, a rather controversial belief that "Tolstoy, with his turn to religion, will be able to distract young people from revolutionary hobbies" ^{[51, p. 421]}. Strakhov's attitude to Tolstoy's philosophy, in our opinion, was aptly formulated by V. V. Rozanov: "... he (Strakhov – N. K.) did not merge with his "teaching", even simply rejected it or almost rejected it; in any case, he did not attach importance to it. But the meaning of his teaching, but the direction in which Tolstoy went, delighted him, caused him great delight..." ^{[42, p. 203]}.

The human and creative closeness of the critic N. N. Strakhov and the writer L. N. Tolstoy as peers (both born in 1828), connected by friendship, is very similar to the relationship between the critic M. O. Menshikov and the writer A. P. Chekhov. They were also peers (Menshikov was born in September 1859, and Chekhov in January 1860), who became extremely close people as a result of communication [see About this: 1; 8]. Both Strakhov and Menshikov actively defended their ideological kindred friend, the writer, corresponded with him, visited him and, most importantly, devoted a number of serious works to the analysis of creativity.

It can be said that both N.N. Strakhov in his works revealed to the general public the power of L.N. Tolstoy's talent and defended the greatness of his creations, and M.O. Menshikov comprehended, promoted and defended the enormous artistic gift of A.P. Chekhov. It is enough to recall such articles by Menshikov as "Sick Will (Ward No. 6. Chekhov's Story)" (1893), "Progress and tradition. (About the book by A. P. Chekhov "Sakhalin Island")" (1896), "The Word about the Peasants" (1897), "Three Elements" ("In the Ravine" story by A. P. Chekhov) (1900).

* * *

Certainly Menshikov, when getting acquainted with Strakhov's works, could not help but feel a negative attitude towards the "natural school" in art that was akin to him. Strakhov's article "Nekrasov and Polonsky" (1870) outlines two art trends, whose representatives were the poets named in the title. The first, Nekrasov's, is interpreted as accusatory and contemptuously selfish towards the people: "All these accusers are together enlighteners; they do not want to learn from the people, but they themselves want to teach them" ^{[44, p. 137]}. The essence of understanding Russian life in this direction of Fears is illustrated by the derogatory lines of Nekrasov himself from the famous poem "Song of Yeremushka" in relation to Russia:

In us under the roof of the fatherly

Not a single one has sunk in

A pure, human life

A fruitful grain ^{[44, p. 137]}.

The critic contrasted the poet Y. P. Polonsky with N. A. Nekrasov on the basis of the absence of the first "narrow and sharp direction" of creativity, "one-sided, eye-catching tendencies" ^{[44, p. 138]}. Polonsky's poetry is, according to Strakhov's definition, "worship of all that is beautiful and high, service to truth, goodness and beauty, love of enlightenment and freedom" ^{[44, p. 138]}. It has a desire for truth and a reflection of the peculiarities of the Russian soul ^{[44, p. 175]}.

Menshikov did not accept the socially critical, accusatory image of Russian reality, belittling and humiliating everything native and close, from the very beginning of his work. In the first great work of the young publicist, a series of essays "On the Ports of Europe" (1884), the young navigator indignantly described the paintings of artists in the Russian part of the Paris World Exhibition of 1878: "Merchants and merchants with their unkempt "sheepskins", sweaty blurred faces are visiting in our department (exhibitions. – N. K.), We have in the front corner the impossible deacon of G. Repin, a true subject for art. Here, by God, is the treasure of the brush, which you will look at and turn away as soon as possible: you will turn away, but it's too late: the impression is already spoiled, you are far from the picture, and this deacon is chasing you, drunken animal eyes, these red tufts of hair, a drunken face..." ^{[31, p. 64]} In the Russian department of Menshikov He found examples of a different, non-tendentious understanding of the role of art associated with the embodiment of the ideal of beauty. These are the paintings "Lights of Christianity" by Semiradsky, "Bulgarian Martyr" by Makovsky, "Ukrainian Night" by Kuindzhi, works by Aivazovsky. The main ideal of a person for a publicist is connected with Christianity: "Thanks to Semiradsky. It keeps the spirits up and the energy of fighting evil. He propagandizes with his brush the certainty that, no matter how strong the beast in man is, no matter how impenetrable the darkness of ignorance, malice and violence – in the end, Christ will still speak in man, the great sun of knowledge, forgiveness, freedom will rise..." ^{[31, p. 66]}. And in the future Menshikov repeatedly noted that the task of real art is to ennoble and show a high ideal. This task was embodied in the words from M. Y. Lermontov's poem "Journalist, writer and reader", mentioned several times by the critic in articles from different years:

...And peace with a noble dream

He was cleansed and washed before him.

According to the opinion of the publicist of the "Week", expressed in the article "Literary ailment" (1893), representatives of the accusatory school do not see the bright truth of life and show only its "ugly sides": "With special joy they dwell on the ugly phenomena of life, bind all the reader's attention to them, carefully describe all moral warts, pimples bumps, human contortions, turn out his dirty laundry, hidden wounds under the linen, push the edges of the wounds and admire the wild meat in them, and if they find worms, then all the more excellent" ^{[25, pp. 147-148]}. Therefore, the critic and publicist, speaking out against the accusatory trend in literature, against the poetization of immorality and vulgarity, associated real art with the reflection of the aesthetic, ethical, religious ideal of the people, since real poetry should support and affirm the positive beginnings of life, thereby influencing the world around it.

When writing the obituary for Strakhov, Menshikov could not help but realize not only the creative and aesthetic, but also the biographical closeness with the critic who had left the world. Strakhov was "born a 'popovich'" ^{[22, p. 622]}, and Menshikov was the grandson of a priest ^{[11, p. 12]}. Strakhov "endured poverty" ^{[22, p. 622]}, and Menshikov came from an extremely poor family ^{[11, p. 11, 31]}. Strakhov could not "finish his course at the university," and the author of the obituary did not stay long at the university as a volunteer. Menshikov also noted that "Strakhov gave himself up at first to a completely different science to which he had a vocation" ^{[22, p. 622]}, probably realizing that the same thing happened to him: he devoted almost twenty years to the Russian navy, served as a navigator and hydrographer, and only after that was able to give himself to his beloved since his youth, the cause of journalism and criticism. In addition, everyone had their own literary genius-benefactor: Strakhov was helped in his creative statement by the caring writer Apollon Grigoriev, who noted his "outstanding talent" ^{[22, p. 622]}, and Menshikov was helped by Semyon Nadson ^{[11, p. 149-154]}.

In his obituary, Mikhail Menshikov noted that Strakhov entered the field of literary criticism in the 1860s, when "it took great courage, since the press of that time almost entirely consisted of people hostile to Strakhov" ^{[22, p. 622]} – representatives of the revolutionary liberal camp. And many of them had a "manner of polemicizing, resembling a duel to the death" ^{[22, p. 622]}. By the time the obituary was written, the publicist himself, who felt the first enthusiastic reception of writers in 1892 (they wrote about him above), already knew how difficult it was to defend his reasoned position in print. So, in 1895, he published an investigation about the impoverished Prince V. V. Vyazemsky, a false elder from Serpukhov District, whom the intelligentsia began to revere as a prophet and it was even rumored that Leo Tolstoy was copying him with his "forgiveness" ^[24]. Soon after the evidentiary exposure of the legends about Prince Menshikov was forced to respond to the attacks and harassment of liberal journalists ^[26]. In his personal diary on the eve of his 37th birthday, on September 22, 1896, the publicist summarizing the results of the past year, wrote: "In October and November, the vile harassment of me by the defenders of the kn continued. Vyazemsky, and I have learned from experience how easy it is, being spotlessly clean, to get into a pool of mud when neighbors will do their best to drown" ^{[37, l. 78-78 vol.]}. Here Menshikov admitted that the story with Vyazemsky had greatly tarnished his literary reputation ^{[37, l. 78 vol.]}.

It is worth remembering that, starting in the mid-1890s (when Menshikov was moderately liberal: he supported Tolstoy's ideas, advocated freedom of religion, eased censorship pressure and dreamed of parliament) and almost until his death, Menshikov received negative feedback about his work from critics and journalists of the revolutionary and the narodnik sense: from V. G. Korolenko, A. I. Bogdanovich, A. L. Volynsky, M. A. Protopopova, N. K. Mikhailovsky, P. M. Pilsky, and others [see: 34]. So the publicist practically repeated the fate of Strakhov, who was constantly criticized by extremely hostile left-wing radicals and liberals in the person of N. G. Chernyshevsky, D. I. Pisarev, V. S. Solovyov, etc.

In 1911, a publicist who had worked for the "right-wing" newspaper Novoye Vremya for ten years was subjected to endless accusations from writers on the "left" and realized the impassable gap between the conflicting revolutionary-liberal monopolists of the press and a handful of supporters of the national conservative camp. Therefore, he warned the young author A.V. Selitrennikov, who came to the Suvorin edition: "Keep in mind that being a "Modernist" is a stigma in Russian literature. With our brand, you will no longer be allowed into any thick magazine or book publishing, except Suvorinsky. If you write a book, no left-wing newspaper will give any review about you, even an abusive one. The left camp, on which the success or failure of a writer in Russia depends, imposes a real biblical prohibition on the “modernist” up to the seventh generation. All-Russian criticism condemns us to civil death" ^{[34, p. 252]}.

The similarity of the human and creative destinies of N.N. Strakhov and M.O. Menshikov does not end there. Everyone knows that Strakhov helped develop talents in journalism. So, he brought out of obscurity the talented publicist and philosopher V.V. Rozanov. In turn, Menshikov also helped young capable writers to break into the people. For example, he arranged for the talented journalist A.M. Selitrennikov, already mentioned above, who took the pseudonym A.M. Rennikov, in Novoye Vremya ^{[41, pp. 135-159]}.

Revolutionary liberal journalism, which dominated in the second half of the 19th century, preferred to either respond negatively or remain silent about Strakhov and his work (both during the critic's lifetime and immediately after his death). Since 1917, Strakhov's works, which defended Russian classics, religious and Russian national values, were withdrawn from widespread use and consigned to oblivion. The same thing happened with Menshikov. The only difference is that in the 1890s he was furiously hounded by revolutionaries and their numerous supporters, but after Menshikov's transfer to the most influential newspaper Novoye Vremya and up to his suspension from work at Novoye Vremya in 1917, the radicals could not completely exclude the influence of the publicist on society: the authority of the "New time" and its authors was high. Less than a year after October 1917, the Soviet government found a publicist in the provincial Valdai and shot him, after which they did everything to destroy his memory.

For more than seven decades, the work of two Russian publicists and critics lay under a bushel. But as soon as the prohibitions in science, journalism and criticism were lifted at the end of the twentieth century, the works of both Strakhov and Menshikov turned out to be in demand, and the authors themselves regained readers and admirers.

* * *

For the first time, Menshikov's obituary about the deceased N. N. Strakhov was published in 1896 in the magazine "Books of the Week" under the heading "In Memory of N. N. Strakhov" ^[17] and re-included by the author in the second volume of Critical Essays (1902) in the section "Literary characteristics" with the title "N. N. Strakhov". In the comments to the modern reprint of this obituary, it is said that an "expanded version of the article" was published in the book "Critical Essays" ^{[22, p. 694]}. However, this statement does not correspond to reality: the publications of 1896 and 1902 are completely identical.

The text of the obituary reflected typical topics for a publicist. One of them is attention to personal and public health, people's health. Menshikov devoted numerous pages of his diary to this topic [see: 11, p. 13, 21, 32, 105-106, 227, 248, 282, 294, 321, 332], as well as a number of articles published both during the period of work in the "Week" [see, for example: 13; 14; 12; 18 21], as well as during cooperation with Novoye Vremya ^{[29; 30; 20]}. The compositional frame of the obituary was fragments of Strakhov's letter to Ms. V. devoted to the topic of health (unfortunately, we have not found the original of the message). In the letter, the addressee reflected on the change in his well-being and on treatment by doctors who believed that his body was strong ^{[22, pp. 621, 625]}. At the same time, Strakhov himself thought differently and, as Menshikov writes, was right: "It turned out that God judged exactly as the patient's well-being suggested, and the doctors were wrong" ^{[22, p. 621]}.

Another topic is the display of the confrontation between two camps – the progressive revolutionary and the conservative, to which Strakhov belonged. Menshikov understood that Strakhov "felt and was actually one of the most enlightened people who only lived in Russia, which cannot be said about many of his literary opponents" ^{[22, p. 623]}. In addition, the publicist stressed that "having been fighting the West for a number of years, Strakhov at least knew what he was fighting against. He knew European science, philosophy, and literature. He was a mathematician and a naturalist not from popular books, but from high school and, in fact, did not leave school all his life, studying until his death everything that is important in the world" ^{[22, p. 623]}. "Knowing European languages, Strakhov lived all his life in the sphere of the highest revelations of modern and past humanity" ^{[22, p. 623]}, Menshikov wrote and noted that the scientist who had gone to another world was "a lover of knowledge, a subtle connoisseur of it and a connoisseur" (624). Emphasizing the idea of N.N. Strakhov's high intellectual level ("at least he knew", "he did not leave school all his life", "he lived all his life in the sphere of the highest revelations ... of mankind" ^{[22, p. 624]}), the critic unequivocally hinted at the weak knowledge of Western science among the main representatives of Westernism – V. G. Belinsky, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev…

N. N. Strakhov, according to Menshikov, did not want to keep up with the times, which can already be seen in his anti-Darwinist, anti-nihilist and anti-revolutionary works. Despite the similarity with revolutionaries in social origin (Strakhov, like Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, was by origin "Popovich"), the critic had a complete "divergence of paths" with them ^{[22, p. 622]}. "The Popovichi stood at the head of progress, forming its destructive vanguard" ^{[22, p. 622]}, and the conservative Strakhov opposed them. By the way, this series of "progressive" and left-liberal figures was continued by the modern children of the clergy K. A. Zhukov and S. A. Shargunov.

The ability to defend one's opinion almost alone, as Menshikov wrote, showed one of the main features of the deceased – courage: "... he gave up his 10-year teaching career and devoted himself to literature. It took a lot of courage, since the press of that time almost entirely consisted of people of a tone hostile to Strahov" ^{[22, p. 622]}.

The characteristics of the stylistic originality of N.N. Strakhov's speeches in the obituary are contrasting and show the features of a critic. On the one hand, he is "elegant, restrained, extremely decent, quiet" ^{[22, p. 622]}, "with his restrained, simple-minded irony" ^{[22, p. 622-623]}, who expressed his thoughts "without much brilliance and without any crackle" ^{[22, p. 623]}. On the other hand, he is a determined, courageous man in his work, who openly declared a terrible "heresy" for his time: "... he spoke about the mistakes of revolutionary nihilism, about the fruitlessness of blind worship of the West, about the need for independent, original work of Russian thought, about the one-sidedness of Darwinian theory, etc., etc." ^{[22, p. 623]}. In addition, Strakhov acted "very persistently, and most importantly – with the greatest fearlessness, completely neglecting literary "camps"" ^{[22, p. 624]}.

Russian Russian and foreign talents were named as another important quality of Strakhov, a critic, in the obituary, the ability to discover, evaluate and protect national Russian and foreign talents: he discovered for the "Russian public the enormous talent of L. N. Tolstoy", "explained the meaning of Apollon Grigoriev, impartially assessed Turgenev, put forward N. Ya. Danilevsky, fought for Pushkin's poetry", and also "introduced the Russian public to the luminaries of Western thought" ^{[22, p. 624]}.

Great talent, extensive knowledge, a desire to devote oneself entirely to science, a passionate love of books, courage in making decisions and confronting opponents, restraint and grace in polemics and presentation of thoughts, the ability, having appreciated talent, to become a "Columbus for the Russian public" ^{[22, p. 624]} and the absence of hypocrisy and careerism – these are the most important Strakhov's features, indicated in the obituary.

Fateev notes that Menshikov (unlike a number of contemporaries) expressed a deep understanding of Strakhov's personality, managing to treat the Russian publicist, philosopher and critic with an open mind ^{[51, p. 60]}. This is how, according to a modern researcher, the publicist of the Week showed Strakhov's relationship with the most influential people of the era – K. P. Pobedonostsev and I. A. Vyshnegradsky. Here is this excerpt from the obituary: "Strakhov was reproached for clinging to the powerful of the world, to celebrities, old and young. Indeed, he had many friends among the “powerful of the world”, but he was completely independent of them and did not derive any profit from this friendship. He did not associate with everyone, but only with the chosen ones in terms of intelligence and talent, and he had the fearlessness to love whom he wanted" ^{[22, p. 624]}. Strakhov's biographer saw Menshikov's unbiased view in the way it reflected Strakhov's deep knowledge of the forces that the critic had been fighting all his life – the West and its civilization. Developing the idea of the publicist, Fateev notes: "... Strakhov was one of the real Europeans in Russia — not those who blindly borrow newfangled ideas from the West there, but those who use the wealth of European culture to gain their own spiritual independence" ^{[51, p. 213]}; "...Strakhov, like Tyutchev, because and he criticized the spiritual foundations of European civilization, that he had learned the essence of the Western world" ^{[51, p. 213]}.

In a small obituary, Menshikov brought together various facts of the deceased's life into a single full-color picture. Her final touch was a quote from Strakhov's letter to a friend mentioned above about how the critic realized during his illness that many of his acquaintances and friends were real sympathetic and kind Russian people: "My operation somehow scared everyone, and I saw so much participation as I did not expect. This discovery of kindness in people really interests me. Very clearly, I distinguish quite kind people from the type of active, selfish, who plays the main role everywhere. Quite kind – a truly Russian type, the embodiment of our moral concepts. <...> I can't remember such people without joy. Oh, we will not be lost, we will do our job in the world" ^{[22, p. 625]}.

This "discovery of kindness in people" by the "fearless Insurance" became for Menshikov evidence of the "good disposition" of the "hated and scolded", but standing on the threshold of the grave of the critic. So again, the idea of the typology of national heroes and the constant struggle of the modest and quiet defender of national and Christian principles N.N. Strakhov with the semi-educated and vociferous revolutionary-left-liberal environment sounds in the subtext.

* * *

In the middle and second half of the 1890s, Menshikov's work can hardly be called consistent and nationally oriented in everything. Rather, the publicist was in an ideological search, the general vector of which was directed towards traditional values. This is evidenced by the articles published by him. For example, in the work "The Highest Goal" ^[23] Menshikov argued that the most important components of the goal of any person's life are "thirst for achievement" ^{[23, p. 238]}, "love for man" ^{[23, p. 244]} and "work of conscience", in which the fight against evil goes without Tolstoy's style without "physical violence", but with "moral conviction, love" ^{[23, p. 257]}. The ideal of such service in the article were people of different beliefs: the great Russian teachers V. Ya. Stoyunin, K. D. Ushinsky, L. N. Tolstoy, S. A. Rachinsky ^{[23, p. 242]}, the merciful Protestant doctor V.D. Hindenburg ^{[23, p. 244-246]}, as well as the critic V. G. Belinsky ^{[23, pp. 248-249]}. Moreover, the latter (Hindenburg and Belinsky) are called "apostles of love" ^{[23, p. 262]}. In this work, Menshikov rejected the idea of improving a person through a revolutionary transformation of society, putting forward the thesis of personal improvement: "... improve yourself if you want to improve society" ^{[23, p. 258]}. Thus, the highest goal of life is "apostolate of love", and the means to achieve this goal is "asceticism of love" ^{[23, p. 267]}. Menshikov also called the Russian students who started studying at universities to such asceticism of love, only connected with the memory of their duty to the people, in the article "On the threshold of the Temple" ^[28].

Summing up, we note that the obituary of M.O. Menshikov to N.N. Strakhov, as well as the obituary of Ya.P. Polonsky written in 1898, is a kind of mirror reflecting the gradual inner spiritual growth of the publicist associated with awareness of the alignment of socio-political forces in Russia at the turn of the XIX – XX centuries, with the development of a nationally oriented positions, with an understanding of the need to strengthen the Russian national core and strengthen the national culture.