अनूदित पत्र : गोगोललाई बेलिन्स्कीका चिठी

~भिस्सारियोन बेलिन्स्की~
-अनुवादक : गोपिरमण उपाध्याय

तिमीले मेरो लेखनलाई रूष्ट हृदयको आवेग सम्झेका रहेछौ । यो मान्यता एक प्रकारले ठीकै पनि हो, तर आंशिक रूपमा मात्र तिमीले गरेको यो टिप्पणी सतही र अपर्याप्त छ । तिम्रो पुस्तक पढेपछि मेरो मनस्थिति जस्तो भयो, त्यसबारेमा केही पनि भन्न सक्दिनँ । तिमीले जुन परिस्थितिको हवाला दिएका छौ, त्यो पनि पूरापूर गलत छ । तिमीले आफ्ना प्रशंसकहरूको जुन हवाला दिएका छौ, त्यो देखेपछि मेरो मनमा एक प्रकारको असजिलो परिस्थितिको सिर्जना भयो । कुरो यत्तिमा मात्र सीमित हुन्थ्यो भने केही कुरा थिएन, यी दुवै कुरालाई चुपचाप सहिदिन पनि सक्थेँ । तर यहाँ त सही दृष्टिकोणको सवाल छ । मानवीय गरिमा र महत्वको सवाल छ । यस्ता कुरामा त सम्झौता गर्न सकिन्न नि ! त्यस्तो बेलामा आफ्नो बोलीमा लगाम लगाउन पनि सकिन्न, जुन बेला धोकाहरू र अनैतिकताका निरङ्कुश दमनको छायाँमुनि धर्मको जामा लगाइदिएर, सत्य र सदाचारलाई पुतली बनाएर प्रस्तुत गरिन्छ भने ।

यो त निश्चित थियो ः मैले तिमीलाई अगाध मायाँ गर्थे । जसरी एउटा रक्तसम्बन्धमा बाँधिएका देशवासीहरू आशा र विश्वासको, उनीहरूका मानसम्मान र गौरवको जागृति र विकासको बाटोमा हिँडाउने महान् विभूतिलाई अगाध मायाँ गरिन्छ । अहिले मेरो यो अधिकार “मेरो हातबाट फुत्किँदैछ” भन्ने कुराले मलाई एकै छिन भए पनि विचलित परिरहेको छ । यो कुरा मैले त्यसै भनिरहेको होइन । यो त मेरो मात्र नभएर अन्य बहुसङ्ख्यक मानिसको आवाज हो । मैले त्यसलाई प्रतिनिधित्व गरेको मात्र हो । ती असङ्ख्य मानिसहरू, जुन तिमीले कहिल्यै चिनेका छैनौँ र उनीहरूसँग पनि तिम्रो देखभेट सम्भव छैन अथवा तिनीहरूमध्ये हामीले कसैलाई पनि भेट्न सक्दैनौँ । तर तिम्रो पुस्तक पढिसकेपछि ती असङ्ख्य मानिसहरू एकदम क्षुब्ध भए । तर दुश्मन भनिएका चिचिकोव, नोज्द्रेव र मेयर जस्ताहरूले तिम्रा पुस्तकको उन्मुक्त हृदयले प्रसंसा र स्वागत गरे । मैले यो कुरा बुझिरहेको छैन । यस विषयमा के भनुँ, के भनुँ ? जबकि यिनीहरू भनेका साहित्य जगतदेखि बाहिरका मानिस हुन् । अब साहित्यमा गतका मानिसहरूकै कुरा गर्ने हो भने पनि जो जो मानिस तिम्रो पुस्तकसँग सहमत छन,् तिनीहरू पनि अहिले अधिक जुगुप्साले गर्दा यसबारेमा केही बोल्न सकिरहेका छैनन् । त्यस्ता मानिसहरू पनि हात टक्टक्याएर देब्रे वा दाहिनेतिर लागिसकेका छन् । यदि यो पुस्तकबाट सच्चा एवं गहिरो विश्वासको सिर्जना हुन्थ्यो भने पनि कुनै कुरा थिएन, त्यसले जनताका बीचमा कुनै न कुनै प्रकारको काम त अवश्यै गथ्र्यौ । यस्तो हुनुमा अरू कसैको नभएर तिम्रै दोष हो । यसबारेमा हरेकले अर्थात् “त्यस्ता मानिसहरू (एक्का दुक्कालाई छाडेर) यसको समर्थन गर्न कसिम्ए पनि पछि गएर उनीहरूका नौनाडी गलेर आउने गर्छन् । त्यस्ता मानिसहरूले यसलाई “अलौकिक साधनहरूको प्रयोग गरेर लौकिक लक्ष्य पूरा गर्न खोजेको” भनेका छन् । यो पनि कुनै ठूलो कुरा होइन । तर तिमीलाई यो कुरा आश्चर्यजनक लाग्न सक्छ ।

मैले यस्तो बुझ्नुको मुख्य कारण रूसका बारेमा तिम्रो जानकारी भनेको एउटा कलाकारको जस्तो मात्र रहेछ, एउटा विचारकको जस्तो होइन रहेछ । त्यसैले त तिमी आफ्नो पुस्तकको भूमिकामा अत्यन्त भद्दा किसिमले प्रस्तुत भएका रहेछौ । यसैबाट बुझिन्छ, तिमी विचारक होइनाँै । यसको पनि मुख्य कारण धेरै वर्ष पहिलेदेखि रूसलाई खालि टाढाबाट हेर्ने र बुझ्ने बानी परेको हुनु पर्छ । यो कुरा सबैले जानेका छ्रन् ः कुनै पनि वस्तुलाई मनगढन्त रूपमा प्रस्तुत गर्नुछ भने त्यसलाई खालि टाढाबाट मात्र हेर्ने काम गर्नु पर्छ† किनभने सुदूरवर्ती हिसाबले हेर्दा जीवनको यथार्थता सर्वथा भिन्न किसिमको हुन्छ । तिमी आफूभित्र यस्तो कुनै परिकल्पनाको प्रपञ्च रचेर त्यसैमा रमाउने गर्छौ । त्यो सम्पूर्ण कुरा आफ्नो मनस्थितिको छायाँ मात्र सावित हुन्छ । त्यस्तो छायाँले तिम्रा प्रभावको प्रतिरोध गर्न सक्ने क्षमता नै राख्दैन । यस्तो अवस्थामा तिमीले रूसको वास्तविक अवस्था के पो देख्न सकेका हौला ? मैले जोड दिएर भन्न चाहन्छु ः रूसको मुक्ति न त रहस्यवादमा आधारित छ, न भक्तिवाद र वैराग्यवादमा नै । रूसको वास्तविक मुक्ति त सभ्यता, ज्ञानको उज्यालो र मानवताको सफलतामा आधारित हुन्छ । ती उपदेशहरू, जसलाई सुन्दासुन्दा मानिसहरू वाक्क भइसकेका छन्, ती भजनहरू, जसलाई गाउँदागाउँदा मानिसका घाँटी बसिसकेका छन्† आज तिनीहरूको कुनै आवश्यकता छैन† बरू आज त शताब्दीयौँदेखि यस्तै यस्ता कुडाकर्कटभित्र लुकेर बसेको मानवीय गौरवको भावनालाई बाहिरको प्रकाशमा ल्याउनु परेको छ† बरू आज त “त्यस्तो कानुन र अधिकारको आवश्यकता छ, जसलाई गिरिजाघरको पवित्र जल छर्केर होइन, जनसाधारणले पनि बुझ्ने न्यायका आधारमा निर्माण गरिएको होस्† जसलाई दृढतापूर्वक पालना पनि गरियोस् । “यसका विपरीत आज रूसको अर्को विभत्स दृश्य देखिएको छ, जहाँ बिना कुनै प्रतिबन्ध र अवरोध मानिसको व्यापार भइरहेको छ । यिनीहरूले त अमेरिकी सामन्तहरूले जत्तिको पनि कपटी तरिकाहरू अपनाउँदैनन्, जस्तो कि उनीहरूले निग्रोलाई मानिससम्मको दर्जा पनि दिएका थिएनन् । रूसमा त त्यो भन्दा पनि भयङ्कर अवस्था छ, जहाँ मानिसहरूलाई उनीहरूको नामबाट होइन, उनीहरूलाई हेला गरेर पुकारिने नामबाट बोलाउने गरिन्छ । जस्तै† बान्का, बास्का, पलास्का आदिआदि । एउटा यस्तो देश, जहाँ खालि व्यक्तिको मानमर्यादा, स्वामित्व र सुरक्षाको कुनै ग्यारेन्टी छैन† पुलिस प्रशासनको कुनै व्यवस्था छैन† जहाँ भ्रष्ट कर्मचारीतन्त्रको बोलावाल छ† व्यापारिक प्रतिष्ठानहरूलाई किसिमकिसिमका लुच्चा लफङ्गाहरूले कब्जा गरेका छन् । आजका रूसको ज्वलन्त समस्या भनेको दास प्रथाको अन्त्य गर्नु, शारीरिक दन्डलाई निषेध गर्नु र कमसेकम त्यस्ता मानवीय खालका कानुनहरूको निर्माण र तिनीहरूको परिपालना भएमा मात्र पनि केही त सुधार हुन्थ्यो । प्रशासन तन्त्रले यी सम्पूर्ण कुराहरू बुझेको छ । तर त्यसतर्फ कुनै वास्ता गर्दैन । उसले यो कुरा पनि राम्रो गरी बुझेको छ ः रूसी सामन्त र जमिन्दारहरू आफ्नो भूदास तथा किसानहरूसँग कसरी प्रस्तुत हुने गर्छन् र कति सामन्त तथा जमिन्दारहरूको प्रति वर्ष हत्या हुने गर्छ । जब उनीहरूले भूदासहरूलाई दन्ड दिनु पर्छ । त्यस बेला सेतो रङका दासहरू छन् भने एकसरे कोर्रा र काला रङका छन् । उनीहरूका निम्ति तीनसरे कोर्राको व्यवस्था गरेका हुन्छन् । यो पनि कुनै कुरा हो ? यस्तो जावो घृणित तरिका ¤ आखिर शारीरिक दन्ड नै दिने भएपछि एकसेर कोर्रा र तीनसरे कोर्राको कुनै मतलब निस्किन्छ र ?

यस्ता यस्तै किसिमका अनेकौँ समस्याहरू छन्, जसले अर्धचेतना र अल्छी रूसीहरूका दिलोदिमागलाई पनि उकुसमुकुस पारिरहेका छन् । यस्तो कालसीमा अन्तर्गत रूसको एउटा महान लेखक, जसले आफ्नो अत्यन्त सुन्दर एवं कलात्मक लेखनद्वारा अनेकौँ सत्य तथ्यलाई उद्घाटित गर्न सफल भएको थियो र उसले यस्तो कृतिहरू दियो, जसले रूसको जनचेतनालाई बृद्धि गर्न ठूलो योगदान ग¥यो । रूसी जनताको आँखा अगाडि यस्तो चित्र प्रस्तुत ग¥यो, जसमा उनीहरूले आफ्नो चित्र स्पष्टता साथ देख्न सके । आज त्यही लेखक यस्तो पुस्तक लिएर प्रस्तुत भयो, जसले ईसा र गिरिजाघरका नामबाट किसान र भूदासहरूमाथि अधिकभन्दा अधिक अत्याचार गर्न सकियोस् र बढीभन्दा बढी उनीहरूको दोहन गर्न सकियोस् । यसले सामन्त र जमिन्दारहरूलाई किसान र भूदासहरूमाथि बढीभन्दा बढी अत्याचार गर्न प्रेरित गर्छ । यस्तो हुँदा पनि तिमीले मलाई भनिरहेका छौ ः “तिमी मसँग क्षुब्ध नहोऊ अथवा नरिसाऊ ¤” अरे भाइ घ् यदि तिमीले ममाथि शारीरिक रूपमा हमला गरेका हुन्थ्यौँ भने केही कुरा थिएन र मैले त्यति साह्रो घृणा पनि गर्ने थिइनँ । तर तिमीले लेखेका यी पङ्क्तिहरू देखेपछि मलाई लागिरहेको छ ः “यो त कोरमाथिको लुतो हो ।” अझै पनि तिमीले आशा गरेका छौँ ः “पाठकहरूले मेरो पुस्तकको मूल आशयमाथि विश्वास गरून् ¤” तर यस्तो हुनै सक्दैन । किनभने यदि यो पुस्तक ईसाका सही र मानवीय शिक्षाको सत्यताबाट अनुप्रमाणित मात्र हुन्थ्यो भने निश्चित रूपमा यो भन्दा अर्कै खालको पुस्तक हुने थियो, त्यसमा तिमीले सामन्त र जमिन्दारसँग भन्ने थियौँ, भूदास र किसानहरू पनि भगवानकै सन्तान हुन्, तिनीहरूलाई कसैले पनि दास बनाउनु हुँदैन । उनीहरूले किसान र भूदासहरूलाई या त मुक्त गरिदिनु पर्छ या उनीहरूको आफ्ना श्रमको प्रतिफल उपभोग गर्न पाउने आधार तयार हुनु पर्छ । उनीहरूले अधिकभन्दा अधिक आफ्ना श्रमको फललाई आफ्ना हितमा प्रयोग गर्न पाउनु पर्छ† तब मात्र अन्तरात्माद्वारा अनुभव गरिएको यस विषम परिस्थितिमा केही सुधार वा परिमार्जन गर्न सकिन्छ ।

तिम्रा यी अपशब्दहरू, जस्तो† “छि छि ¤ ए ¤ फोहोर थुतुनो भएकाहरू हो ¤ तिमीले यी कुरा कुन जोज्दे्रव र सोवाकेबीचका मुखबाट चोरेर ल्याएका हौँ ? किसानहरूको इज्जत र प्रतिष्ठाका निम्ति तिम्रो कति ठूलो आविष्कार रहेछ ? यदि त्यो किसान, जसले आफ्नो थुतुनो कहिल्यै पनि धोएन वा धुन पाएन । त्यसको प्रमुख कारण उसका मालिक सामन्त र जमिन्दारहरूले उनीहरूलाई कहिल्यै पनि “म पनि मानिस हुँ है” भन्ने अनुभूति हुनै दिएनन् । किसान र भूदासहरूले यस कुरालाई ठिकै ठाने । रूसमा जातिगत आधारमा दन्ड–सजाय गर्ने प्रणालीसम्बन्धी जुन तिम्रो परिकल्पना हो र जसलाई तिमीले आदर्शका रूपमा प्रस्तुत गर्न खोज्यौँ र जसको सारांश हो— “अपराधी र निरपराधी दुवैलाई समान किसिमको दन्ड दिनुपर्छ” के तिमीले यस्तै भन्न खोजेका हौ ? हुन त हाम्रो समाजमा अहिले यस्तै भइरहेको छ, किनभने सामाजिक दन्ड–सजाय त्यस्तै मानिसका थाप्लामा हालिन्छ, जुन वास्तविक रूपमा निरपराध हुन्छ । सजायका निम्ति त्यस्ता मानिसको चुनाव हुन्छ, जसले उम्किन भनेर कुनै प्रकारको घुसपिस गर्न सक्दैन र यसो गर्नु उसको सामथ्र्यभन्दा बाहिरको विषय हुन्छ । यस्तो घटनाक्रमका निम्ति एउटा सुप्रसिद्ध भनाइ छ ः “निरपराध अपराधी बन्यो ।” यस्तो परिप्रेक्षमा “यो पुस्तक कठोर मानसिक तपस्या दिव्य आध्यात्मिक प्रेरणाको उत्पत्ति हो” भनेर मैले तिम्रा कुरा कसरी पत्याउने ? यो असम्भव कुरा हो । यस सम्बन्धमसा विचार गर्दा तिमी मानसिक रूपमा विरामी छौ, तुरून्त त्यसको उपचार गर्नु प¥यो । …यस सन्दर्भमा मैले यो भन्दा अरू केही कुरा थप्नु पर्दा मलाई नै लाज लाग्नेछ.. ।

अरे ओ कोर्रा व्यवस्थाका प्रवर्तक ¤ अरे अज्ञानताको पुरोहित ¤ अरे ओ क्लिष्टतारूपी अभेद्य अन्धकारका अग्रदूत अरे घ् तातारी नैतिकताका स्तुति गायक ¤ लौ भन त, तिमीले के कुरा गर्न कम्मर कसेका हौ ? तिमी कुन बाटो हिँडिरहेका छौ ? यसो आफू उभिएको धरातललाई हेर त, तिमी अत्यन्त अँध्यारो खाल्टोमा जाकिँदैछौ । त्यसैको डिलमा उभिएका छौ । सनातनी चर्चलाई तिमीले आफ्ना शिक्षाको आधार बनाएका रहेछौ । यो कुरा मैले राम्रो गरी बुझेको छु ः सनतानी चर्चले जहिले पनि कोर्राको सजायलाई समर्थन र निरङ्कुशताको सधैभरी चाकरी बजाउँछ । त्यसमा विचरा ईसालाई जबरजस्ती तानेर किन ल्याउँछौँ ? ईसा र गिरिजामा तिमीले के समानता देख्यौ ? ईसा त समानता, स्वतन्त्रता र भातृत्वको शिक्षाका पहिला प्रस्तावक थिए, उनले त आफू सहिद भएर पनि विचारको रक्षा गरेका थिए । त्यसमा सत्यताको छाप लागेको थियो । उनैको शिक्षा मानव मुक्तिको एउटा माध्यम बन्न सक्यो । त्यति बेला गिरिजा सङ्गठित रूपमा थिएन । त्यसले सनातन सिद्धान्तलाई आफ्नो आधार पनि बनाउन पाएको थिएन । तर अहिले त्यही गिरिजा ईसाका शिक्षाको प्रतिकुलमा गएर पादरीवादको असमानतालाई समर्थन ग¥यो, पुरोहितशाहीलाई संस्थागत तुल्यायो । सामाजिक असमानतालाई समर्थन ग¥यो, प्रभुत्ववादको चाटुकार बन्यो । विश्वबन्धुत्वको कट्टर सत्रु र मानवद्वेषी भयो । आजसम्म पनि उसले यसै गर्दै आइरहेको छ । ईसाका शिक्षाको वास्तविक सारलाई गिरिजाले प्रस्तुत गर्न सकेको होइन, बरू यसको वास्तविक मानवको सारलाई गएको शताब्दीको दार्शनिक आन्दोलनले स्थापित र सम्प्रेषण गरेको थियो । यसमा भोल्तेयर जस्ता सङ्घर्षशील व्यक्तित्व कट्टरता र अज्ञानता कुहिरीमन्डलसँग जुधेका थिए । युरोपमा रहेको अज्ञानताको अन्धकारलाई आफ्ना ब्यङ्ग्यवाणहरूले भेदन गरेका थिए । चाहे पूर्वीय पुरोहित र पन्डितहरू हुन्, चाहे पश्चिमका पादरी र पन्डा हुन्, तिनीहरूभन्दा उनीहरू कता हो कता ईसाका सच्चा सुपुत्र थिए । उनी सच्चा हृदयका अंश थिए । के तिमी यति बुद्धु छौ र यत्ति कुरा पनि बुझ्दैनौँ ¤ यो कुरा त भर्खरैका स्कुले केटाहरूले पनि बुझेका छन् है ¤ के यस्तो परिस्थितिमा पनि यदि साँचो कुरा भन्ने हो भने “यो कुरा कसरी सम्भव हुन सक्यो ? जुन लेखकले “इन्स्पेक्टर जनरल” र “मृत आत्माहरू” जस्ता कृतिहरू प्रदान ग¥यो । त्यसैले आफ्ना अन्तश्चेतनाबाट प्रभावित भएर यो घृणित खालको रूसी पुरोहितवादका गीतहरू गाएको छ । कैथोलिक पुरोहितहरूले भन्दा पनि बेशी दलाली गर्दै त्यसलाई सातौँ आकाशमा पु¥याइ दिएका छौँ ।

लौ एक छिनलाई यो कुरा मानिलिऔँ । तिमीलाई रूसी पुरोहितहरूका बारेमा केही थाहा छैन रे घ् रूसी पुरोहितहरू कहिल्यै पनि असल थिएनन् रे ¤ उनीहरूलाई यो कुरा पनि थाहा छैन रे ¤ ती पुरोहितहरूले सत्ताधारीहरूको चाकरी र चाप्लुसी र दासता गर्नु सिवाय केही पनि गरेनन् । तर सबारेमा के तिमी यो कुरा भन्न चाहन्छौँ ? “मलाई यो पनि थाहा छैन ः रूसी समाजमा पुरोहितलाई सर्वाधिक घृणाको दृष्टिले हेरिन्छ ।” रूसी जनताको आम पक्षले पनि उनीहरूसँग त्यतिकै विमति राख्छ र घृणा गर्छ । तिमीले नै बताउ न ।
रूसमा सबभन्दा बढी अश्लील खालको चर्चा र किस्सा पादरीहरूका बारेमा नै सुनिन्छ । उसकी श्रीमती र नोकरचाकरहरूकै बारेमा पनि त्यति नै चर्चा परिचर्चा हुने गर्छ । लगभग सबै रूसीहरूले पादरीहरू नै सबभन्दा बढी खञ्चुवा, लोभी र चाप्लुस हुन्छन् भन्ने मान्दछन् । उनीहरूले लज्जाजनक स्तर नै ओर्लिएर पनि व्यवहार गर्छन् । यदि यस्ता कुराहरूको बारेमा पनि तिमीलाई केही थाहा छैन भने यो भन्दा लाजमर्दो कुरा अरू हुनै सक्दैन । यदि तिम्रा कुरामा विश्वास मान्ने हो भने त्यसको निष्कर्ष रूसी जनता संसारका अन्य भागमा जनताभन्दा ज्यादा धार्मिक छन् र हुन्छन् भन्ने कुरा सिद्ध हुन्छ । तर यो सम्पूर्ण असत्य हो । धार्मिकताको आधार भनेको ईश्वरको डर, काल्पनिकताप्रतिको श्रद्धा र कथित पवित्रता हो । यदि आम रूसीले ईश्वरको डर, काल्पनिकताप्रति श्रद्धा र कथित पवित्रता हो । यदि आम रूसीले ईश्वरको नामै लिनु प¥यो भने त्यसबेला उसले अन्त कतै कन्याइरहेको हुनेछ । देवताका मूर्तिका बारेमा उनीहरूको भनाइ छ ः “यदि गतिलो गरी प्रार्थना गर्न भ्याइएन भने पनि कमसेकम त्यस मूर्तिको पछाडि भोड्काको बोतल लुकाउने काम त गर्न सकिन्छ ।” उनीहरूको दृष्टिमा देवप्रतिभाको महत्व यत्ति मात्र हो ।

यसो गहिरिएर विचार गर त ¤ रूसीहरू घोर अनीश्वरवादी प्रकृतिका हुन्छन् । तर पनि उनीहरूमा अन्धविश्वास भन्ने कुरा व्यापक मात्रामा पाइन्छ । तर धार्मिक कट्टरता भने लेस मात्र पनि हुँदैन । अन्धविश्वासलाई सभ्यताको उन्नतिले परास्त गर्न सकिन्छ तर धार्मिकता भन्ने कुरा पछि लामो समयसम्म पनि कायम रहन्छ । फ्रान्समा यसको ज्युदो नमूना देखियो । त्यहाँका कतिपय प्रतिष्ठित बुद्धिजीवीहरू कैथोलिक मतावलम्बी हुन्छन् । यति मात्र होइन, त्यहाँ जसले ईसाई धर्मलाई परित्याग गरिसकेका छन् । उनीहरू पनि कुनै न कुनै रूपमा हठ गर्दै ईश्वरसँग टाँसिएका देखिन्छन् । रूसी जाति त्यो भन्दा सर्वथा भिन्न छ । रहस्यवादबाट उनीहरू आनन्दित हुनै सक्दैनन् । यो रूसीहरूको प्रकृतिसँग मेल नखाने कुरा हो । यसको मुख्य कारण सामान्य तर्क बृद्धिको प्रवलता नै हो । उनीहरूको सोचाइ यति स्वच्छ र यथार्थपरक हुन्छ, त्यसमा रहस्यवाद भन्ने कुरा अटाउनै सक्दैन र त्यसबाट गुजारा पनि हुन सक्दैन । सम्भवतः यसैमा उनीहरूको भविष्यको ऐतिहासिक नियतिको व्यापकता निहित रहेको हुुनु पर्छ । अरूको त कुरै छाडौँ, स्वयं ईसाई पुरोहितमा पनि धार्मिकताले जरो गाड्न सकेन । एक्का दुक्का आत्मकेन्द्रित तथा वितरागीहरू निरूद्विग्न रहेर मोक्ष मार्गको चिन्तनमा डुबिरहन्छन् भने त्यसबाट कुनै कुरा सिद्ध हुने छैन । हाम्रो समाजको पुरोहित वर्ग त आफूलाई ठूलो पन्डित ठान्ने डेढअक्कली, ठूलो भुँडी भएको र आफ्नो बर्बर अज्ञानताका निम्ति कुख्यात छ । धार्मिक असहिष्णुता र कट्टरपनको दोष लगाउनुको कुनै अर्थ छैन र यो त झन लज्जास्पद कुरा हो, बरू हामीले उनीहरूको धार्मिक उपेक्षवादको प्रशंसा गर्नु पर्छ । हाम्रो समाजमा धार्मिकता भन्ने कुरा खालि पृथकतावादी विचारधाराहरूका मात्र पाइयो । यो कुरा आम जनसमुदायको भन्दा भिन्दै खालको विचार हो । यिनीहरू सङ्ख्यात्मक हिसाबले पनि नगन्य मात्र छन् ।

आम रूसी जनता र तिनका स्वामी भनिएका निरङ्कुश जारशाहीका बीचमा रहेको प्रेमपूर्ण सम्बन्धको जुन राग तिमीले अलापिरहेका छौ, म त्यसको विस्तृत विवेचना गर्न गइरहेको छैन । खालि यस विषयलाई दुई चार कुरामा भन्नुपर्दा “तिमीले जे जति गुणागान गरेका छौँ, त्यसले कहीँ पनि सहानुभूति पाउनेवाला छैन । तिम्रो विचारसँग निकटता राख्नेहरूका नजरमा पनि तिमी तल गिरिसकेका छौँ । जारशाहीको निरङ्कुशताको “दिव्य सौन्दर्य” प्रकट गर्ने यस गुणगानको कुनै औचित्य छ त ? भन्ने कुरा तिम्रै जिम्मामा छाडिदिन्छु । मैले यसो गर्नु ठिकै होला । तर त्यसको नजिकबाट त्यो कत्ति पनि आकर्षक हुँदैन । न त सुरक्षित नै हुन्छ । यसै प्रसङ्गमा एउटा कुरा यो पनि भनिहालुँ ः जब कुनै युरोपियन त्यसमा पनि खास गरेर कैथोलिकता धार्मिक भावनाको जोश देखा पर्छ, त्यति बेला हिबु्रका देवताले गरेको अन्यायी अधिकारतन्त्रको खन्डन गर्न कम्मर कसेर लाग्छ । उनीहरूले यस धर्तीका अन्यायी महाप्रभुहरूका अधिकारलाई चुनौती दिने गर्दछन् । हामीहरूकहाँ यसको ठिक उल्टो हुन्छ ः जस्तो कुनै व्यक्ति, चाहे त्यो ख्यातिप्राप्त वा लब्धप्रतिष्ठ नै किन नहोस्, जसलाई मनोविज्ञानको भाषामा “धार्मिक उन्माद” भनिन्छ, त्यसैको शिकार बन्न पुग्छन् । उनीहरूले स्वर्गलोकका देवताहरूलाई भन्दा यसै लोकका देवताहरूलाई धुपदिप गर्न थाल्छन् । सो गर्दागर्दै उनीहरू यति अगाडि बढ्छन र देवताको दासतत्वबाट यति ओतप्रोत हुन्छ कि त्यही देवताले उनीहरूलाई पुरस्कृत गर्न पनि लाज मान्नु पर्ने स्थिति हुन्छ । यदि यस्तो चाटुकार र चाप्लुसहरूलाई पुरस्कृत गरियो भने दुनियाँले के भन्ला ? अहा ¤ हाम्रा रूसी जीवनहरू कति पनि छुच्चा हुन्छन् ?

तिमीले आफ्नो पुस्तकमा एउटा अटल सत्यका रूपमा एउटा कुराको दावा गरेका रहेछौँ ः “साक्षरता भनेको बेकार मात्र होइन, आम रूसी जनताका निम्ति हानिकारक पनि छ ।” खै यस्ता कुरामा पनि मैले के टिप्पणी गर्नु ? यसमा मेरो शुभकामना छ । तिम्रो दिव्य सौन्दर्यमय ईश्वरले नै तिम्रो यो दिव्य विचारकका निम्ति भलो गरोस् । यस्तो जावो तुच्छ कुरा पनि तिमीले आफ्नो कागजमा लेखिरहँदा विचार गर्न सकेनौँ ? यसको प्रत्युत्तरमा “के भन्न सकिन्छ र ? म त यति मात्र भन्न सक्छु ः यस्तो कुरा रूसमा धेरै पुरानो कुरा भइसक्यो । यस्ता अभिव्यक्तिहरूलाई बुराक (१८००–१८७६) र उनका अनुयायीहरूले पहिले नै निचोरेर छोक्रा पारिसकेका छन् । उनले भनेका थिए ः “मैले गल्ती गरेँ त गरेँ । यस्तो मर्नु मेरो अधिकारको कुरा हो । मानिसहरूले मेरो सदासयपूर्ण गल्तीका निम्ति किन सन्देह प्रकट गरिरहेका होलान् ?” तिनीहरूले यस्ता पनि गरेको थिए । यो त निश्चित हो कि, उनीहरूका तुलनामा तिम्रो पुस्तकबाट कैयौँ गुणा बौद्धिकता र प्रतिभाको परिचय प्राप्त हुन्छ तर जति हुनु पर्ने हो, त्यति त होइन । तिम्रै जस्तो सिद्धान्तलाई उनीहरूले अधिक जोश र कट्टरताका साथ उठाएका छन् । उनीहरू अन्तिम रूपमा यस्तो निष्कर्षमा पुगेका छन् । “यी दिव्य सौन्दर्यमय ईश्वरका विचारहरू उनैका श्रीचरणमा समर्पित गरौँ ।”

यतिबेला तिम्रो अवस्था भनेको “दुवैतिर एउटा बत्ति बाल्न भनेर त हिँड्यौँ तर ती दुवैका बीचमा गएर फस्यौँ ।” उदाहरणका निम्ति तिमीले पुस्किन (१९९९–१८३७) का साहित्य र नाटकहरूको त निकै प्रशंसा ग¥यौँ । आखिर आफ्नो अभिमत अनुसार पनि आफ्ना मान्यताहरूलाई आफैले उल्लङ्घन गर्न पुग्यौ । यस्तो कदापि गर्नुै हुँदैनथ्यो । यस्तो कुरा कहिल्यै पनि आत्माको चैनको साधक बन्न सक्दैन, बरू तिमीलाई आत्मग्लानीको पछुतोले नर्कवास बनाउन मद्दत गर्नेछ ।

अरू कुनसँग यस्तो फुर्सद थियो ? जसले यस्तो विचारको प्रतिपादन गर्नु र त्यसलाई आत्मसात गर्नु मनासिव ठान्थ्यो ? तर यस कुराको गोगोल (१८०९–१८५२) र बुराचोक (१८००–१८७६) भनेको एउटै थैलीका चट्टाबट्टा हुन् भन्ने कुरा सावित ग¥यो । तिमीहरूका प्रतिक्रियावादी विचारमा रत्तिभर पनि अन्तर छैन भन्ने कुरा यसले पनि सावित गरेको छ । तिमीले आफूलाई रूसी जनताभन्दा माथि उठेको छु भन्ने ठानेका हौला । तर तिम्रा यी कुराहरूमा कसैले पनि विश्वास गर्नेवाला छैन । मूर्खहरूका निम्ति जुन कुरा स्वाभाविक ठानिन्छ, सोही कुरा प्रतिभासम्पन्न बुद्धिजीवीका निम्ति पनि लागु गर्नु प¥यो । कम्तिमा यस्तो नगरी हालौँ । केही मानिसहरूले त भनेका छन् ः यो पुुस्तक बौलाहा मानसिकताको उपज हो । तर म चाहिँ त्यस्तो भन्दिनँ । किनभने तिमीले यो पुस्तक लेख्दा एक÷दुई दिन, दुई÷चार हप्ता वा एक÷दुई महिना नभएर दुई÷तीन वर्ष लगाएको हुनु पर्छ । यसमा एउटा सिलसिला काम छ । यसको वैचारिक सम्पादनमा पूर्ववर्ती चिन्तनको केही छाप परेको छ । तर समग्रतामा हेर्नु पर्दा वर्गको चाकरी बजाउन उनीहरूको पूजापाठ गरेर भक्तिभावको प्रदर्शन गरिसकेपछि आफ्नो जीवनलाई निष्कण्टक पारेका रहेछौ । यस्तै कारणले होला अचेल सेन्ट पिटर्सवर्गमा एउटा हल्ला चलेको छ ः “जारशाही राजगद्दीको उत्तराधिकारीको घरेलु अध्यापकमा नियुक्ति पाउने उद्देश्यमा आधारित भएर यो सामाग्री लेखिएको होस् । तिमीले उशाकोव (१७८९–१८३८) लाई लेखेको चिठ्ठीको पनि यहाँ सेन्ट पिटर्सवर्गमा चर्चाको विषय बनेको थियो । त्यस चिठ्ठीमा तिमीले एउटा पछुतो मानेका रहेछौँ ः “रूसका सम्बन्धमा मेरा विचारहरू गलत रहेछन् ।” यति मात्र नभएर तिमीले त्यसमा यो कुरा पनि लेखेका रहेछौँ ः “म मेरा पुराना कृतिहरूसँग असन्तुष्ट छु ।” साथै चिठ्ठीमा यो पनि घोषणा गरेका रहेछौँ ः “जारशाहीलाई मन नपर्ने कुनै पनि कृति मलाई मन पर्दैन ।” यस्तो परिप्रेक्ष्यमा तिमी आफै विचार गर । आम जनताका दृष्टिमा तिम्रो हैसियत कस्तो होला ? एउटा लेखकको हैसियत अथवा मानवताको हिसाबले पनि तिमीलाई अधपतित बनाइदिएको छ । यसमा कुनै किसिमको आश्चर्य मान्नु पर्ने कुरै छैन ।

मलाई लागिरहेछ, तिमीले रूसी जनताको शक्तिलाई राम्रो बुझ्नै सकेनौँ । जनताको चरित्र रूसको सामाजिक परिस्थितिले निर्धारित गर्छ, जसमा नयाँ शक्तिले आफूलाई प्रस्तुत गर्न तुफानी सङ्घर्ष गरिरहेका हुन्छन् । उनीहरू जारशाहीको निर्मम दमन र उत्पीडनबाट दबिएका हुनाले निकासको बाटो पहिल्याउन सकिरहेका छैनन् । त्यसैकारण उनीहरूमा निराशा, उदासिनता र पीडाले जन्म लिइरहेको छ । यो कुरा साहित्यिक गतिविधिहरूबाट पनि अभिव्यक्त भइरहेको छ । कठोर तातरी सेन्सरसिप हुँदा हुँदै पनि जीवनप्रति आशा र प्रगतिका चिन्हहरू प्रकट भइरहेका छन् । त्यसैकारण हाम्रो देशमा लेखक पदको ठूलो सम्मान छ । चाहे त्यो लेखक साधारण खालको किन नहोस्, तिनीहरूले पनि साहित्यिक सफलता अवश्य पाउँछन् । कवि र लेखकको सम्मानले गर्दा ठूल्ठूला पदक भिरेका सैनिक पदको ठाँटलाई पनि फिक्का बनाइदिएका छन् । यसका बारेमा मुख्य कुरा छ ः लेखकहरू यसरी सम्मानित हुनुमा एउटा रहस्यले काम गरेको हुन्छ । हरेक उदार प्रवृत्तिको लेखक, जसमा खासै किसिमको प्रतिभा नभएर पनि त्यस्तो लेखक किन सार्वभौम रूपमा सम्मानको पात्र बन्छ र महान्भन्दा महान् र प्रतिभासम्पन्न पनि । सत्य र असत्य जुनसुकै रूपमा होस् त्यसले यदि रूढिवाद, जारशाही निरङ्कुशता र जातीयताको तलुवा मुसार्ने हिसाबले त्यसको प्रशंसामा लेख्न थाल्छ भने त्यस्तो लेखक धुलोमा मिल्न केही बेर लाग्दैन । पुश्किन (१७९९–१८३७) यसका ज्वलन्त नमूना हुन् । एक पटक उनको निरङ्कुश जारशाहीको स्वरमा स्वर मिलाउँदै “कमेर जाकर” (भाट कवि) को चोला धारणा गरे ।

तिमीले यो कुरा विचार गर्दै हौला ः “तिम्रा पुस्तकको जुन दुर्दशा भयो, यसको मुख्य कुरा पुस्तकमा प्रस्तुत भएको खराखरी आलोचना नै हो ।” यदि तिमीले यस्तो सोचेको छौँ भने यो तिम्रो भ्रम मात्र हो । लौ, एउटा कुरा स्वीकार गरौँ कि लेखकको पङ्क्ति त त्यसकारण असन्तुष्ट भएछ तर जनसमुदायलाई के भनेर सफाइ दिन्छौँ ? तिमीले “इन्स्पेक्टर जनरल” र “मृत आत्माहरू” मा यथास्थितिप्रति के कम कठोर आलोचना गरेका थियौँ ? के ती रचनाहरूमा कम सत्यता र तीतो यथार्थलाई उद्घाटित गरेका थियौँ ? यसो विचार गर त घ् पुरातनपन्थीहरूको तिमीमाथि कसरी धुवाँधार विरोधको तोप नै पड्काएका थिए । तर “इन्सपेक्टर र जनरल” र “मृत आत्महरू” नामक रचनाको त एउटा रौँ पनि हल्लिएन । जबकि तिम्रो यो नयाँ पुस्तकले लज्जाजनक विफलताका साथ एकै छिनमा धुलो चाट्न केही बेर लागेन । यसमा रूसी जनता एकदम सही छन् । उनीहरूले लेखकहरूलाई आफ्ना पुरोधा ठान्छन् र जारशाही निरङ्कुशता, रूढिवाद र जातीय अहङ्कारका विरूद्ध लड्ने एक मात्र रक्षक र पालनहारका रूपमा स्वीकार गर्छन् ।

स्तरहीन तथा खराब खालका कृति एवं रचनाहरूलाई उनीहरूले माफी दिन सक्छन् । यसमा कुनै शङ्का छैन । तर कुत्सित र कुटिल विचारले भरिएका रचना र रचनाकारहरूलाई कहिल्यै माफ गर्ने छैनन् (यहाँनिर कुत्सित र कुटिल विचार भनेको जारशाही निरङ्कुशता रूढीवादी र जातीय अहङ्कारलाई किटान गरिएको हो ः अनु) । यसैबाट थाहा हुन्छ हाम्रो रूसी समाजमा बिउकै रूपमा भए पनि धेरै ठूलो परिणाममा ताजा र नविन विचारहरू एवं सहज र स्वस्थ्य चेतनानिहित रहेछ भन्ने कुरा प्रष्ट हुन्छ । यसबाट पनि यो कुरा सिद्ध हुन्छ, रूसी जनताको भविष्य उज्वल छ । यदि तिमीले सच्चा हृदयले रूसलाई मायाँ गर्छाै भने तिमी पनि मेरै साथमा आऊ । हामी मिलेर तिम्रा पुस्तकको विफलतामा हर्ष बढाई गरौँ घ्…”

यो कुरा साँचो हो र यसलाई मैले आत्मविश्वास र आत्मसन्तोषका साथ प्रस्तुत गर्न गइरहेको छु । “मैले रूसी जनतालाई केही न केही मात्रमा बुझेको छु ।” मलाई यस कुराको कुनै चिन्ता छैन कि तिम्रा पुस्तकबाट आम जनतामा नराम्रो प्रभाव पार्नेछ । त्यसभन्दा पनि नराम्रो प्रभाव सरकारी सेन्सरसीपमा पर्नेछ । सेन्ट पिटर्सवर्गमा एउटा ठूलो हल्ला चल्यो ः जारशाही सरकारले तिम्रो पुस्तकलाई हजारौँको सङ्ख्यामा छपाएर अत्यन्त सस्तो मूल्यमा बिक्री वितरण गर्दैछ भन्ने सुनेर मेरा केही साथीहरू चिन्तित भए । मैले उनीहरूलाई सम्झाउँदै भने ः जतिसुकै सरकारी तामझाम गरेर पुस्तकका बिक्री–वितरण र प्रचार गरिए पनि यो कुनै हालतमा सफल हुने छैन र हेर्दा हेर्दै विष्मृतिको गर्भमा विलिन भएर जानेछ । अब उप्रान्त यस पुस्तकको वास्तविक अस्तित्व त्यसका बारेमा लेखिएका आलोचनात्मक समीक्षाहरूमा मात्र रहने छ । वास्तविक पुस्तकका बारेमा कसैले सोधपुछ गर्ने छैन । यसमा कुनै सन्देह गर्नु पर्ने आवश्यकता छैन ः रूसी जनतामा सत्यप्रति सहज चेतना विद्यमान छ । यद्यपि यो चेतना विकास समान अवस्थामा रहेको छ ।

तिमीले जसरी आफ्नो हृदय परिवर्तन ग¥यौ । हुन सक्छ, आफूले निकै इमान्दारीसाथ रङ बदलेको छु भन्ने ठानेका हौला । तर यसै कुरालाई तिमीले जसरी जनताका बीचमा राख्यौ, त्यो तरिका एकदमै गलत थियो । हाम्रो समाजमा ती दिनहरू बितिसके, जसमा कट्टरपन्थी धार्मिकहरूले आफ्नो प्रभाव जमाउन सकेका थिए र सबै कुरा उनीहरूले भने जस्तै हुन्थ्यो । हाम्रो समाजले यो कुरा पनि बुझिसकेको छ ः अब ईश्वरको नाममा माला जप्नाले वा नजप्नाले कुनै फरक पर्ने वाला छैन । किनभने खालि तिनै मानिसहरू मात्र ईशा र जेरूसलमतर्फ आकर्षित हुन्छन्, जसका हृदयमा कहिल्यै पनि ईश्वरको वासना थिएन अथवा आफ्नो हृदयबाट उनलाई निस्काशित गरिसकेका थिए । जसले अरूको दुःखलाई पनि आफ्नै दुःख ठान्ने क्षमता राख्दछ । अरूमाथि उत्पीडन र अत्याचार हुँदा आफु पनि व्यथित रहन्छ भने उसले ईशालाई मान्नु पर्ने र जेरूसलमको यात्रा गर्नु पर्ने कुनै आवश्यकता छैन (पूर्ण अध्यात्मिकता भनेको पनि यही हो शायद ः अनु) । उसले त ईशालाई आफ्नो छातीमा राखिसकेको छ । अकिञ्चित भावनाको जसरी तिमीले प्रचार गरेका छौ, पहिलाका कुरा त त्यो कुनै नयाँ चीज होइन, दोस्रो कुरा त्यो मानिसको आत्मगौरव र आत्मसम्मानको विपरीत कुरा हो । यो मावनताका निम्ति पनि अपमानजनक कुरा हो । एक प्रकारको काल्पनिकतामा आधारित भएर अकिञ्चनताको डोरी समातेर आफूलाई माथि उठाउन खोज्नु या त अहङ्कारको उपज हा या पागलपन हो । यी दुवै अवस्थाले निश्चित रूपमा कपटी, व्यवहारमा ढोङ र पाखन्डलाई जन्म दिन्छ । तिमीले आफ्नो पुस्तकमा अरूप्रति पनि मनोमानी नै गरेका छौँ । यो पनि कुत्सित आचरण नै हो । यदि कसैले आफ्नो छिमेकीका गालामा एक थप्पड हान्छ भने त्यसप्रति स्वाभाविक रूपमा सहानुभूति जाग्छ । तर आफूले आफ्नै गालामा थप्पड हान्छ भने एक प्रकारले घृणा उत्पन्न हुन्छ । तिमीले सोचे अनुसार तिम्रो अन्तरात्ममा ज्योति प्रकाशित भएको होइन, बरू अज्ञानतारूपी धुवाँको कालो बादल मडारिएको हो । तिमीले आजका युगको ईशा, चर्चको न त सारलाई पक्रिन सक्यौँ, न त्यसको रूपलाई नै चिन्न सक्यौँ । तिम्रो पुस्तकमा ईशाका सच्चा मान्यताहरूको अभाव त छँदैछ, त्यसभन्दा पनि बढी नारकीय भएको विकृत पक्ष सल्बलाइरहेको छ ।

तिम्रो भाषामा तिमीले जुन प्रकारका तुकबन्दीको सहारा लिएका छौँ अथवा जुन प्रकारको विम्बहरू प्रस्तुत गरेका छौँ, त्यसले गर्दा आजको प्रत्येक मानिस फोहर फाल्ने कन्टेनर तथा झुत्रोझाम्रो सावित हुनेछ । के तिम्रो विचारमा “थुप्रो” का ठाउँमा “समूह” “देखिन्छ” भन्ने ठाउँमा “दृष्टिगोचर हुन्छ” भनेर “यसको” ठाउँमा “त्यो” लेख्दैमा आफ्नो भाषालाई “देववाणी” भन्न सुहाउँछ ? कसैले यो कुरा कति साँचो भन्यो ः “जब मानिसले झुटको खेती गर्न थाल्छ, उसबाट समझदारी र प्रतिभा पनि विदा भएर जान्छ ।” यदि यो पुस्तक तिम्रो नामबाट छापिन्थेन भने त्यसको कुनै चर्चा हुने थिएन । वेकामका शब्दाडम्बरले भरिएको यो पुस्तक “इन्सेपक्टर जनरल” र “मृत आत्महरू”को लेखक पनि यही हो र भनेर आश्चर्य मान्नु पर्ने स्थिति उत्पन्न भएको छ ।

एउटा कुरा, जहाँसम्म मेरो विषयकै कुरा गर्छौ भने त्यसबारे स्पष्ट गरिदिउँ ः “मैले गरेको यो आलोचनालाई तिमीले म प्रति गरेको प्रतिटिप्पणीबाट असन्तुष्टि भएर यो चिठ्ठी लेखेको होला” भन्ने ठानेका छौँ भने त्यो कुरा गलत हो । यदि तिम्रो पनि टिप्पणीलाई मात्र आधार बनाएको हुन्थे भने खालि सम्बन्धित आशङ्को मात्र आलोचना गर्ने थिएँ । अन्य विषयमा कुनै चासो नै राख्ने थिएन । फेरि अर्को कुरा तिमीले आफ्नो प्रसंशकमाथि जुन हिलो छ्याप्ने काम गरेका छौँ, त्यो पनि ज्यादै कुत्सित कुरा हो । कहिलेकाहीँ मुर्खहरू प्रशंसा पाएर यति खुशी हुन्छन्, त्यो अवस्थामा हास्यास्पद स्थिति उत्पन्न हुन्छ । यस्तो अवस्थामा आलोचनाका दुई÷चार झापड हान्नै पर्ने हुन्छ । तर यस्तो स्थितिलाई राम्रो भन्न मिल्दैन । किनभने मानवीय स्वभाव नै यस्तो छ, जसले गर्दा झुट्टा खालका प्रशंसाहरूलाई पनि अशिष्ट एवं शत्रुताको जवाफ फर्काउन मिल्दैन । तर तिम्रा प्रशंसकहरू त यस्ता मानिसहरू थिए । तिनीहरूलाई प्रतिभासम्पन्न बुद्धिमान भन्न नसकिए पनि मुर्खहरू भन्न मिल्दैन । ती प्रशंसकहरूले तिम्रा रचनाको सतही मूल्याङ्कन गरेका भए पनि त्यसको गहिराइमा पुग्न सकेका छैनन् । तर पनि तिमीप्रतिको उनीहरूको सद्भावलाई शत्रुताको रूपमा लिएर उनीहरूलाई गलहत्याउन भने मिल्दै मिल्दैन । तर पनि तिमीले जुन आरोप लगाइरहेका छौ ः “उनीहरूले मेरो कृतिको गलत अर्थ लगाइरहेका छन् ।” यो कुरा निश्चित हो, तिमी आफ्ना पुस्तकको भावधारामा यतिसम्म प्रवाहित भयौँ, त्यसमा मित्र कुन हुन् ? शत्रु कुन हुन् ? भनेर छुट्याउनै सकेनौँ । कुलीनहरूमा गनिएको तर साहित्यक क्षेत्रमा गुलाम जस्तो व्याजेम्स्की (१७९२–१८७८) ले पनि तिम्रै भावधारालाई अगाडि बढाउँदै तिम्रा आलोचकहरू अथवा खास गरेर ममाथि त अलकत्र नै पोतिदिए । उसल यस्तो गर्नुको पछाडि तिमीलाई खुशी पार्नु थियो होला ।

तिमीले पनि ऊ जस्ता सारहीन तथा निरस पदावलीका रचयितालाई सातौँ आकासमा पु¥याउँदै महाकविको उपाधि प्रदान ग¥यौँ । यो पनि घटिया कुरा थियो । सुरूमा केही अकिञ्चन भावको प्रदर्शन र पछि गएर घमन्डको प्रदर्शन गर्दै आफ्नो हिसाबकितावलाई दुरूस्त पार्नमा तल्लिन थियौँ होला । मैले यो कुरा राम्रोसँग बुझिरहेको छु । मेरा सामुन्ने रहेका तिम्रो पुस्तकलाई एक पटक वा दुई पटक होइन सैकडौँ पटक पढेको छु । त्यसमा जे थियो, त्यो ग्रहण गरेँ, त्यसमा जे थिएन, त्यो कसरी बुझ्ने र ग्रहण गर्ने ? त्यसमा जे थियो, त्यसले मेरो हृदयलाई गहिरो चोट पु¥याएको छ । त्यसबाट मेरो अन्तरात्ममा आगाका फिलङ्गा भड्काइदिएको छ ।

यदि मैले आफ्ना भावनाहरूलाई उन्मुक्त रूपमा व्यक्त गर्न पाउने हो भने यो चिठी एउटा ठूलो ग्रन्थ हुने थियो । यसबारेमा लेख्ने उद्देश्य त थिएन तर इच्छा भने अवश्य थियो । तिमीले छापाहरूका माध्यमबाट आफ्ना पुस्तकका बारेमा बिना कुनै औपचारिकताका साथ आम रूपमा आलोचनाको माग गरेका रहेछौँ । त्यो पनि खालि सत्यमा आधारित भएर । त्यति बेला म रूसमा हुन्थे भने मेरा लागि लेख्नु सम्भव हुने थिएन । किनभने स्थानीय सरकारी जासुसहरूले सरकारी आदेश पूरा गर्ने नाममा हाम्रा चिठीहरू खोलेर सेन्सर गर्छन् र सरकारको विरोध गरेको छ भनेर चुक्ली लगाउँछन् । यस वर्षको सुरूमै मलाई पेट दुख्ने (कहीँ कहीँ टि.बी. को रोग पनि भनिएको छ ः अनु) व्यथाले समात्यो । यद्यपि यो रोग सुरूको स्टेजमा छ । उपचारका निम्ति विदेश (फ्रान्स) जानु प¥यो । तिमीले पठाएको चिठ्ठीलाई नेक्रासोभ (१८२१–१८७७) ले यहाँ साल्जबु्रन्नामा पठाइदिए । म पनि यहाँबाट आन्नेकोभ (१८१२–१८८७) सँग “फ्र्याङ फोर्ट” र आनमेन हुँदै आजै पेरिसतर्फ प्रस्थान गर्दैछु । अकस्मात तिम्रो चिठी पाएपछि मेरो मनमा लागेका जम्मै कुरा एकाएक पोखिदिएँ, जुन कुरा तिम्रो पुस्तक पढेपछि मेरा मनमा लागिरहेका थिए । हेर, म लिपापोती गरेर आधा अधुरो कुरा भन्न जान्दिनँ, न त कुनै कुरा मनमा साँचेर बस्न सक्छु । यो मेरो स्वभावभन्दा विपरीत कुरा हो । यस क्रममा म गलत रहेछु कि तिमी गलत रहेछौँ भन्ने कुराको पनि छिनोफानो भविष्यले गर्नेछ । यदि तिमीप्रतिको मेरो दृष्टिकोण र विश्लेषण गलत निस्कियो भने त्यति बेला मलाई खुशी नै लाग्नेछ । तर अहिले मैले तिमीप्रति जुन धारणा बनाएर विवेचना गरे, त्यसमा मलाई कति पनि पछुतो छैन । यो कुरा तिम्रा र मेराबीचको व्यक्तित्वको प्रश्न हुँदै होइन । यसका सम्बन्धमा एउटा कुरा मलाई लागिरहेको छ म र तिमीभन्दा पनि एउटा कुरा अति महान् छ । त्यो भनेको रूसी समाज र रूसी जनता ।

..र अन्त्यमा यति मात्र भन्न चाहन्छु ः दुर्भाग्यवस अकिञ्चनता र घमन्डले गर्दा तिमीले आफ्ना वास्तविक रूपमा महान कृतिहरूलाई तिलाञ्जली दियौँ । त्यसका ठाउँमा अब महान रूसी जनताका सामु वास्तविक अकिञ्चनता र विनम्रताका साथ यो पुस्तकलाई विसर्जन गरिदिउँ । अरू नयाँ कृतिहरू प्रकाशित गरेर यो घोर पापलाई परिमार्जन गर । ती कृतिहरू यस्ता होउन्, जसले तिम्रा पुराना कृतिहरूले भन्दा पनि अझै अमरता प्रदान गरून् ।

(बेलिन्स्कीले आफ्ना मित्र निकोलाई गोगोललाई १५ जुलाई १८४७ मा लेखेको यो पत्र हामीले विवेक सृजनशील प्रकाशन प्रा.लि. ले प्रकाशन गरेको “गोगोललाई बेलिन्स्कीको चिठी” बाट लिएका हौँ ।)

Original Letter

V. G. Belinsky 1847

Letter to N. V. Gogol [1]
Written: July 3, 1847;
Source: V.G. Belinsky: Selected Philosophical Works Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1948;
Transcribed: Harrison Fluss for marxists.org, February 2008.

You are only partly right in regarding my article as that of an angered man: that epithet is too mild and inadequate to express the state to which I was reduced on reading your book. But you are entirely wrong in ascribing that state to your indeed none too flattering references to the admirers of your talent. No, there was a more important reason for this. One could endure an outraged sense of self-esteem, and I should have had sense enough to let the matter pass in silence were that the whole gist of the matter; but one cannot endure an outraged sense of truth and human dignity; one cannot keep silent when lies and immorality are preached as truth and virtue under the guise of religion and the protection of the knout.

Yes, I loved you with all the passion with which a man, bound by ties of blood to his native country, can love its hope, its honor, its glory, one of its great leaders on the path toward consciousness, development, and progress. And you had sound reason for losing your equanimity at least momentarily when you forfeited that love. I say that not because I believe my love to be an adequate reward for a great talent, but because I do not represent a single person in this respect but a multitude of men, most of whom neither you nor I have ever set eyes on, and who, in their turn, have never set eyes on you. I find myself at a loss to give you an adequate idea of the indignation your book has aroused in all noble hearts, and of the wild shouts of joy that were set up on its appearance by all your enemies, both the nonliterary – the Chichikovs, the Nozdrevs, and the mayors…and by the literary, whose names are well known to you. You see yourself that even those people who are of one mind with your book have disowned it. Even if it had been written as a result of deep and sincere conviction, it could not have created any impression on the public other than the one it did. And it is nobody’s fault but your own if everyone (except the few who must be seen and known in order not to derive pleasure from their approval) received it as an ingenious but all too unceremonious artifice for achieving a purely earthly aim by celestial means. Nor is that in any way surprising; what is surprising is that you find it surprising. I believe that is so because your profound knowledge of Russia is only that of an artist, but not of a thinker, whose role you have so ineffectually tried to play in your fantastic book. Not that you are not a thinker, but that you have been accustomed for so many years to look at Russia from your beautiful far-away; [2] and who does not know that there is nothing easier than seeing things from a distance the way we want to see them; for in that beautiful far-away you live a life that is entirely alien to it; you live in and within yourself or within a circle of the same mentality as your own that is powerless to resist your influence on it. Therefore you failed to realize that Russia sees her salvation not in mysticism or asceticism or pietism, but in the successes of civilization, enlightenment, and humanity. What she needs is not sermons (she has heard enough of them!) or prayers (she has repeated them too often!), but the awakening in the people of a sense of their human dignity lost for so many centuries amid dirt and refuse; she needs rights and laws conforming not to the preaching of the church but to common sense and justice, and their strictest possible observance. Instead of which she presents the dire spectacle of a country where men traffic in men, without even having the excuse so insidiously exploited by the American plantation owners who claim that the Negro is not a man; a country where people call themselves not by names but by nicknames such as Vanka, Vaska, Steshka, Palashka; a country where there are not only no guarantees for individuality, honor and property, but even no police order, and where there is nothing but vast corporations of official thieves and robbers of various descriptions. The most vital national problems in Russia today are the abolition of serfdom and corporal punishment and the strictest possible observance of at least those laws that already exist. This is even realized by the government itself (which is well aware of how the landowners treat their peasants and how many of the former are annually done away with by the latter), as is proved by its timid and abortive half-measures for the relief of the white Negroes and the comical substitution of the single-lash knout by a cat-o-three tails.[3]

Such are the problems that prey on the mind of Russia in her apathetic slumber! And at such a time a great writer, whose astonishingly artistic and deeply truthful works have so powerfully contributed toward Russia’s awareness of herself, enabling her as they did to take a look at herself as though in a mirror – publishes a book in which he teaches the barbarian landowner to make still greater profits out of the peasants and to abuse them still more in the name of Christ and Church….And would you expect me not to become indignant?… Why, if you had made an attempt on my life I could not have hated you more than I do for these disgraceful lines…. And after this, you expect people to believe the sincerity of your book’s intent! No! Had you really been inspired by the truth of Christ and not by the teaching of the devil you would certainly have written something entirely different in your new book. You would have told the landowner that since his peasants are his brethren in Christ, and since a brother cannot be a slave to his brother, he should either give them their freedom or, at least, allow them to enjoy the fruits of their own labor to their greatest possible benefit, realizing, as he does, in the depths of his own conscience, the false relationship in which he stands toward them.

And the expression “Oh, you unwashed snout, you!” From what Nozdrev and Sobakevich did you overhear it, in order to present it to the world as a great discovery for the edification and benefit of the peasants, whose only reason for not washing is that they have let themselves be persuaded by their masters that they are not human beings? And your conception of the national Russian system of trial and punishment, whose ideal you have found in the foolish saying that both the guilty and innocent should be flogged alike? [4] That, indeed, is often the case with us, though more often than not it is the man who is in the right who takes the punishment, unless he can ransom himself, and for such occasions another proverb says: guiltlessly guilty! And such a book is supposed to have been the result of an arduous inner process, a lofty spiritual enlightenment! Impossible! Either you are ill – and you must hasten to take a cure, or…I am afraid to put my thought into words! …

Proponent of the knout, apostle of ignorance, champion of obscurantism and Stygian darkness, panegyrist of Tartar morals – what are you about! Look beneath your feet – you are standing on the brink of an abyss!… That you base such teaching on the Orthodox Church I can understand: it has always served as the prop of the knout and the servant of despotism; but why have you mixed Christ up in it? What have you found in common between Him and any church, least of all the Orthodox Church? He was the first to bring to people the teaching of freedom, equality, and brotherhood and to set the seal of truth to that teaching by martyrdom. And this teaching was men’s salvation only until it became organized in the Church and took the principle of Orthodoxy for its foundation. The Church, on the other hand, was a hierarchy, consequently a champion of inequality, a flatterer of authority, an enemy and persecutor of brotherhood among men – and so it has remained to this day. But the meaning of Christ’s message has been revealed by the philosophical movement of the preceding century. And that is why a man like Voltaire who stamped out the fires of fanaticism and ignorance in Europe by ridicule, is, of course, more the son of Christ, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, than all your priests, bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs – Eastern or Western. Do you really mean to say you do not know that! Now it is not even a novelty to a schoolboy…Hence, can it be that you, the author of The Inspector General and Dead Souls, have in all sincerity, from the bottom of your heart, sung a hymn to the nefarious Russian clergy whom you rank immeasurably higher than the Catholic clergy? Let us assume that you do not know that the latter had once been something, while the former had never been anything but a servant and slave of the secular powers; but do you really mean to say you do not know that our clergy is held in universal contempt by Russian society and the Russian people? About whom do the Russian people tell dirty stories? Of the priest, the priest’s wife, the priest’s daughter, and the priest’s farm hand. Does not the priest in Russia represent the embodiment of gluttony, avarice, servility, and shamelessness for all Russians? Do you mean to say that you do not know all this? Strange! According to you the Russian people is the most religious in the world. That is a lie! The basis of religiousness is pietism, reverence, fear of God. Whereas the Russian man utters the name of the Lord while scratching himself somewhere. He says of the icon: If it works, pray to it; if it doesn’t, it’s good for covering pots.

Take a closer look and you will see that it is by nature a profoundly atheistic people. It still retains a good deal of superstition, but not a trace of religiousness. Superstition passes with the advances of civilization, but religiousness often keeps company with them too; we have a living example of this in France, where even today there are many sincere Catholics among enlightened and educated men, and where many people who have rejected Christianity still cling stubbornly to some sort of god. The Russian people is different; mystic exaltation is not in its nature; it has too much common sense, a too lucid and positive mind, and therein, perhaps, lies the vastness of its historic destinies in the future. Religiousness has not even taken root among the clergy in it, since a few isolated and exceptional personalities distinguished for such cold ascetic contemplation prove nothing. But the majority of our clergy has always been distinguished for their fat bellies, scholastic pedantry, and savage ignorance. It is a shame to accuse it of religious intolerance and fanaticism; instead it could be praised for exemplary indifference in matters of faith. Religiosity among us appeared only in the schismatic sects who formed such a contrast in spirit to the mass of the people and who were numerically so insignificant in comparison with it.

I shall not expatiate on your panegyric to the affectionate relations existing between the Russian people and its lords and masters. I shall say point-blank that panegyric has met sympathy nowhere and has lowered you even in the eyes of people who in other respects are very close to you in their views. As far as I am concerned, I leave it to your conscience to admire the divine beauty of the autocracy (it is both safe and profitable), but continue to admire it judiciously from your beautiful far-away: at close quarters it is not so attractive, and not so safe….I would remark but this: when a European, especially a Catholic, is seized with religious ardor he becomes a denouncer of iniquitous authority, similar to the Hebrew prophets who denounced the iniquities of the great ones of the earth. We do quite the contrary: no sooner is a person (even a reputable person) afflicted with the malady that is known to psychiatrists as religiosa mania than he begins to burn more incense to the earthly god than to the heavenly one, and so overshoots the mark in doing so that the former would fain reward him for his slavish zeal did he not perceive that he would thereby be compromising himself in society’s eyes…. What a rogue our fellow the Russian is!…

Another thing I remember you saying in your book, claiming it to be a great and incontrovertible truth, is that literacy is not merely useless but positively harmful to the common people. What can I say to this? May your Byzantine God forgive you that Byzantine thought, unless, in committing it to paper, you knew not what you were saying…But perhaps you will say: “Assuming that I have erred and that all my ideas are false, but why should I be denied the right to err and why should people doubt the sincerity of my errors?” Because, I would say in reply, such a tendency has long ceased to be a novelty in Russia. Not so very long ago it was drained to the lees by Burachok [an advocate of “official nationality”] and his fraternity. Of course, your book shows a good deal more intellect and talent (though neither of these elements is very richly represented) than their works; but then they have developed your common doctrine with greater energy and greater consistence; they have boldly reached its ultimate conclusions, have rendered all to the Byzantine God and left nothing for Satan; whereas you, wanting to light a taper to each of them, have fallen into contradiction, upholding, for example, Pushkin, literature, and the theater, all of which, in your opinion, if you were only conscientious enough to be consistent, can in no way serve the salvation of the soul but can do a lot toward its damnation…Whose head could have digested the idea of Gogol’s identity with Burachok? You have placed yourself too high in the regard of the Russian public for it to be able to believe you sincere in such convictions. What seems natural in fools cannot seem so in a man of genius. Some people have been inclined to regard your book as the result of mental derangement verging on sheer madness. But they soon rejected such a supposition, for clearly that book was not written in a single day or week or month, but very likely in one, two, or three years; it shows coherence; through its careless exposition one glimpses premeditation, and the hymn to the powers-that-be nicely arranges the earthly affairs of the devout author. That is why a rumor has been current in St. Petersburg to the effect that you have written this book with the aim of securing a position as tutor to the son of the heir apparent. Before that, your letter to [Minister of Education] Uvarov became known in St. Petersburg, wherein you say that you are grieved to find that your works about Russia are misinterpreted; then you evince dissatisfaction with your previous works and declare that you will be pleased with your own works only when the Tsar is pleased with them. Now judge for yourself. Is it to be wondered at that your book has lowered you in the eyes of the public both as a writer and still more as a man?…

You, as far as I can see, you do not properly understand the Russian public. Its character is determined by the condition of Russian society in which fresh forces are seething and struggling for expression; but weighed down by heavy oppression, and finding no outlet, they induce merely dejection, weariness, and apathy. Only literature, despite the Tartar censorship, shows signs of life and progressive movement. That is why the title of writer is held in such esteem among us; that is why literary success is easy among us even for a writer of little talent. The title of poet and writer has long since eclipsed the tinsel of epaulets and gaudy uniforms. And that especially explains why every so-called liberal tendency, however poor in talent, is rewarded by universal notice, and why the popularity of great talents that sincerely or insincerely give themselves to the service of orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality declines so quickly. A striking example is Pushkin who had merely to write two of three verses in a loyal strain and don the kammer-iunker’s livery to forfeit popular affection immediately! And you are greatly mistaken if you believe in all earnest that your book has come to grief not because of its bad trend, but because of the harsh truths alleged to have been expressed by you about all and sundry. Assuming you could think that of the writing fraternity, but then how do you account for the public? Did you tell it less bitter home truths less harshly and with less truth and talent in The Inspector General and Dead Souls? Indeed, the old school was worked up to a furious pitch of anger against you, but The Inspector General and Dead Souls were not affected by it, whereas your latest book has been an utter and disgraceful failure. And here the public is right, for it looks upon Russian writers as its only leaders, defenders, and saviors against Russian autocracy, orthodoxy, and nationality, and therefore, while always prepared to forgive a writer a bad book, will never forgive him a pernicious book. This shows how much fresh and healthy intuition, albeit still in embryo, is latent in our society, and this likewise proves that it has a future. If you love Russia, rejoice with me at the failure of your book!…

I would tell you, not without a certain feeling of self-satisfaction, that I believe I know the Russian public a little. Your book alarmed me by the possibility of its exercising a bad influence on the government and the censorship, but not on the public. When it was rumored in St. Petersburg that the government intended to publish your book in many thousands of copies and to sell it at an extremely low price, my friends grew despondent; but I told them then and there that the book, despite everything, would have no success and that it would soon be forgotten. In fact it is now better remembered for the articles that have been written about it than for the book itself. Yes, the Russian has a deep, though still undeveloped, instinct for truth.

Your conversion may conceivably have been sincere, but your idea of bringing it to the notice of the public was a most unhappy one. The days of naive piety have long since passed, even in our society. It already understands that it makes no difference where one prays and that the only people who seek Christ and Jerusalem [5] are those who have never carried Him in their breasts or who have lost Him. He who is capable of suffering at the sight of other people’s sufferings and who is pained at the sight of other people’s oppression bears Christ within his bosom and has no need to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The humility you preach is, first of all, not novel, and, second, it savors on the one hand of prodigious pride, and on the other of the most shameful degradation of one’s human dignity. The idea of becoming a sort of abstract perfection, of rising above everyone else in humility, is the fruit of either pride or imbecility, and in either case leads inevitably to hypocrisy, sanctimoniousness, and incomprehensibility. Moreover, in your book you have taken the liberty of expressing yourself with gross cynicism not only of other people (that would be merely impolite) but of yourself — and that is vile, for if a man who strikes his neighbor on the cheek evokes indignation, the sight of a man striking himself on the cheek evokes contempt. No, you are not illuminated; you are simply beclouded; you have failed to grasp either the spirit or the form of Christianity of our time. Your book breathes not the true Christian teaching but the morbid fear of death, of the devil and of hell!

And what language, what phrases! “Every man hath now become trash and a rag” -do you really believe that in saying hath instead of has you are expressing yourself biblically? How eminently true it is that when a man gives himself wholly up to lies, intelligence and talent desert him. If this book did not bear your name, who would have thought that this turgid and squalid bombast was the work of the author of Inspector General and Dead Souls?

As far as I myself am concerned, I repeat: You are mistaken in taking my article to be an expression of vexation at your comment on me as one of your critics. Were this the only thing to make me angry I would have reacted with annoyance to it alone and would have dealt with all the rest with unruffled impartiality. But it is true that your criticism of your admirers is doubly bad. I understand the necessity of sometimes having to rap a silly man whose praises and ecstasies make the object of his worship look ridiculous, but even this is a painful necessity, since, humanly speaking, it is somehow awkward to reward even false affection with enmity. But you had in view men who, though not brilliantly clever, are not quite fools. These people, in their admiration of your works, have probably uttered more ejaculations than talked sense about them; still, their enthusiastic attitude toward you springs from such a pure and noble source that you ought not to have betrayed them completely to your common enemies and accused them, into the bargain, of wanting to misinterpret your works. [6] You, of course, did that while carried away by the main idea of your book and through indiscretion, while Viazemskii, that prince in aristocracy and helot in literature, developed your idea and printed a denunciation against your admirers (and consequently mostly against me). [7] He probably did this to show his gratitude to you for having exalted him, the poetaster, to the rank of great poet, if I remember rightly for his “pithless, dragging verse.” [8] That is all very bad. That you were merely biding your time in order to give the admirers of your talent their due as well (after having given it with proud humility to your enemies)- I was not aware; I could not, and, I must confess, did not want to know it. It was your book that lay before me and not your intentions: I read and reread it a hundred times, but I found nothing in it that was not there, and what was there deeply offended and incensed my soul.

Were I to give free rein to my feelings this letter would probably grow into a voluminous notebook. I never thought of writing you on this subject, though I longed to do so and though you gave all and sundry printed permission to write you without ceremony with an eye to the truth alone. [9] Were I in Russia I would not be able to do it, for the local “Shpekins” open other people’s letters not merely for their own pleasure but as a matter of official duty, for the sake of informing. This summer incipient consumption has driven me abroad, [and Nekrasov has forwarded me your letter to Salzbrunn, which I am leaving today with Annenkov for Paris via Frankfort-on-Main]. [10] The unexpected receipt of your letter has enabled me to unburden my soul of what has accumulated there against you on account of your book. I cannot express myself by halves, I cannot prevaricate; it is not in my nature. Let you or time itself prove to me that I am mistaken in my conclusions. I shall be the first to rejoice in it, but I shall not repent what I have told you. This is not a question of your or my personality; it concerns a matter that is of greater importance than myself or even you; it is a matter that concerns the truth, Russian society, Russia. And this is my last concluding word: If you have had the misfortune of disowning with proud humility your truly great works, you should now disown with sincere humility your last book, and atone for the dire sin of its publication by new creations that would be reminiscent of your old ones.

Salzbrunn, July 15, 1847.

1. The publication of Selected Passages from Correspondence, with Friends was not a complete surprise for Belinsky. Six months before Gogol had published in the Sovremennik, Moskovskiye Vedomosti and Mosk-vityanin an article entitled Odyssey, which was later embodied as a separate chapter in Selected Passages. Belinsky claimed that this article, by its paradoxicalness and “high-flown pretensions to prophetic tone,” distressed “all the friends and admirers of Gogol’s talent and gladdened all his enemies.” Following this article Gogol published a second edition of Dead Souls with a foreword which filled Belinsky with “keen apprehensions regarding the future reputation… of the author of Inspector General and Dead Souls.” In his review on this second edition Belinsky said that among the most important defects of the poem were those passages in which “the author tries to rise from a poet and artist to an oracle and descends instead to a somewhat turgid and pompous lyricism.” Belinsky, however, reconciled himself with these defects, since such passages were few in the poem and “they can be omitted in reading without diminishing the pleasure which the novel itself affords.” Of much greater importance was the fact that “these mystico-lyrical sallies in Dead Souls were not simple and accidental errors on the part of the author, but the germ of the perhaps utter deterioration of his talent and its loss for Russian literature.”

Thus, Belinsky was prepared for the Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends. Their publication nevertheless profoundly shocked him. In a big article dealing with this publication Belinsky, for reasons of censorship, was able to give no more than a mild expression of the indignation which the appearance of this “vile” book aroused in him. In a letter to V. P. Botkin, who had disapproved of his article, Belinsky wrote: “I am… obliged to act against my nature and character: Nature has condemned me to bark like a dog and howl like a jackal but circumstances compel me to mew like a cat and wave my tail like a fox. You say that the article is ‘written without sufficient premeditation and straight from the shoulder, whereas the matter should have been handled with subtlety.’ My dear friend, but my article, on the contrary, could never have done justice to such an important theme (albeit of negative importance) as the book it deals with precisely because I premeditated it. How little you know me! All my best articles are unpremeditated, just improvizations; in sitting down to them I never knew what I was going to write…The article on Gogol’s vile book might have turned out to be a splendid one had I been able to shut my eyes and let myself go to the full range of my indignation and fury…But I had premeditated this article, and I knew beforehand that it would not be brilliant, for I merely struggled to make it business-like and to show the baseness of an infamous wretch. And such it has come from under my pen, and not in the way you have read it. You people live in the country and know nothing. The effect of this book was such that Nikitenko, who passed it, deleted some of my quotations from the book, and trembled for those he bad left in my article. At least a third of my own copy was deleted…You reproach me for having lost my temper. But I did not try to keep it. Tolerance to error I can well understand and appreciate, at least in others if not in myself, but tolerance to villainy 1 will not stand. You have .utterly failed to understand this book if you regard it only as an error ar;d do not see it as studied villainy besides. Gogol is not at all K. S. Ak-sakov. It is Talleyrand, Cardinal Fesch, who deceived God all his life and fooled Satan at his death.”

Belinsky’s article, such as it appeared, created a strong impression on Gogol, though he failed to grasp its import. It struck him that Belinsky was angered with him only because he took personal exception to the attacks against the critics and journalists scattered throughout the Correspondence. In this connection Gogol wrote to Prokopovich on June 20, 3847: “This irritation grieves me very much…. Please have a talk with Belinsky and let me know in what frame of mind he now is with regard to me. If his bile is stirred up let him vent it against me in the Sovremennik in whatever terms he pleases, but let him not harbour it in his breast against me. If his wrath has abated give him the enclosed epistle.” Prokopovich handed over the “epistle” to the editorial office of the Sovremennik, and N. A. Nekrasov forwarded it on to Salzbrunn where Belinsky was then sojourning. Gogol, inter alia, wrote Belinsky: “I was grieved to read your article about me in the 2nd issue of the Sovremennik. Not that I deplored the degradation in which you wanted to place me before everyone, but because it betrays the voice of a man who is angry with me. And I would not like to make even a man who did not like me angry with me, still less you, of whom I had always thought as of a man who loved me. I had no intention of causing you distress in a single place of my book. How it has happened that I have roused the anger of every single man in Russia I cannot for the time being understand.” After scanning Gogol’s letter, Belinsky, in the words of P. V. Annenkov, flushed and murmured: “Ah, he does not understand why people are angry with him – he must have that explained to him – I shall answer him.” Three days later his reply was ready. Belinsky read it to P. V. Annenkov. The latter, writing of the impression which this reply made on him, said: “I was alarmed both by the tone and tenor of this reply, and, of course, not for Belinsky’s sake, since no special consequences of foreign correspondence among acquaintances could have been anticipated at the time. I was alarmed for Gogol’s sake, who was to have received this reply, and I could vividly imagine his position the minute he began to read this scathing indictment. The letter did not merely contain a denunciation of his views and opinions; the letter revealed the emptiness and ugliness of all Gogol’s ideals, of all his conceptions of goodness and honour, of all the moral principles of his life, together with the egregious position of those circles whose defender he professed himself to be. I wanted to explain to Belinsky the whole scope of his passionate speech, but he knew that, it appears, better than I, ‘But what else was to be done’.-” he said. ‘All measures should be taken to protect people against a rabid man, even though it were Homer himself. As for insulting Gogol, I could never insult him as he has insulted me in my soul and in my faith in him.’ “ A. I. Herzen, to whom Belinsky read his letter to Gogol, told Annenkov: “It is a work of genius – and, I believe, his testament as well.” This letter to Gogol, which was “the epitome of Belinsky’s literary activity,” Lenin considered to be “one of the finest works of the uncensored democratic press, which has preserved its great and vital importance to this day.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Russian edition, Vol. XVII, p. 341.) In this letter Belinsky not only subjected Gogol’s reactionary book to devastating criticism, he exposed the entire feudal and autocratic system of Russia, and only death saved him from severe punishment for this remarkable document. The superintendent of the Third Section, L. V. Dubelt, “regretted” that he was not able to make the great critic “rot in prison. It is known that the Russian writer Dostoyevsky was condemned to death, the sentence later being commuted to penal servitude, for having read Belinsky’s letter in a circle of Petrashevsky adherents. The government’s cruel reprisals, however, could do nothing to prevent Belinsky’s letter from being circulated in thousands of copies. I. S. Aksakov wrote to his father on October 9, 1856, i.e., nine odd years after Belinsky’s letter first appeared: “I have travelled much about Russia: the name of Belinsky is known to every youth who is at’ all given to thinking, to everyone who longs for a breath of fresh air amid the stinking quagmire of provincial life. There is not a single high-school teacher in the gubernia towns who does not know Belinsky’s letter to Gogol by heart.”

Belinsky’s famous letter was first published by A. I. Herzen in The Polar Star in 1855 (2nd ed., London, 1858, pp. 66-76), from which text it was reprinted several times abroad. The full text of this letter appeared in several editions of Belinsky’s works as well as in his Letters published in 1914. The original has not come down to us. The text here given is a reprint from that published in The Polar Star.

2. Gogol went abroad in 1836 where, with short intermissions, he lived for many years.

3. The knout with a single lash used as an instrument of punishment in Russia was substituted by the cat-o’-three tails in accordance with the criminal code of 1845.

4. Gogol had said all this in a letter to Count S. S. Uvarov in April 1845.

5. Gogol in Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends had written of his intention of making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

6. Gogol had not mentioned Belinsky by name in his Correspondence, but it was obvious to all that it was him he had in mind when speaking of the critics. Thus in Chapter VII he wrote that Odyssey … would refreshen criticism. Criticism was tired and confused from dealing with the baffling works of modern literature, it had flown off at a tangent, and, waiving literary topics, was “beginning to dote.”

7. Refers to P. A. Vyazemsky’s article Yazikov and Gogol.

8. In an article On the “’sovremennik” Gogol -wrote: “Thank God, two of our… first-class poets are still alive and well – Prince Vyazemsky and Yazikov.” Furthermore, having in view a new edition of his Correspondence Gogol asked Prince Vyazemsky: “read, acquaint yourself, strictly examine and set right my book… . Regard the manuscript,” he wrote? “as you would your own cherished property .. And so, dear Prince, do not forsake me, and may God reward you for it, for that will be a truly Christian act of charity.” The praise and this plea apparently had their effect, for Prince Vyazemsky wrote his article Yazikov and Gogol in defence of Gogol’s book.

9. In the foreword to the second edition of Dead Souls Gogol wrote: “Much in this book has been written wrongly, not as things are really happening in the land of Russia. I ask yon, dear reader, to correct me. Do not spurn this matter. I ask you to do it.”

10. The words in brackets were, of course deliberately omitted by Herzen in The Polar Star to avoid giving publicity to the names of Nekrasov and Annenkov mentioned in Belinsky’s letter.

(स्रोत : हाँक विक्ली – वर्ष ३०, अंक ८ – Jan. 2, 2013 – २०६९ पौष १८ गते, बुधबार)