This was written for Lyceum Day in 1831.

Six dead friends...

1. Nikolay Rzhevsky, Kiss.

2. "Our curly singer"- Korsakov.

Around this time, Kuchlebecker’s sister will bow in Italy to that small monument that has already been mentioned, pick an orange leaf on the grave and send Kuchle to Transbaikalia. "This leaf- contemporaries testify, - Kuchelbecker kept it as a relic, as a shrine, along with a portrait of his mother, with the only manuscript of his father that had reached him, with the last letter and clasp from Pushkin’s manidka and with a letter from Zhukovsky.”

3. Konstantin Kostensky, Old man; a modest official at a banknote factory, he rarely appears with friends, so Yakovlev once suggested that "he walks around with an invisible hat" and another time he wrote (regarding the death of Father Kostensky): “Since the old man buried the old man, no one has met the old man.” A year ago, before October 19, he was invited to a general holiday, and he answered Volkhovsky with a touching letter:

“My dear Vladimir Dmitrievich, please take the trouble to thank my comrades for the invitation made to me: it is flattering for me, especially since it shows that the love of the comrades of the first graduating class still burns just as much in 1830 as it did in 1811. But to me , unfortunately, you can’t eat or drink anything. Believe me, my dear Vladimir Dmitrievich, this is the true truth. Have fun, gentlemen, even without me, and at least one glass for the health of the patient.

The illness that prevented the meeting turned out to be fatal. And maybe on October 19, 1831 they remembered famous passion old man- drawing. A hundred years later, the famous art critic A. M. Efros, having studied the image of a hussar and other student drawings of Kostensky, will note: “The sheet with the hussar suggests that drawing was some kind of solitary affection of his, a dark passion... The Lyceum was of no use to him, the Old Man. He needed a different school. The Lyceum undergrowth could have done well on the bench of the Academy of Arts. .. His “Hussar” says as much about what he could have become as about what he did not become.”

4. Peter Savrasov. The cruel Petersburg consumption unexpectedly overcame the strong, serviceable, good-natured colonel. "Red-haired", "Ryzhak", "Red-haired long-nosed colonel"- these jokes in the letters of Yakovlev and Engelhardt became sadder over time: shortly before the Lyceum meeting, news of his death in Hamburg came...

6. And one more, recent, most terrible loss for Pushkin - Delvig. The editor of the Literary Newspaper, started according to the thoughts of Pushkin, the creator of the famous almanac “Northern Flowers”, he steadfastly waged a difficult, unequal struggle with the authorities and the hostile Bulgarin press. According to the recollections of the poet’s cousin, the summons to Benckendorff had a detrimental effect on his health. The chief of gendarmes shouted, threatened Delvig, addressed him first name, promised to send him, Pushkin and Vyazemsky, "if not now, then soon" to Siberia. Delvig was not afraid, he even achieved an apology from Benckendorff, but fell into apathy; literary struggle, poetry, journalism - all of this suddenly seemed unnecessary and hopeless. It was in this state that Radishchev probably killed himself...

Family troubles, poor health - all these setbacks can be endured if the spirit is strong, clear and the goal is undoubted. But in a moment of despair, Delvig, in essence, had no one to turn to. Pushkin is in Moscow... On January 21, 1831, Alexander Sergeevich responds to Pletnev:

“I received your letter in the evening. It’s sad, melancholy. This is the first death that I mourned... No one in the world was closer to me than Delvig. Of all the connections of childhood, he was the only one who remained in sight - our poor little bunch gathered around him. Without him, we were definitely orphaned Count on your fingers: how many of us are there? You, me, Baratynsky, that’s all.

Yesterday I spent the day with Nashchokin, who was greatly affected by his death - they talked about him, calling him the deceased Delvig, and this epithet was as strange as it was terrible. Nothing to do! we agree. Dead Delvig. Be like this."

Again and again Pushkin recalls Delvig:

“Baratynsky is going to write the life of Delvig. We will all help him with our memories. Isn’t it so? I knew him at the Lyceum - I witnessed the first, unnoticed development of his poetic soul and talent, to which we have not yet given due justice. With him I read Derzhavin and Zhukovsky - I talked with him about everything that worries the soul, that torments the heart. I know well, in a word, his early youth;(Pletnev) and Baratynsky know better his early maturity. You witnessed the maturity of his soul. The three of us will write the life of our friend, a life rich not in romantic adventures, but in wonderful feelings, a bright, clear mind and hopes..."

The plan could not be realized, but in Pushkin’s papers there remained the beginning of his wonderful memories of his friend.

Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin

The more often the Lyceum celebrates
Your holy anniversary
The more timid the old circle of friends
The family is embarrassed to be together,
The rarer it is; that's our holiday
In its joy it is darker;
The louder the ringing of health bowls
And our songs are even sadder.

So the breath of the earth's storms
And they accidentally touched us,
And we are among the feasts of the young
The soul was often darkened;
We have matured; rock judged
And we have everyday trials,
And the spirit of death walked among us
And he appointed his slaughter.

Six places that have been abolished are standing,
We will never see six friends again,
They sleep scattered -
Who is here, who is there on the battlefield,
Some are at home, some are strangers in the land,
Who is ill, who is sad
Brought into the darkness of the damp earth,
And we cried over everyone.

And it seems like it’s my turn,
My dear Delvig is calling me,
A living comrade of youth,
Comrade of sad youth,
Companion of young songs,
Feasts and pure thoughts,
There, in the crowd of shadows of relatives
A genius that has escaped us forever.

Closer, oh dear friends,
Let's form our faithful circle,
I finished the song for the deceased,
Let us congratulate the living with hope,
There is no time for hope again
Find yourself in a lyceum feast,
Still hug everyone else
And there is no need to be afraid of new victims.

Celebration at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum in 1836 on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Lyceum. Unknown artist

The author, who honored the “holy” anniversary of the Lyceum, repeatedly addressed the topic on October 19, the opening day educational institution. Famous formula, approving beautiful essence a free and eternal friendly union, created by the poet in 1825. In the work that appeared two years later, enthusiastic intonations disappear and minor motifs increase. The hero calls on divine powers to help his comrades, blessing their fate - both joyful and bitter.

The poetic text of 1831, dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the Lyceum, is painted in sad tones. The lyrical subject is concerned about the fact that the “circle of friends” is shrinking, losing unity and optimism in life. The first stanza accumulates adverbs and adjectives in comparative degree: “more often”, “more timid”, “less often”, “darker”, “more silent”, “sadder”. The author selects vocabulary that conveys the sad, desolate meaning of change.

The second stanza asserts the influence historical events, romantically called “earthly storms” and “rock”, on mature lyceum students and classmates.

The “spirit of death” interrupted the earthly existence of six comrades. The cause of their death was various circumstances: failures military service, serious illness, depression. The last remark concerns the death of Delvig, with whom the author was connected not only by years of lyceum friendship, but also collaboration over the Literaturnaya Gazeta.

Anton Delvig

The fourth stanza begins with an autobiographical detail - a heavy premonition of one’s own imminent death, which, as we know, came true. The hero turns to the image of “dear Delvig”. The lexical anaphora “comrade” emphasizes the strength of grief and melancholy caused by the untimely loss of a like-minded person and colleague in poetic destiny.

In the final eight-line, the sad mood is diluted with major notes. Having paid his debt to the memory of the departed, the hero seems to cope with emotions and calls on his friends to unite. The image of the “faithful circle” appears again. The anaphora “closer” looks like a contrast to similar forms of vocabulary presented at the beginning of the poem. A bright hope for a prosperous future drives the lyrical “I.” The optimistic conclusion of the text, voicing the cherished desire to meet true friends, allows you to cope with bad premonitions. It also muffles the severity of grief: the hero, with humility and courage, accepts the inevitability of the end of earthly existence.

“The more often the Lyceum celebrates...” Alexander Pushkin

The more often the Lyceum celebrates
Your holy anniversary
The more timid the old circle of friends
The family is embarrassed to be together,
The rarer it is; that's our holiday
In its joy it is darker;
The louder the ringing of health bowls
And our songs are even sadder.

So the breath of the earth's storms
And they accidentally touched us,
And we are among the feasts of the young
The soul was often darkened;
We have matured; rock judged
And we have everyday trials,
And the spirit of death walked among us
And he appointed his slaughter.

Six places that have been abolished are standing,
We will never see six friends again,
They are sleeping scattered -
Who is here, who is there on the battlefield,
Some are at home, some are strangers in the land,
Who is ill, who is sad
Brought into the darkness of the damp earth,
And we cried over everyone.

And it seems like it’s my turn,
My dear Delvig is calling me,
A living comrade of youth,
Comrade of sad youth,
Companion of young songs,
Feasts and pure thoughts,
There, in the crowd of shadows of relatives
A genius that has escaped us forever.

Come now, oh dear friends,
Let's form our faithful circle,
I finished the song for the deceased,
Let us congratulate the living with hope,
There is no time for hope again
Find yourself in a lyceum feast,
Still hug everyone else
And there is no need to be afraid of new victims.

Analysis of Pushkin’s poem “The more often the Lyceum celebrates...”

The author, who honored the “holy” anniversary of the Lyceum, repeatedly addressed the topic on October 19, the opening day of the educational institution. A well-known formula that affirms the beautiful essence of a free and eternal friendly union was created by the poet in 1825. In the work that appeared two years later, enthusiastic intonations disappear and minor motifs increase. The hero calls on divine powers to help his comrades, blessing their fate - both joyful and bitter.

The poetic text of 1831, dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the Lyceum, is painted in sad tones. The lyrical subject is concerned about the fact that the “circle of friends” is shrinking, losing unity and optimism in life. The first stanza accumulates adverbs and adjectives in a comparative degree: “more often”, “timider”, “less often”, “gloomier”, “deafer”, “sadder”. The author selects vocabulary that conveys the sad, desolate meaning of change.

The second stanza affirms the influence of historical events, romantically called “earthly storms” and “fate,” on mature lyceum students and classmates.

The “spirit of death” interrupted the earthly existence of six comrades. The cause of their death was various circumstances: failures in military service, serious illnesses, depression. The last remark concerns the death of Delvig, with whom the author was connected not only by years of lyceum friendship, but also by joint work on the Literary Newspaper.

The fourth stanza begins with an autobiographical detail - a heavy premonition of one’s own imminent death, which, as we know, came true. The hero turns to the image of “dear Delvig”. The lexical anaphora “comrade” emphasizes the strength of grief and melancholy caused by the untimely loss of a like-minded person and colleague in poetic destiny.

In the final eight-line, the sad mood is diluted with major notes. Having paid his debt to the memory of the departed, the hero seems to cope with emotions and calls on his friends to unite. The image of the “faithful circle” appears again. The anaphora “closer” looks like a contrast to similar forms of vocabulary presented at the beginning of the poem. A bright hope for a prosperous future drives the lyrical “I.” The optimistic conclusion of the text, voicing the cherished desire to meet true friends, allows you to cope with bad premonitions. It also muffles the severity of grief: the hero, with humility and courage, accepts the inevitability of the end of earthly existence.

“I ask you to release Uncle Ilya from punishment...”, wrote 13-year-old Dasha T. in her statement, whom the investigation and the court consider to be a victim of gang rape. Two people - a family friend and a friend of the girl - have already been convicted in this case, however, both Dasha’s mother and the victim herself demand that the verdict be overturned and claim that they testified under pressure. This story is the complete opposite of the sensational case of Diana Shurygina, when the girl and her family demanded the most severe punishment for the rapist. I understood the details of the process and its background.

Warning

This story gave rise to many rumors and gossip. But they all boil down to two versions: the schoolgirl and her mother, on the one hand, and on the other. Lenta.ru cites both positions.

Mother's version

On December 28 last year, the Shchelkovo City Court sentenced two residents of the Moscow region: 18-year-old Alexander S. and 31-year-old Ilya L. were sentenced to 12.5 and 16.5 years for raping a teenage girl. However, the victim, 13-year-old Daria, who was 11 at the time of the crime, and her mother Natalya (their names have been changed) claim that there was no crime. They filed a complaint against the verdict and ask for it to be overturned and for the young people to be acquitted. To understand this confusing story, let's go back to the beginning.

In the town of Shchelkovo near Moscow lived a young mother with two children: her eldest daughter and youngest son. Natalya gave birth to Dasha at the age of 17; her husband drank heavily and eventually died. Natalya and her children remained to live with her father-in-law, and her apartment, which was next door, landing, rented it out to spouses Ilya L. and Irina R. At that time, they, like Natalya, were about 30 years old, and they quickly became friends. After some time, Natalya decided to sell her apartment, and Ilya and Irina, leaving their previous home, moved to the village of Lvovsky, Podolsky district, Moscow region, where they rented half of the house.

In the summer of 2016, Natalya and her children moved in with them: at that time, in her new apartment, purchased in the city of Chekhov, was undergoing repairs. This company was joined by Peter, who rented the second half of the house, and the owner of this house, Nina. According to Natalya, everyone lived amicably: they went to visit each other and talked. One day Peter left on his own business for several days, Natalya was also away. At this time, Irina called her and said that Ilya had disappeared along with her children.

After some time, Ilya was found at the neighbor Peter's, but the owner himself was not there. Ilya was drunk, and with him was a certain 18-year-old girl, very drunk, and Natalya’s children, who were also drinking alcohol. A scandal broke out. Ilya explained that he had quarreled with his wife and decided to get drunk, but there was no money. So he broke into half of his neighbor's house, where he knew there was alcohol. Natalya says that the women forgave the unlucky man, ordering him to clean up the consequences of his drinking before the owner returned.

It smelled like something was fried.

A week and a half later, Peter returned and discovered that his alcohol was missing. He called Natalya and made claims to her. She and Irina decided to hide the drinking party organized by Ilya, and told Peter that they were on his half of the house and drank his cognac. According to Natalya, no one stole anything from Peter, but he still went to the police.

On September 11, 2016, law enforcement officers came to Ilya and Irina and took the owner of the house and Natalya to the station, telling the women that they were suspected of theft. Ilya was on a business trip at that time. As Natalya says, they were summoned to the police for questioning for three days. On the fourth day, Peter came to visit with cognac, and Natalya got drunk.

“I didn’t need much, I was worried and drank to relieve stress and sleep,” she says. That same evening Ilya returned from a business trip and was taken to the police. Natalya outlined the events of the next day, when accusations of rape appeared, in her statement addressed to the prosecutor general ( ).

“...In the morning, while I was still sleeping, my minor daughter, born in 2003, was taken away without my knowledge or permission. She was interviewed without my presence, the presence of a social teacher, guardianship authorities, or a psychologist. According to my daughter, she was intimidated, pressured and forced to testify under the pretext of depriving me of parental rights that she allegedly was sexual relations with [Ilya]. After some time, I, in a state of alcoholic intoxication, was taken from the house to the police department. Taking advantage of my condition, they forced me to write a statement to [Ilya], which I wrote under dictation, without realizing that I was writing, since I was still in drunk", the document says.

It follows from it that on the evening of September 15, 2016, Natalya and her daughter were taken to (TFR), and Ilya was also brought there.

“At that time, I had already sobered up and began to understand the essence of what was happening. After talking with [Ilya], I learned that he confessed to sexual relations with my daughter, since [the police officer] exerted moral and physical pressure on him, as in my case,” Natalya writes in her statement to the Prosecutor General .

Ilya told her that they beat him and threatened to prosecute his wife for stealing from a neighbor. Trying to protect her, the man admitted to raping a minor.

Point of no return

In her statement, Natalya indicates that the day after these events she tried to withdraw her statement, but the police officers obscenely asked her to leave. In a conversation with Lenta.ru, the woman could not explain how the police officers involved in the theft case came up with a version of rape.

“I don’t know, I wasn’t there. They took my daughter away while I was sleeping; they tried to wake me up, but they couldn’t. They kept Ilya in the department all night, beat him with a chair, and tortured him with electric shock. Maybe they asked Dasha if she had a boyfriend, she said that she met a guy in Shchelkovo, and they took advantage of this situation,” says Natalya.

According to her, in 2014, her daughter was not friends for long - three or four months - with the young man Alexander, the nephew of acquaintances. Judging by the calculations, he was 15 years old at the time.

Photo: Dmitry Lebedev / Kommersant

“My daughter is generally reserved. Well, they are friends, but I didn’t notice anything to sound the alarm. Then, when all this happened, she admitted that they kissed and hugged by mutual consent. I didn’t tell intimate details,” explains Natalya.

According to her, Dasha and Alexander loved each other, wanted to start a family in the future, but then they had a big fight, and after some time Natalya and the children left Shchelkovo, and the teenagers’ relationship was interrupted. Natalya, like her minor daughter, insist that there was no rape either on the part of Alexander or on the part of Ilya. This is also stated in Dasha’s statement ( available to Lenta.ru). The author's spelling has been preserved.

“During our acquaintance (with Ilya) from 2012 to the present, he never allowed any sexual actions, violence, sexual acts against me and did not accept attempts to do these actions. I was forced to give evidence against him by employees of the police department of the village of Lvovsky, Podolsk district, Moscow region, in particular a police officer (...). I was forced to slander Uncle Ilya under the threat of depriving my mother of parental rights, and my brother and I, who was 9 years old at that time, would be sent to Orphanage. I ask you to consider your earlier testimony regarding Ilya as invalid. I ask that Uncle Ilya be released from punishment because he does not deserve it.”

To a harsh sentence

Natalya did not tell the investigator that there was a conspiracy in the case, because, according to her, the police convinced her that it was useless.

“We don’t understand all this jurisprudence, we don’t know our rights, we quickly concocted a case and took it to court. We decided that we would tell the whole truth in court, but they didn’t believe us. The daughter told the judge that nothing happened, that she treated and still treats Ilya as a family friend, as a father. The judge began to laugh and ask questions: why didn’t you say so right away? He allowed himself to joke and be sarcastic. Refused to call a police officer (...). The court looked only at the primary testimony. Ilya in last word told how he was tortured and forced to testify,” Natalya recalls the trial.

In judicial practice, there are cases when the accused pay the victims a certain amount in exchange for the fact that the application will be withdrawn. Based on this, judges are biased towards the fact that victims suddenly change their position and declare that they have no claims against the accused. When asked directly whether Natalya was paid for now defending the defendants, she replied that the change in their position had nothing to do with money.

“Alexander’s family decided to compensate us for this hassle, they paid us 30 thousand rubles as compensation for moral damages for the fact that they shook our nerves, pulled us, I quit work. Do you think that if everything really happened, these 30 thousand would be enough? If they decided to bribe, it would be completely different money. And Ilya has nothing at all - neither an apartment, nor a car. He is an orphanage, he has no one except his wife, who works two jobs. They're just my friends. And the judge latched on to this, deciding that I had forgiven them. But a person cannot forgive something like this if it happened!” - explains Natalya.

She understands that this whole story “looks strange and bad from the outside, because only a year later they announced that there was no rape.” Natalya also refers to the results of a forensic examination, which showed that Dasha is innocent.

“She still has her hymen, but they explained to us that it is very elastic and will only break during childbirth. And when you read these testimonies, your blood runs cold. The testimony is so clear, and they are similar to each other: Alexandra, Ilya, Dasha. It feels like they were written as a carbon copy. I asked for a second forensic examination, but they refused,” says the victim’s mother.

As a result, the Shchelkovo City Court found Ilya guilty under Articles 131 (“Rape”), 132 (“Violent acts of a sexual nature”) and 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Theft”). He was given 16.5 years in a maximum security colony. The second defendant in the case, Alexander, was sentenced to 12.5 years under Articles 131 and 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The convicts have already appealed the verdict. Appeal Natalya and her daughter filed: they ask to cancel the verdict, which they consider unfair. Natalya indicated in the complaint ( available to Lenta.ru), that there was no crime and the young people should be acquitted.

Investigation version

The investigators were quite surprised by the statement of Dasha and her mother. The fact is that a criminal case of rape was opened after a statement written by the girl in her own hand in the presence of a legal representative.

“During the entire investigation, the girl never stated that she was under pressure. Moreover, during the trial, while giving evidence, Dasha did not say a word about the fact that she was forced to slander Ilya and Alexander,” they told Lente.ru at the Moscow region headquarters of the Investigative Committee of Russia (ICR).

In turn, the source in law enforcement agencies Podmoskovye reported to Lenta.ru that during the judicial investigation, the victim did not report either pressure on her or a slander until the moment when the debate between the parties began - that is, until the very last moment.

“During the investigation, Dasha’s testimony was consistent, logical and did not contradict other data,” says our interlocutor. - Moreover, all interrogations of the victim took place in the presence of the mother and social teacher, that is, in strict accordance with the law. At the trial, the girl first gave testimony that slightly, in minor details, diverged from the data at the preliminary investigation, then the discrepancies became more serious. Since several years had passed since the crime, this was attributed to forgetfulness, but it gradually became clear that these changes in testimony, made gradually, were intended to help the accused avoid responsibility. However, there were still no direct statements about slander or pressure.”

According to the source, the situation around this verdict resembles a standard scenario: the mother is either threatened, or, more likely, they were simply paid to ensure that the rapists avoid criminal liability. Characteristic signs This: throughout the trial and investigation, the girl gives the same testimony, completely incriminating the accused, and then suddenly abandons it. Moreover, at the stage when it is only possible to return the case for further investigation, since the main testimony of the main defendant has changed. Centuries-old arbitrage practice says that this is how issues are resolved with threats or money.

21...Jesus withdrew to the countries of Tire and Sidon. 22. And so, a Canaanite woman, coming out of those places, shouted to Him: have mercy on me, O Lord, son of David, my daughter is cruelly raging. 22. But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came up and asked Him: let her go, because she is screaming after us. 24. He answered and said: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25. And she came up, bowed to Him and said: Lord! help me. 26 And he answered and said, It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs. 27. She said: Yes, Lord! but the dogs also eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table. 28.Then Jesus answered her: O woman! great is your faith; let it be done to you as you wish. And her daughter was healed at that hour. (Matt. 15:21-28)

[Jesus] came into the borders of Tire and Sidon; and, having entered the house, he did not want anyone to find out; but could not hide. For a woman whose daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet; and that woman was a pagan, a Syrophoenician by birth; and asked Him to cast out the demon from her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children have their fill first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She answered Him: So, Lord; but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs. And he said to her: for this word, go; The demon has left your daughter. And, having arrived at her house, she found that the demon had left and her daughter was lying on the bed. (Mark 7:24-30)

Thank you lanfranco, that the post on his LiveJournal made me seriously think about the meaning of this story.

The text is certainly one of the difficult ones, so I thought for a long time. About the same as Iscariot over betrayal. That is, a day and a half. Then I tried to mow it down for another day. But today I realized that I still have to write.

Jesus specifically went to places where there were no compatriots in order to be in silence, “but he could not hide himself.” A woman, a “Syrophoenician”, a Phoenician from Syria (there were also Phoenicians in Libya), made her way to Him and asked to heal her daughter.
“Let the children be satisfied first,” answered Jesus, unexpectedly comparing the Jews, who boasted of their thousand-year history and spiritual greatness, with babies, even if especially loved by God, but just children who sit at a separate table aside from the main table. “It’s not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs" (Mk 7:27). You could have been offended, you could have screamed - no one would have condemned a woman who was denied such a request. On paper, Jesus' words seem cruel. And she saw that He was joking: Jesus said not “dog”, but “kinaria” - “puppy”, depriving the curse of all its power and turning it into a joke. Swearing does not tolerate deviations from the stencil; “son of a bitch” is no longer an insult, but a mockery of the insult. Jesus does not stigmatize her, but invites her to talk - the woman understood and took up the joke: “But even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs” (Mk 7:28). “Because of this word, go; the devil is gone out of your daughter,” Jesus concluded joyfully.

To save a person, it turned out to be not at all necessary to adapt to the person or even go to him."

(c) Yakov Krotov. History is like life. Life of Jesus.

IMHO, terrible.

I don’t know what you think, dear comrades, but in mine, this is the interpretation - full guard. Let the first person to unfriend me is the one who believes that I do not place love and joy above the highest things in Christianity. But not here, not like this, not in this shape and form. I get chills from interpreting this text in a humorous way. I wouldn't want to face it life path with a person, especially with God, who giggles in such a situation. I’m not talking about the mother who “takes up the joke.”

I really love Christian joy. Just in the last post I wrote about Francis - perhaps the most joyful saint, whose love survived centuries precisely in its joy and openness. Joy for me is one of the criteria for the authenticity of Christianity - whether in the interpretation of the text or in a person. Sullenness is never right.

But genuine Christian joy and what Krotov offers in his interpretation differ approximately in the same way as thick red wine and Jupi powder diluted in water. Christianity is not pink water that you can rinse your mouth with to make it smell nice, and then either swallow it or spit it out, it makes no difference. And this is exactly what happens with the above interpretation - even if there is this demonstration of blackness in the Gospel, even if it is not there, in general, it makes no difference (and it would be better if it weren’t).

Christianity is not a pink bow frivolously attached to human soul. Christianity is a knife that penetrates a person very deeply, wounding him to the very heart, reaching to the very depths of his being and, yes, causing pain. But only through such a wound, piercing all our vital skins, all our vital armor, can we be united with Christ. If anyone thinks that in Christianity one can avoid wounds, let him thoughtfully honor Christ’s call to take up the cross and follow Him. It would also be good to reflect on the spiritual closeness of anesthesia and the agony of the cross.

Don't be afraid to read texts that cause pain to the reader or participants in the episode. And there is no need to be afraid when Christ causes pain - He does not do this for the sake of sadism. There is no need to look for petty excuses for Him that speak of nothing more than mistrust. There is no need to degrade the text, which penetrates to the very depths of the soul, to the level of Zadornovism. Christianity is very joyful and very serious. And without perfect, deepest and sometimes very bitter seriousness, there would never be joy.

Let's still drink red wine, not rose water.

Christian joy is always connected with finding God, and Jesus never healed the flesh without neglecting the soul. Krotov’s interpretation, IMHO, does not satisfy both of these conditions.

...Jesus withdrew to the countries of Tire and Sidon.

So the picture: day, sun, hot. Jesus and his disciples are walking along the road (let's stick to Matthew's version, there are more replicas in it, Mark, as usual, believes that the cr. s. tal.), a woman runs after them, trying to catch up with them and calling out loudly, and probably out of breath , and probably in the most pitiful voice.

22 And so, a Canaanite woman, coming out of those places, shouted to Him: have mercy on me, O Lord, son of David, my daughter is cruelly raging.

There is little sense, the disciples look back at her, but Jesus does not seem to hear. Syrophoenician... Well... A pagan, of course, but this no longer confuses even the disciples - does Jesus communicate little with pagans? He is friendly with the Romans, and the Samaritans approach Him boldly. What, if I may forgive him for his insolence, did a fly bite Him today?

23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came up and asked Him: let her go, because she is screaming after us.

24 He answered and said: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

SUDDENLY the house of Israel, I would say. The apostles naturally became numb, and no wonder. You cannot contradict yourself any more than Jesus contradicts you by making an excuse like this. I can imagine how the guys looked at each other in bewilderment - each of them could instantly recall to Christ the healed pagan Romans and Samaritans, who were also no strangers to Jews. While they are thinking about how to more delicately hint to the Teacher about these circumstances, the woman comes closer.

25 And she, coming up, bowed to Him and said: Lord! help me.
26 He answered and said, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

A knife in a woman’s heart is one of those passages in the Gospel that have been blamed on Christ and Christians for 2000 years. You know, it’s really very difficult not to start being indignant here. Do not relive this moment emotionally. Don't condemn Christ.

Fortunately, Jesus does not care at all about the indignation of the compassionate and liberal. All pity and all liberalism cannot do what He can, do not know what He knows, and, therefore, He is in His right.

IMHO, IMHO, but in fact they say a lot more to each other here than is written. You can’t parse it phrase by phrase, but word by word.

"God! Help me!"

She is a Syrophoenician. She is from Phenicia. Countries where one of the most cruel and vile religious cults of all antiquity flourished. Cult of infanticide. The cult of sacrificing firstborn children their Lord- Moloch.

In the New City, which the Romans called Carthage, as in the ancient cities of the Phoenicians, the deity who worked “without fools” was called Moloch; apparently it was no different from the deity known as Baal.

At first the Romans did not know what to do with it or what to call it; they had to turn to the most primitive ancient myths to find his weak likeness - Saturn, devouring. But the worshipers of Moloch cannot be called primitive. They lived in a developed and mature society and did not deny themselves either luxury or sophistication. They were probably much more civilized than the Romans. And Moloch was not a myth; in any case, he ate quite realistically. These civilized people appeased the dark forces by throwing hundreds of children into a blazing oven. (c) G.K. Chesterton “The Eternal Man”

“My daughter is cruelly raging...” And, I would say, no wonder. The rituals of the Phoenicians are truly demonic. We don’t know why our daughter is freaking out, but we can make a guess.

I'll guess. It seems to me that the daughter’s demonic possession is a direct consequence of the satanic cults that this woman professed. Visible action of the devil. Visible answer their Lord - Moloch.

And now she calls the Other Lord.

Jesus never, ever accepted such confessions from demonic forces. How many times did He cast out demons, how many times did they try to call Him the Son of God - but He forbade them, not wanting to hear this news from these mouth (Luke 4:41). And now before Him stands the one whose people called the child-killer Moloch Lord. And she turns the same name to Him, the Savior.

And in response, one of the most cruel New Testament phrases sounds.

26 He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

It is He, He. Who had to be convincingly dissuaded when He tried to go and personally heal the servant of the Roman centurion (Matt. 8:5-10). He was probably also a devout Jew.

And if you think about it...

What does this mysterious phrase even mean, huh?! What does it mean “it’s not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs”? Well, except that the Lord clearly speaks impartially about the Phoenicians. What kind of bread? we're talking about? Who even suggests taking something away from children to give to dogs? The power of God - is it akin to an Energizer battery? If the Gentiles are helped, will the Jews get less?

And why, in the end, can the Romans be helped, but the Phoenicians cannot?! And what can outweigh in the eyes of Christ all the perverted abomination of the union of man and demon, so that He refuses to help?

This is the second extremely strange excuse, very similar in apparent plausibility to “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Here's something to think about. But at this point, almost all readers and interpreters feel terribly sorry for the woman. And instead of thinking with their heads, they begin to think with their hearts, well, and it turns out that it turns out: oh, how could He, oh, He was joking, citizens, he called me a bitch and in that spirit. Jesus doesn’t care about all the lamentations, but how much meaning we are losing!

IMHO. Global IMHO. But, in my opinion, we must try to look at this text as if from behind Christ, to hear His voice. And especially highlight the words “bread” and “dogs”.

By bread Jesus means Himself. Not the first time, by the way. Compare this with John 6:48ff. It is Himself, and not His abilities as a healer, that He does not want to give away.

If He is called Lord by the children of the people with whom He was throughout history, His children, from the firstborn Isaac to the last newborn - is it possible to allow the same naming to those whose “Lord” is a child killer? Can He accept their confession that He is their Lord? Can He agree to such, so to speak, ecumenism and, as it were, tolerantly confirm with this that there is one Lord, only the paths to Him are different, and all religions preach the same thing, even if they call on children to burn, or even to take the cross and follow the Savior?

Having accepted worship from child killers, will He not cease to be Lord for His children?

IMHO, this is one of the most striking anti-ecumenist phrases in the New Testament. The Lord does not want to be the Lord of demons. And for non-worshippers too. And Christ does not want to share this name with anyone else. No, all religions are not the same, God is not the same for everyone.

The words Lord and God, synonymous for us, were not yet synonymous then. “Blessed is the people whose Lord is their God,” says the Psalmist in Psalm 33, and linguistically this is not at all identical to saying, “Blessed is the people whose cavalry is cavalry.”

God is the Creator, the creator of Existence, the source of life. And of course, Jesus is God for the Phoenicians, as well as for everyone else in heaven, earth and hell. This is kind of a given. But He is Lord only for those who themselves recognize Him as their patron, their Lord. He cannot be a patron only by His will; He definitely needs the opposite sincere human recognition. It is unpleasant for Christ when demons call Him Lord - perhaps not so much because they are demons - after all, who else but Him should remember that they too are His creatures - but because they do it deceitfully, flatteringly and out of fear .

By dogs, He obviously means the Phoenicians. And this word is also not accidental: once He already spoke about a shrine that should not be given to dogs.

Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matt. 7:6)

Jesus is not Lord to the Phoenician woman, He directly makes it clear to her, and in this there is a certain echo of a formidable warning about the final Judgment. Not everyone who says to Me: “Lord, Lord!” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven.

(Matt. 7:21)

She said: yes, Lord! but the dogs also eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table. (Matt. 15:27)

If this sounds like a joke to some, then I have no sense of humor at all. I'm not laughing. I'm jealous: How she hears Him. Look: they talk as if there aren't twelve other guys around. They are alone, alone in the whole world. The Savior and the soul that He needs to pull into the light.

You can again succumb to emotions and again reproach Him for pulling the nerves out of an unhappy mother, instead of healing the child, and then talk about theological topics. But at the same time, it is somehow forgotten that it was not only the daughter who suffered from demonic possession. To some extent, my mother was also possessed. She did not seek salvation for herself, she did not know how monstrously her soul was affected, but Christ saw it. Yes, compassionate commentators have not seen for two thousand years, but He saw.

And he tried to reach her precisely when she was most open to Him. He wasn't joking. He was not at all in the mood for jokes.

And I got through.

Had He healed the daughter first, it is very likely that the mother would not have heard Him later. Remember the story about how He healed ten lepers, but only one came to thank Him? (Luke 7:12-19, by the way, the one who returned was a healed Samaritan - this again comes to the question of “only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”) How many people are able to listen to some warnings in joy? But many people are capable of breaking themselves and reaching for heaven through their own pain in joy?

Jesus cuts to the living, yes, cuts very painfully, yes. He did not suffer from good-naturedness at all. If He had raised the woman from the ground with the joyful words “My daughter” - and immediately healed the child - it would not have been true, and first of all it would have harmed the woman herself. You can spare your pride, but greatly harm your soul. But according to God’s scale of values, the soul still stands higher, so He doesn’t hesitate to kick it out of pride, out of self-complacency, as, in general, He periodically does with each of us. He doesn’t want us to go to hell in our arms with a carefully cherished sense of our own greatness - it’s not worth it. He loves us too much to let us die over such a small thing.

She is not His daughter yet. She really is a stupid puppy. The puppy still has to grow and grow before the child, but at least now there is a clear hope of growing into a human being, this is, you know, an unexpected twist in evolution.

Two words about the “crumbs” that the woman speaks about self-deprecatingly, otherwise she also really wants to sob compassionately. No need. She speaks very correctly. New puppies like her can't afford anything more than these little ones. They simply cannot chew or swallow any more. Then, much later, the Apostle Paul, speaking about the newcomers, about the babes in Christ, will say “I fed you with milk, and not with [solid] food, for you were not yet able, and even now you are not able... (1 Cor. 3:2).” The logic, in general, is the same, with the only difference that Paul was dealing with newcomers who had already believed in Christ, and Jesus was dealing with those who had not yet completely moved away from unworship.

Then Jesus answered and said to her: O woman! great is your faith; let it be done to you as you wish. And her daughter was healed at that hour. (Matt. 15:28)

No, have you noticed how the phrase about “only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” magically turns out to be irrelevant again? That's where the miracle is.

But we can rightfully say that the first Dominican woman appeared on the pages of the Gospel.

Domini canis - these are the dogs of the Lord.

P.S. in fact, because of this text, I didn’t sleep for more than a day. I'm already shaking. But I couldn’t help but write. That's it, go to sleep, otherwise my heart is already not feeling well.