- May be, the desire to learn, what he could not learn from anybody.
- Probably, he did not want that somebody else would know this, besides both us. That why he asked me in case Synod would call me, to not tell anything what he had heard to members of Synod. And what is the situation with religion in Russia in modern time?
- The same as it was written in your “A House in Kolomna”. In the beginning the role of cook-woman implemented Thecla, then she was replaced by Mavra.
- And what is the matter with Thecla and Mavra?
- Thecla was a closest associate of the Apostle Paul, whom perverted the doctrine of Jesus. And Marx, (by the way, you contemporary) when he was young, sighted his letters by alias Mavr. It is obviously, that the difference between doctrine of Christ and historically formed Christianity is very huge, because there is no any Christ’s word in the Nicene Creed. We call such Christianity an idealistic atheism.
- What is the essence of that?
- The idealistic atheists say that God exists, but they mix the faith to God with the faith in God. And thus, they fence themselves off God with help of church cult and various kinds of ritual. And materialistic atheists claim, that God is not exists, but there are nature laws, which they adore. That is, in fact they adore the nature, which is God’s creature. By researching “A House in Kolomna” we have found, that you somehow predicted and demonstrated in your literature works, that instead of the idealistic atheism (in our understanding Pauline Christianity) in Russia will come Marx theory – Marxism, to be more precisely – materialistic atheism.
- No, this I could not know.
- Then why in “A House in Kolomna” there are these words: “Ah, if nobody in funny crowd would not recognize me under light mask”. Who was for you a “funny crowd”?
- Well, you are telling about this? Of course, my first readers, the nearest neighborhood.
- And what did you want to hide from them?
- They in common could not understand what I am writing about in this poem. That why I wanted to publish it anonymously.
- We know that Alexander I exiled you in Mikhaylovskoye under local priest for atheism. And for which atheism, - materialistic or idealistic? For emperor and his officials this was not known. You had at first time in “A House in Kolomna”, by using definite number of symbols, demonstrated idealistic atheism of Pauline Christianity, as cook-woman Thecla, which was “kind old woman with long standing reduced sense and hearing”. Then, after you, about this wrote count Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy. For that he was even separated from Church. In addition, you had problems after «The Gabrieliad” with Synod, which had called you to interrogation in Kronstadt in autumn, 1828.
- You even know about this?
- And not only about this. We have found a letter – an answer of Nikolay Pavlovich to Synod during its attack relatively of your authorship of “The Gabrieliad”. The emperor asked you to not tell anything to Synod about your conversation with him?
- Yes. There was an arrangement to not tell anything to anybody, not only the members of Synod. He and me kept the promise. Only after the duel in his farewell letter the emperor with one phrase made clear to me, that he remembered about our 4-hours conversation in September 8, 1826 in Nikolaevskiy palace.
- “I am asking you only one thing: die as Christian” – this phrase?
- Yes!? And how did you guess?
- Nun, this in our time of materialistic atheism was not complicated. By whom could a nobleman go to next world in orthodox power? By Muslim? By Jew? By Buddhist? Namely by elimination method. After that it was possible to restore the content of your conversation with emperor.
- How is it possible?
- It is reliably known only the answer of emperor to the question of the State Secretary count Bludov regarding this conversation: “I spoke today with the cleverest man of Russia”.
- And what does it give?
- If you will use dialectics as the art of learning truth by means of setting thought-provoking questions, then many things can be clear. The difficulty in this art is to formulate a question which is adequate to the situation.
- And what question would you ask?
- What something unusual could tell 27 years old Pushkin to 30 years old emperor? After what, he in the presence of all court gave so high estimate to exiled poet? – this is at output.
- And what is at input?
- What did researched Pushkin in Mikhaylovskoye before he met the emperor in Moscow?
- It is known, the history of rising and death of Ptolemy’s dynasty in ancient Egypt. But what does this give for you?
- In the deeply rooted history of this dynasty there is another one inside, which is more short, but very important. The history of relation between Ptolemy II Philadelphus and a poet of Alexandria epoch – Callimachus. At the moment, when his father Ptolemy I Soter dead, the son was at 30 years old, whom after father’s death possessed completely whole power. And now we come to the question: why Ptolemy Phyladelphus kicked away from Alexandria his mentor Demetrius of Phalerum and instead of him invited a lyceum teacher Callimachus from Eleusis, a suburb of Alexandria? It is known that Demetrius of Phalerum began collect manuscripts for famous Alexandria library. In addition, at his time was started translation of Judaic Torah to Greek language – five Books of Moses. What was the guilt of Demetrius before younger Ptolemy? Or in other words: why did he prefer Callimachus instead of Demetrius? And what was interested Pushkin in this mysterious history? Could it be, that both Callimachus and king Philadelphus were at thirty years old, but Pushkin and recently ascended the throne of Russia Empire Nikolay were 27 and 30 correspondingly? Or something else?