At the very beginning of the century, a Friendly Literary Society arose in Moscow, made up of former pupils of the Moscow Noble University Boarding School. The main members of the society: the Turgenev brothers - Andrei and Alexander, the young Zhukovsky, A.F. Voeikov, the Kaisarov brothers - Andrei and Mikhail. An active member of the society was A. F. Merzlyakov, known for his "folk" songs, who later became a professor, theorist of classicism. The first meeting of the society took place on January 12, 1801. In the same year, it fell apart under the influence of internal disagreements and worldly circumstances. Consequently, part of his activity took place under the conditions of the political terror of Paul I, and for the most part - already in the short period of "the days of Alexander's beautiful beginning." The participants developed the "Laws of the Friendly Literary Society", which determined the goal, subject and means of the society. It was supposed that critical translations and essays in Russian would be examined, useful books and own works discussed. The task of mastering the "theory of fine arts", that is, aesthetics, and the practical desire to develop an aesthetic taste were singled out. Society was not alien to moral and political goals. The task of cultivating a high feeling of a patriot-citizen was especially emphasized. Therefore, they even often talked about "liberty, about slavery." In a speech about love for the fatherland, Andrei Turgenev connected the idea of patriotism with the idea of high human dignity: “The kings want slaves to grovel before them in the dust; let flatterers crawl before them with a dead soul; here your sons stand before you!”.
The same Andrei Turgenev, the brightest head in society and, undoubtedly, a person who promised a lot (he was born in 1784, died - in the twentieth year, in 1803), criticized on two fronts. Both in Lomonosov and in Karamzin, he saw the most important shortcoming - the inability to depict the life of the people, a weak expression of the national-Russian content. Andrei Turgenev drew the attention of listeners to the only true source of original national artistic creativity. This source is oral folk poetry. “Now,” he said, “only in fairy tales and songs do we find remnants of Russian literature, in these precious remnants, and especially in songs we find and still feel the character of our people” * .
* ("Literary heritage", v. 60, book. I. M., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1956, pp. 327, 336.)
Andrei Turgenev was the first to express a daring doubt about the existence of Russian literature, a doubt that would be heard more than once in the first third of the 19th century and would cause a storm of controversy. Looking into the future of Russian literature, Turgenev fears the harmful influence on it from Karamzin and his imitators, he thinks that this influence will instill pettiness in Russian literature. Russian literature, in his opinion, needs a new Lomonosov, Lomonosov is not an ode writer of the 18th century, who exhausted his talent "on the praise of monarchs", but Lomonosov of a new type - "saturated with Russian originality", who devoted his creative gift to important, lofty and immortal subjects important for all of Russia . Such a writer "should give a different turn to our literature" * .
* (Ibid., p. 334.)
"Free society of lovers of literature, sciences and arts" (1801-1807)
The friendly society did not last long enough to have a significant impact on the development of Russian literature. But in the speeches of such members as Andrei Turgenev, very important tasks of national literary development were outlined, which were the subject of close attention of the most progressive figures in Russian literature and culture in the first decade of the 19th century. These progressive figures united six months after the formation of the Friendly Society in the "Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts." It included poets, publicists, artists: I. P. Pnin, A. Kh. Vostokov, N. A. Radishchev (son of the great revolutionary writer), sculptor I. I. Terebenev, artists: A. I. Ivanov and F F. Repin and many others. The initiators and leaders of the "Free Society" during its heyday (1801-1807) were the ideological followers of Radishchev - V. V. Popugaev, I. M. Born, I. P. Pnin. In 1805, K. N. Batyushkov joined the Free Society. N. I. Gnedich was close to society.
"Free Society" grew up in the field of Radishchev's great ideas, in which the progressive social thought of Russia at the beginning of the century reached the highest level of development. This is clear from the analysis of the socio-political views of such representatives of society as I. P. Pnin, V. V. Popugaev and I. M. Born.
The strongest side of Popugaev's ideology is his passionate hatred of serfdom. The abolition of slavery is the main idea of his journalism. It penetrates his main work - "On the welfare of popular societies" (1801-1804). This idea is devoted to his special work - "On slavery and its beginning and consequences in Russia", written no earlier than 1807 and no later than 1811 (discovered in the archives in 1959). Parugaev is outraged by serfdom, reveals its pernicious influence on all aspects of Russian life and comes to the conclusion: the state, afflicted with the disease of slavery, not thinking about its speedy eradication, "is striving for its fall!" Popugaev urged Tsar Alexander I to "return freedom to the oppressed people" * .
IP Pnin knew Radishchev well, was personally acquainted with him, bowed before him. He began and continued to write his work "Experience on Enlightenment with Respect to Russia" while communicating with Radishchev. The influence of Radishchev's ideas on Pnin is undeniable. But the main thing in his ideology is liberal enlightenment.
Pnin against the decisive upheavals of society. He is for the fact that the class system remains indestructible in Russia. But Pnin is against the complete lack of rights of the serfs, against their complete defenselessness before the master. Hiding behind the name of Turkey, allegedly speaking about Turkish pashas, he painfully describes the fate of the Russian serf.
Just like Popugaev, Pnin sees serfdom as an evil that stands in the way of the development of Russia's economy and culture. But unlike Popugaev, Pnin does not demand the abolition of serfdom. He considers it sufficient for the well-being of Russia to streamline relations between landowners and peasants, to allow peasants to have movable property, to accurately and firmly determine their rights and obligations, to eradicate the very possibility of "abuses of the power of landowners over their peasants." Pnin stood for enlightenment, class-based in nature, but accessible to all Russian people, so that people would not be kept "as if in the darkness of a dungeon."
In the works of the most prominent poets of the Free Society, questions were raised that had been pondered by progressive Russian literature throughout the century.
The image of Radishchev
An important merit of the poets of the "Free Society" was the love-filled chanting of the first Russian revolutionary, the desire to convey to future generations a bright, sublime, great image of a writer-fighter and a noble thinker. In the work of Ivan Born "On the death of Radishchev" (September 1802) it is said that, being in exile, Radishchev "became a benefactor" for the inhabitants of the Irkutsk province. Upon learning of his return to the capital, "grateful people flocked to him at a distance of five hundred miles" * . Born explains the death of Radishchev by the incompatibility of the ideals and aspirations of the writer with the real conditions of Russian life.
* (I. M. Born. On the death of Radishchev. To [society] [lovers] and [gentle]. In the book: "Poets-radishchevtsy". Large series of the poet's library. M., "Soviet writer", 1935, pp. 244-245.)
Pnin in the same September 1802 wrote poems on the death of Radishchev. In them, he singled out such features of the writer-fighter: selfless struggle for the common good, civic courage, kindness of heart and greatness of mind. "The flame of the mind went out," the poet says with sorrow.
Members of the "Free Society" contributed to the publication of Radishchev's works (without "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow") in 1807-1809. On their initiative, in the journal Severny Vestnik, in 1805, the chapter "Wedge" from Radishchev's "Journey" was reprinted under a title that distracted the attention of censorship: "An excerpt from the papers of one Russian." Radishchev's cherished thoughts are reflected in the best writings of the writers of the Free Society. None of them rose to the heights of Radishchev's revolutionary consciousness; nevertheless, at the beginning of the century, no one except them expressed their indignation against slavery, the ignorance of the people, and despotism with such sincerity and conviction. They differed from Radishchev in the idea of the path to freedom and progress, but they sincerely shared his social aspirations and his ideals. This is true of such writers of the Free Society as the democratic intellectuals V. V. Popugaev and P. M. Born; I. P. Pnin and A. Vostokov adjoined them on many issues.
Hymn to man
The disciples and followers of Radishchev, the educators of the Free Society, developed and consolidated the humanistic principle of our literature. The image of a person for enlighteners is the embodiment of beauty, wisdom and overpowering energy and will. Their glorification of man is clearly directed against his humiliation by the conditions of a feudal society and religious dogmas. In the ode "Man" Pnin decisively shortened Derzhavin's formula: "I am a tsar, I am a slave, I am a worm, I am a god." He completely rejected the definitions of "slave" and "worm." Only two definitions of a person are left by Pnin: "You are the king of the earth, you are the king of the universe" and "You are on earth that is a god in the sky." God owns the creation of the universe and control over the observance of the laws of rotation of the planets, the change of seasons, so that the orderly order in the "system of the world" (ode "God") is inviolable. Man is the master of the earth, the lord of everything living and dead that is on earth, in its bowels and in the elements of the universe. He establishes a certain order of social life, he is responsible for both happiness and evil in life. His will and mind transform the creation of God, adorn nature with marvelous divas of creative work, art and inspiration. Radishchev's brilliant ideas about the human creator, expressed in his philosophical treatise "On Man, His Mortality and Immortality", Pnin translates into the language of poetry and disputes Derzhavin's opinion that man could not become himself without the intervention of God. Pnin's man declares that he does not know about any higher beings "who would come down from heaven" and enlightened him. He achieved everything, reached everything "through his labor and experience."
From Pnin's humanistic conception of man, the idea of the incompatibility of the concepts of man and slave flowed by itself.
Other poets-enlighteners of the "Free Society" did not write such detailed hymns to man. But the idea of the greatness of man is very dear to all of them, and each of them said his word of admiration for the man-creator, the master of knowledge. For Popugaev, Born, Vostokov, a person is Socrates, Radishchev, Galileo, Newton, Voltaire, Locke, Lomonosov, Lavoisier, Kant, Franklin. Glorifying man, the educators of the "Free Society" raised the intellectual level of the emerging Russian poetry to a high level. Vostokov begged the merciless time not to doom the common fate of oblivion of "good valor and wise sweet speech." Parrots, in a letter to Born, calls not in words, as is typical of a "poor and miserable creature," but in deeds to love science, to understand the true greatness of Socrates and Franklin, to strive for truth along with Locke and Newton.
Sensitive to what was happening at the end of the 18th century in the science and technology of advanced Europe, incited by the process of drawing Russia into the pan-European capitalist development, the enlighteners of the Free Society in their hymns to man devoted a lot of space to the idea of the power of the human mind over space and time.
Vostokov loved those moments of spiritual insight when thought, embracing the universe, "rushes to distant worlds." Man has weighed and measured nature, his mind, like a ray, penetrates "through the abyss" and makes its way "to the beginnings of all things."
Earth above the atmosphere Rise up, king of the world, man! *
* (A. Vostokov. Poems. Large series of the poet's library. L., "Soviet writer", 1935, p. 82.)
These passionate words of Vostokov echo what Pnin thought in the ode "Man":
Oh, how majestic you are, When you leave the earth And soar in spirit into the clouds; Looking over the abyss of air, Peruns, despising the thunders, You command to obey the elements *
* (Ivan Pnin. Works. M., Publishing House of the All-Union Society of Political Prisoners and Exiled Settlers, 1934, p. 67.)
Born, for all his social aspirations, is busy with the earthly destinies of people, and he sings of the inspired sage for the fact that
With his swiftest eye he measures the Abyss, full of countless worlds *
* (I. Born. Ode to truth. In the book: "Poets-radishchevtsy". Large series of the poet's library. L., "Soviet writer", 1953, p. 239.)
The first educators of the 19th century paved wonderful paths with their creative searches! Enormous prospects for Russian poetry were outlined in their imperfect, but sincere verses! With its high humanism, the poetry of the "Free Society" was a bitter reproach to modernity. From here begins the militant opposition of Russian literature of the 19th century, which does not know reconciliation, in relation to the entire socio-political system of Russia.
The ideal of freedom and justice
In the verses of Vostokov, Pnin, Born, the Ideal of Freedom is condemned - lie and injustice, darkness and ignorance, a hymn is sung in honor of active, energetic and courageous people who stand up for the "suffering fatherland" ("Ode to the Worthy" by Vostokov). In "Ode to Justice" Pnin sings of the equality of all before the law, the poet assures readers that where there is no omnipotent law, "everyone is unhappy - from the farmer to the king." In the name of happiness itself, Pnin conjures the tsar to limit the autocratic principle to the principle of the constitution. The era of bourgeois transformations in Europe was reflected in the Russian enlightener in the form of a purely bourgeois legal consciousness.
Unlike Pnin, Born in the "Ode of Kalistrat" glorifies Harmodius and Aristogeiton, young friends, heroes of ancient Greece, who put an end to the tyrant Hipparchus. The idea of tyranny, Born's lively response to the assassination of Paul I, firmly entered the minds of the noble Decembrist revolutionaries.
The idea of social inequality and protest against the division of people into masters and slaves are expressed with particular force in Popugaev's essay "The Negro". In the allegorical form of the story about the fate of the Negro Amru, who was taken into slavery, the question was raised about the unnatural domination of one over the other. But Radishchev's pathos of exposing the cruelty and injustice of slavery in Popugaev is weakened by the belief that it will fall under the blow of justice. The inevitable punishment of justice will overtake the enslavers, he says through the mouth of his hero, "at the end of the age." As in his journalistic treatises, up to the essay "On Slavery", so in this literary work, Popugaev hopes for the enlightened and good will of the new tsar, Alexander I. "At the end of the century" is a clear indication of that.
In Popugaev's poems, faith in a change in social relations is more than once expressed. The time will come, he thinks
A slave will not grovel before his master, Heavy chains will be destroyed, Evil will dissipate like smoke ("Appeal to Friendship") * .
* (In the book: "Poets-radishchevtsy". Large series of the poet's library. L., "Soviet Writer", 1935, p. 274.)
In this blessed time, life "will reconcile the lamb with the wolf." With words that paint a utopian picture of universal prosperity, Popugaev did not intend to call for social peace, as is typical of sentimentalists. He is talking about the fact that in the future all the social forces of the present will acquire a new social nature. Then Croesus himself, if he collects "countless millions," then only in order to use them for the common good. The lamb and the wolf will be reconciled precisely because the wolf will no longer be a wolf, and the lamb will no longer be a lamb. In the poem "To Friends" Parrots touches on the most lively theme of our time - the theme of a tyrant. Like all the Enlighteners of the Free Society, he is full of hatred for tyranny and despots and shares the common confidence in the death of tyrants, no matter how powerful they are. But he also has his own special sincere thought. The history of Europe and Russia, in his opinion, proves that the fall of tyrants and despots is inevitable not because their rule is contrary to moral principles and a sense of justice. The fate of tyrants is predetermined, because sooner or later the anger of the indignant masses, raised by their evil deeds, falls upon them:
Demetrius, surrounded by guards, Nero in golden chambers Will fall from the enraged mob And perish from evil deeds.
However, along with this, Parrots sometimes falls into the tone of Pnin, turning to the powerful of this world so that they observe the laws and keep the happiness of people. Then the great and virtuous Titus, Petra, Aurelius, whom the peoples "honored by the gods" ("Pygmalion"), stood before his eyes in an ideal light.
Great Antithesis: Hero of the Mind and Hero of the Sword
While the activities of the educators of the "Free Society" were unfolding, the Russian people literally did not have time to recover from one military campaign, as they were plunged into new military adventures and bloody clashes.
Under these conditions, the members of the "Free Society" raised and illuminated in their works a great antithesis that has not lost its deep meaning to this day: they opposed the hero of the bloody sword and destruction to the hero of reason, the hero-builder. They took up arms against age-old prejudices that inspired respect for those who earned their glory with the blood of hundreds and thousands of people.
Parrots passionately calls to earth the "genius of the world." In the poem "In the event of Angerstein's generous deed," he compares the two types of heroes and prefers the crown of victories, drunk not with the "blood of one's neighbors", but with "gratitude with a tear." For a sage, says the poem "To Friends", "the sword Attilus is terrible", the sage does not want triumphant glory if it is associated with "bloody laurels". Addressing the lords of the kingdoms, he says: "Do not exhaust your fellow citizens in order to surprise the universe." "Do not covet foreign lands" ("Pygmalion"), "Do not be arrogant in your dreams, magnificent and do not shed the blood of the subject" ("Genius on the ruins of the golden palace of Neronov").
Born, in his praise of Radishchev, contrasted the people's love for the thinker-fighter with the bloody glory of "the formidable scourges of mankind, these bloodthirsty conquerors."
Vostokov raises the question: to whom does true heroism belong and to whom should true glory be assigned - for the one who got it with the sword, or for the one who instructed the peoples on the path of truth, wisdom and goodness? The poet reproaches people for being unreasonable, that they marvel at the heroism of those who devastate villages and "strive to destroy cities with fire." Breaking the veil of prejudices that elevated Alexander the Great to the pedestal of glory, he refuses to see the difference between him and the barbarian Attila.
As can be seen from the poems: "Parnassus, or the mountain of grace", "Shishak", "To fantasy", - one of the most cherished thoughts of Vostokov was his thought about undisturbed peace on earth. Twenty years before Pushkin, he, along with Saint-Pierre, reveled in the dream of eternal peace between peoples. It was fun for him to create an idyll-joke, where undisturbed love reigned, where the sword and spear became a child's toy, weapons were all taken away and happy people could say:
Mars is disarmed by us, The god of death is in our power! ("Shishak") *
* (A. Vostokov. Poems. Large series of the poet's library. L., "Soviet writer", 1935. p. 113.)
The idea of the unity of the human race
The fundamental philosophical and humanistic foundations of the worldview of the poets of the "Free Society" determined the peculiar angle of view from which they perceived the life of all people on earth, the life of the entire human race. While the colonial ideology was developing and strengthening with might and main in the countries of capitalist civilization, when trade in live goods, yellow and black slaves was briskly on various world markets, Russian enlighteners, outraged by the slavery of their half-brothers, peasants, raised their voices of protest against the violation of human rights and human rights. the dignity of people, regardless of the color of their skin and the degree of development of their culture.
Man is the greatest creation of nature, and all mankind constitutes a single family of peoples. Turning to Justice as the highest justice on earth, Pnin begs, among many other important things, to do one more thing:
Gather together all the peoples, Children of one Nature, Under the shadow of your power *.
* (Ivan Pnin. Works. M.. Publishing House of the All-Union Society of Political Prisoners and Exiles-Settlers, 1934, p. 81.)
Vostokov dreamed of the time when it would be possible for a wise humanist
Gather, arrange, enlighten the Peoples ... ("To fantasy")
Parrot called national-racial prejudices "fetters" on the man of the modern world and passionately wanted to help people throw them off themselves. The greatness of the human soul, in his opinion, calls "to love, like brothers, all peoples ...".
Parrots glorified those
Who tame the groans of the poor Ready to fly across the oceans, Ready to enlighten brothers, Pouring gold into distant lands.
In this regard, his essay "The Negro" acquires a special meaning. In Soviet literary criticism, the allegorical meaning of this essay is revealed, and the situation of the Negro Amru, who is being taken into slavery, having been torn away from his native land, his relatives and close people, is interpreted as a protest against the situation of "white negroes", Russian serfs. This understanding of the essay is correct, but it is not enough. In addition to the allegorical, the work also has an undoubted direct meaning - a strong condemnation of white American planters for their barbaric, unworthy attitude towards blacks. The planter - "the most ferocious tiger" - is hated by the Russian enlightener as the worst enemy of the human race. The poet is entirely on the side of Amru and his people.
Thus, a certain tradition was created in advanced Russian literature, developing from Radishchev through the enlighteners of the "Free Society" to Pushkin, a tradition that in our time is called the feeling and ideology of internationalism, irreconcilable with the chauvinistic views of the colonialists, imperialists, "supermen" of the bourgeois world.
In the work of the poets of the Free Society, Russian literature of the 19th century received a remarkable ideological charge. Their main ideas are powerful rockets capable of lifting literature to great heights. They threw a bridge from Radishchev to the Decembrists and Pushkin.
Creative searches of members of the "Free Society"
The high social, philosophical, humanistic ideas of the enlighteners did not receive an appropriate poetic embodiment.
The poetry of the "Free Society" is remarkable for its search for new forms, style, means of expression, new poetic tonality, poetic vocabulary and rhythm. Members of society sought to break out of the conventions and dead things of both sentimentalism and classicism. In most cases, their position can be assessed as a state of uninterrupted ideological and creative polemics with the epigones of classicism and sentimentalism, a polemic that concerns the main motives of creativity, themes, genres and language. If classicism (in this respect, sentimentalism did not lag behind it) made the ode the main form of expression of loyal feelings, and chose the so-called "soaring" with cumbersome allegories, far-fetched similitudes and comparisons, with an abundance of Church Slavonicisms, an obligatory sign of "high calm", then the enlighteners turned the ode into a means of propagating the ideas of curbing autocratic power, glorifying civil pathos and free omnipotent human thought. Vostokov's "Ode to the Worthy", Pnin's "Ode to Justice", Popugaev's "Happiness" ode or Born's "Ode to Kalistrat" have nothing in common, for example, with Derzhavin's ode "On the Enthronement of Emperor Alexander I" or with Karamzin's ode "On the Solemn coronation of His Imperial Majesty Alexander I, Autocrat of All Russia". Enlighteners discarded the poetic props accompanying the ode, and began to look for a firm and precise word to express the sick truth of civil ideas and the feelings of not a slave, not a loyal subject, but a thinking person who realized his human dignity. The ode to the servile hymnology of the "subject" has been replaced by an ode to the citizen, striving to raise his homeland to a new stage of social progress. Therefore, where both the classicist and the sentimentalist use worn-out words of memorized praises of the monarch and the inviolability of the existing system, there the enlightener introduces into common use the great words that were recently banned - "citizen", "fatherland" ("Ode to the Worthy").
Like an ode to the classicists, so the epistle was a favorite poetic genre among the sentimentalists. And this genre was transformed by the poets of the Free Society.
The “message” of the poets of the Free Society is a thought about life and struggle, an expression of readiness “to ease the fate of the unfortunate, for the truth there is even no shackles, for the common good shed blood” (Popugaev, “To friends”). The tone of the message is combative, the rhythm is vigorous, the feeling is collected, the word is full of energy. The outlook of the sentimentalist is closed in the microscopic sphere of lost friendship and love; the educator sees the big world of human existence with contradictions, struggle and aspirations, in the name of which one can "shed blood". The sentimentalist has a narrow world of egocentrism. The Enlightener in his messages is a citizen of the world, a son of humanity. In a sentimentalist's language: sweet hour of death, messengers of the grave, providence, creator, murmuring, prayers. The Enlightener speaks in a different language: truth, striving for truth, tyrants' scepter, patriot, Locke, Newton, Franklin, Cato, fellow citizens, the good of society.
Enlighteners, busy with socio-philosophical problems, also touched upon the theme of nature. But if any of them had to turn to this poetic plot, he showed a much more sense of reality than his fellow writers from the classicists and sentimentalists. The best proof is Vostokov's poem "To Winter":
Come to us, mother winter, And bring frost with you!
This is how this work begins. Life-specific words and comparisons, metaphors and epithets make up the fabric of the poem: fluffy snow, drizzle, we won’t get cold, hare, winter, fearful, icy land, sharp frosts. It is said about the invisible work of inner spiritual forces: "How winter ripens under the snow." Unsustained in artistic terms, this poem, nevertheless, in its basic tone, speech, view of nature is truly poetic, folk. It showed a tendency towards the convergence of poetic creativity with the national-Russian reality.
The same Vostokov wrote wonderful lines in the poem "Autumn Morning":
Little by little the hills become clearer, The darkness disappears from the fields. Dormant village loops waking To morning labors calls. Thoughts, worries, sorrow and joy have now woken up in them: The doors have creaked, one can already hear the frequent Battle of threshing flails *.
* (A. Vostokov. Poems. Large series of the poet's library. L., "Soviet writer", 1935, p. 92.)
Such verses cannot be found either in classicism or in the sentimentalism of that time. Here one can feel the movement of poetic creativity towards reality in its national, purely Russian essence. And in that sphere of poetic inspiration, in which, it seems, the palm of primacy should belong to sentimentalism - in describing the vicissitudes of love - the East in some of his poems far surpasses the dull singers. Here are the lines from Vostokov's poem "To the goddess of my soul":
Come, and with full lily hands Into sweet embraces, And tenderly to my beating heart Press girlish Persians, - Press, and let me taste life, I'll envy the gods, In the bosom of your charms. From my fiery kisses, let the whiteness of Elastic breasts redden *.
* ("Scroll of the Muses", book. I, p. 76.)
It is easy to see that the desire to express the feeling of love in plastic images, this desire of Vostokov, apparently, was not in vain for Batyushkov, a member of the Free Society, and then entered the flesh and blood of great Russian poetry, starting with Pushkin.
In all creative lines, the most gifted poet among the enlighteners of the "Free Society" finds something of his own, new, often very bold, and the main line of his development lies in the desire to become closer to life - both in subject matter, and in verse, and in language. In the depths of the poetic creativity of the Free Society, the socio-political terminology of the high civil poetry of Russia was developed, here they searched for ways for poetry to enter the expanses of Russian life, and immediately attempts were made to find in folk poetry and verse the basis for the success of poetic creativity.
The struggle of the educators of the "Free Society" for the development of the literary language
In addition to creating a sufficiently powerful and rich ideological arsenal, the most important problem of the literary and artistic development of Russian society in the 19th century was the struggle for the development of the literary language.
The members of the Free Society fought on two fronts: against Shishkov's reactionary course and against his critics, the Karamzinists. In this spirit, the "Journal of Russian Literature" with "Letter to the Publisher" N. P. Brusilova and "Northern Vestnik" with "Letter from the Unknown" spoke.
I. M. Born in his "Short Guide to Russian Literature" (1808), speaking out against the "fearful purification of the language" demanded by Shishkov, criticized Karamzinists for the spirit of servility and imitation of someone else's while not paying attention to their own, native, "often someone else's superior." He condemned the style developed by the sentimentalists as unusual for the natural Russian language. "Why," Born asks, "is the meaningful brevity and noble simplicity of the Slavonic changed to sluggish and inflated verbosity?" *
* (I. M. Born. Brief guide to Russian literature. St. Petersburg, 1808, p. 132.)
When the sentimental magazine "Patriot" by V. Izmailov reproached Ilyin, the author of the drama "Generosity, or Recruitment", that a writer "born with a good heart and noble feelings" should not deal with the "vile language" of stewards and clerks, " Severny Vestnik" answered: "The expression vile language is a remnant of the injustice of the time when they spoke and wrote vile people; but now, thanks to philanthropy and laws, vile people and vile language we don't have! but there, like all peoples, vile thoughts, vile deeds" * .
* ("Northern Messenger", 1804, part III, No. 7, pp. 35-36.)
Such clashes, revealing the democratic basis of the ideology of the enlighteners of the "Free Society", show the originality of their position in disputes over language and style. They saw before them not one, but two ideologically alien camps - the Shishkovites and the Karamzinists. Both of them sought to keep Russian literature closed in a narrow circle. Together with the spirit of civic consciousness and the struggle for progress, members of the society introduced into poetry the spirit of folk motifs, forms and language. While the Severny Vestnik, on behalf of the Free Society, was arguing ideologically with the Karamzinists, when the Journal of Russian Literature denounced them for neglecting the merits of their native language and polluting it with unnecessary foreign language, Vostokov worked on compiling a code of Russian folk songs , having in mind to give the writers a true source of national creativity, not distorted or disfigured by any alterations and adaptations to the taste of the foreignized noble public. The poets of the "Free Society" - and above all A. Kh. Vostokov - practically developed the tonic system of versification characteristic of folk poetry, assimilating the turns, poetic images and vocabulary of oral poetry, wrote large works in the spirit of epics, of which "Pevislad and Zora" Vostokova is really amazing.
Vostokov proved in practice how fruitful the poet's appeal to oral folk art was. He enriched the poetic language with magnificent folk words and phrases: one alone; in a light dress he hurries to walk in the green garden; a tear has sunk into the water; like a nightingale in spring; not happy in broad daylight; nodding head; turned red from weeping; to kiss the tears of a girl from your cheeks; jump on a horse; looking over the field from the hill, striking the harp at the bells; meet; found; stops and listens, takes a step and looks around; stately shoulder; the Dnieper turned blue; anger; pissed off and pissed off. Vostokov has a sad gusler
Wants to evoke swearing sounds - Sounds of feast-fun, To dispel a strong thought. No, in vain the rebellious murmur the strings; they publish one thing Only languid, depressing ... ("Pevislad and Zora")
Aesthetic principles of the enlighteners
The educators of the Free Society, growing up in the halt of the decline of classicism and sentimentalism, succumbing to the influence of the immediate poetic environment to one degree or another, nevertheless developed their own original concepts of the essence and purpose of literary and artistic creativity. They have many poems dedicated to the Plenirs and Aglays, sighs and gasps are not uncommon, they come across empty glorifications of the hut, secluded corners of nature, etc. But the brightest, most vital and progressive in their work is generated by the desire to tell contemporaries where to look for the path to the public good. The best of them, no matter what they write about, tend to turn to talk about inequality, injustice, oppression of the innocent, in order to express their favorite thought about a new life. Sometimes even frankly sentimental messages or descriptions of nature, insignificant idyllic pictures are suddenly, like lightning, cut through by a social idea. As for the best poetic achievements of the enlighteners, their pathos is all in the idea of high citizenship, in the glorification of brightly colored social emotions. Precisely due to the fact that the main, distinguishing quality of them consisted in preaching the ideas of courageous and active work for the good of the fatherland, for the happiness of fellow citizens, the enlighteners of the "Free Society" came close to the most important aesthetic principle - the requirement from the work of a clearly expressed socially significant goal. "Every work, novelistic, historical, moral or philosophical, declare a goal"- this is how this requirement is formulated in the resolution of the "Free Society" *.
* (Vl. Orlov. Russian enlighteners 1790-1800. M, Goslitizdat, 1950, p. 210.)
At the same time, the first attempt in the history of our literature was made to place artistic creativity, as well as scientific creativity, under the ideological control of the collective. Each member of the "Free Society" had to report to his comrades at least once a month, presenting his work to the general court. In addition, a special "Committee of Censorship" was established, which determined the compliance of the submitted essays with the lofty goal of society. It assumed responsibility for the "good name of each member", seeing in this the right condition for protecting the "honor of the whole society." As a result, a "Committee of Censorship" and a categorical prohibition to print works "without the special permission of the Society" were needed. And it wasn't just words. A. Izmailov and N. Ostolopov were temporarily excluded from society only because, without his knowledge, "they sent their plays to Moscow, to Karamzin's Vestnik Evropy"*. How jealously the dignity and prestige of society was guarded is evidenced by the incident with the admission of Konstantin Batyushkov as a member. It was accepted as a Satire written by him in imitation of the French "Satire", but with a reservation, which was expressed by the censor of the East: "For a young author to enter the Society, it is necessary that he submit something from his works" **.
* (V. Desnitsky. Selected articles on Russian literature of the 18th-19th centuries. M.-L., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1958, p. 142.)
** (Vl. Orlov. Russian enlighteners 1790-1800. M., Goslitizdat, 1950, p. 223.)
Led by democratically minded raznochintsy, the "Free Society" at the best time of its history made an attempt to organize the literary, artistic and scientific forces of advanced Russia on the basis of inviolable discipline, so important when the main writers came from a noble environment, known for Manilov's licentiousness and disorganization.
The lofty goal - serving the common good with one's pen - was realized in a peculiar aesthetic ideal of the enlighteners. This ideal is outlined in I. Born's speech and poems "On the Death of Radishchev", in Popugaev's odes in honor of Angerstein and Academician Lepekhin, in his poems "To Friends" and in such works by Vostokov as "History and Fable", "Ode to the Worthy" . The latter was accepted as a program-aesthetic product of the society. This ode opened the first collection of works by members of the society "The Scroll of Muses". Vostokov proclaims that the poet's muse must be truth. Poetry is freed from praise by the unworthy of this world, regardless of whether they walk in high ranks, whether they are children of wealth and nobility. She is also exempt from praise for those who imagine themselves a hero, but forget about their duty "to be fathers, to keep the law." Finally, it is not the business of poetry, guided by truth, to praise social inertia, which remains "in guilty inaction" when "the fatherland suffers." Vostokov expresses the idea, common to the most prominent educators, that it is not their business to sing Pindar's "heroes", generals and kings, as well as all those who shine with wealth, orders, dig up their ancestors in the archives, proud of the antiquity of the family, boast of titles, ranks, etc. The hero of true poetry should be the one who is able to stand for the truth, for the common good, who is a real citizen, a "sufferer of truth" with a beautiful soul and an all-conquering will.
Addressing his muse, Vostokov says:
But whoever sacrifices life, property, To save fellow citizens from disaster And deliver them a happy fate, Sing, holy one, your hymn to that!
Such a person, a true, and not an imaginary hero, "will make up the happiness of the people", he will be followed by "blessing of the late great-grandchildren", he will be the glory of the ages and the golden word of the solemn ode:
And such and such a muse is divine, Oh, such is only a word of praise In an important tone, from ruby lips, With a pure golden tongue! *
* (A. Vostokov. Ode to the worthy. "Scroll of the Muses", 1802, book. I, p. 5. In the publication of "Poems" in 1821, Vostokov redid the quoted last stanza of the ode and its second stanza, weakening them. In this weakened version, they are printed in our publications.)
The aesthetic ideal outlined by the poetry of the enlighteners of the "Free Society" passed into the civil poetry of the Decembrists. This explains the historical significance of the ideological and aesthetic platform of the enlighteners.
The main line of the literary development of the Free Society goes from Radishchev and Derzhavin to the Decembrists and Pushkin. However, this line was cut short at the end of the first decade of the 19th century. In 1807, the society actually ceased to exist. His works were forgotten for many years.
Sources and aids
The discovery and scientific study of the work of poets-enlighteners is a merit of Soviet literary criticism. The first scientific publication, widely presenting the heritage of the poets of the "Free Society", was published in 1935 under the title: "Poets-radishchevtsy. Free society of lovers of literature, sciences and arts." Ed. and comments by Vl. Orlov, introductory articles by V. A. Desnitsky and Vl. Orlov. M., "Soviet Writer", a large series of "Poet's Libraries". Here the work of 24 poets of the "Free Society" is presented, and there is a "biographical note" about each. The edition is supplied with notes, a dictionary and an index of names and titles. In the introductory articles to the collection, for the first time in the history of Russian literature, the place and significance of the poets of the "Free Society" are determined as a link that connects the work and traditions of Radishchev with the work of the Decembrists.
A year earlier, the publishing house of the All-Union Society of Political Prisoners published a book for exiled settlers: Ivan Pnin. Works. M., 1934. Pnin's work was known throughout the 19th century, but the publication of his works in this form was carried out for the first time. Along with the poems, the book contains all of Pnin's prose, philosophical and journalistic works: "The Experience of Enlightenment Regarding Russia", "The Cry of Innocence Rejected by the Laws", "The Writer and the Censor". The dubia section contains many interesting works of the beginning of the century, the appendix contains translations from Holbach, published in Pnin's journal "St. Petersburg Journal", and poems on Pnin's death. One of them was written by Batyushkov.
In the large series "Library of the Poet" in 1935, a book was published: Vostokov. Poems. Ed., entry. article and notes Vl. Orlov. L., "Soviet writer". This is the third edition of the poet's poems. The first two appeared during his lifetime, these are lyrical experiments and other small works in verse, parts I-II. St. Petersburg, 1805-1806 and Poems. In 3 books. SPb., 1821.
A collection of selected poems by Pnin, Popugaev, Born and Vostokov was published in the small series "Library of the Poet": "Poets-radishchevtsy". L., 1952. Entry. article, text preparation and notes Vl. Orlov. The Appendix contains poems on the death of Ivan Pnin, published in the publication: Ivan Pnin. Works. 1934. Historical and mythological dictionary explains the names and mythological images, so frequent in the works of the enlighteners of the "Free Society".
Scientific studies of the heritage of the poets of the "Free Society" appeared only in our time, first in the form of introductory articles to various editions of the poets-educators of the "Free Society", and then as separate chapters of textbooks, the academic "History of Russian Literature", university textbooks. Until now, the great work of V. Desnitsky "From the history of literary societies of the early 19th century" has not lost its significance, where there is a section "From the history of the "Free Society of Lovers of Sciences, Literature and Arts" (the latest edition in the book: V. Desnitsky. Selected articles on Russian literature of the 18th-19th centuries (M.-L., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1958). The most significant contribution to the study of the life and work of the enlighteners of the "Free Society" and the activities of the society itself was made by Vl. the results of the study of this problem work - "Russian Enlighteners 1790-1800", M.-L., Goslitizdat, 1950 - was awarded the State Prize (second ed.- M., 1953).
He headed the pre-romantic literary circle in the boarding school, which took shape in 1801 as the Friendly Literary Society.
The first meeting of the Friendly Literary Society was held on January 12, 1801. It included, in addition to A. I. Turgenev, the brothers Andrei Sergeevich Kaisarov and Mikhail Sergeevich Kaisarov, Alexei Fedorovich Merzlyakov, Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, Semyon Emelyanovich Rodzianko, Alexander Fedorovich Voeikov). The meetings of the Society began and for some time took place in Voeikov's house on Maiden's Field.
In his speech “On the Main Laws of the Society”, A. F. Merzlyakov noted:
Our Society is an excellent preparation for our future life... I want to tell you that man by himself does not mean anything... Here is the birth of society! This is how one person, feeling the flame in his heart, gives another his hand and, pointing into the distance, says: there is our goal! let's go, take and share that crown, which neither you nor I alone can take! .. If you have noble ambition ... then give up pride, have a power of attorney to your friends! ..
If not every one of us is endowed with a delicate taste for the elegant, if not everyone can judge a translation or a composition quite correctly, then at least we will not doubt the good heart of the one who tells our errors; his love tells us: whether it is true or not, he wished us well... This spirit is the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega of all the laws of the assembly!
Almost two decades later, the same Merzlyakov recalled:
We severely criticized each other in writing and verbally, analyzed the most famous writers, .. argued a lot and noisily at the table of scientists and went home as good friends.
At one of the first meetings, Merzlyakov recited the anthem of the German romantic Schiller "To Joy", members of the Society made translations of his works; A. I. Turgenev severely criticized the work of Karamzin, Zhukovsky defended him ...
In the second half of 1801, the members of the Society began to leave Moscow one by one, going either to study abroad or to St. Petersburg to serve, and as a result, by November, the Society ceased to exist, but it left a noticeable mark on the history of Russian literature: it contained the foundations of Russian romanticism, of which V. A. Zhukovsky became a prominent representative.
Leaving for St. Petersburg, A. I. Turgenev wrote a poem “To the dilapidated house of A. F. Voeikov”:
This dilapidated house, this deaf garden - A refuge of friends united by Phoebus, Where in the joy of hearts they swore before heaven, swore with their souls, Imprinting a vow with tears, To love the fatherland and be friends forever (1801)
Notes
Literature
Osokin V. N. His poetry is captivating sweetness... V.A. Zhukovsky in Moscow and the Moscow region. - M .: Moscow worker, 1984. - 192 p. - 50,000 copies.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .
See what the "Friendly Literary Society" is in other dictionaries:
An association of like-minded Moscow writers, formed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. from pupils, later graduates. Organizer A.I. Turgenev. In 17971800 he headed the pre-romantic literary ... Moscow (encyclopedia)
"Friendly Literary Society"- FRIENDLY LITERARY SOCIETY Association of pupils of Moscow. university and Moscow. University noble boarding school. Existed from Jan. until the autumn of 1801, meetings were held in the house of A. F. Voeikov in Moscow. Inside the Obva, two main ones stood out. groups: for ... ... Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary
- a famous poet. ?. CHILDHOOD (1783-1797) The year of Zhukovsky's birth is determined differently by his biographers. However, despite the evidence of P. A. Pletnev and Ya. K. Grot, indicating the birth of Zh. in 1784, it must be considered, like Zh. himself ... ...
- (born in 1800, died on May 4, 1824 in St. Petersburg) daughter of D.P. Pozdnyak. She was an excellently educated woman who spoke four European languages fluently, had an excellent command of Russian and had a good knowledge of "light" foreign ... ... Big biographical encyclopedia
Ponomareva (Sofya Dmitrievna, nee Poznyak, 1800-1824) a representative of one of the St. Petersburg literary salons of the 20s. Well educated, she managed to group around herself many of the then writers. Visited especially often... Biographical Dictionary
- (Sofya Dmitrievna, nee Poznyak, 1800 1824) representative of one of the St. Petersburg literary salons of the 20s. Well educated, she managed to group around herself many of the then writers. Especially often A.E. visited her ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron
LITERARY CLUB- LITERARY CIRCLES, creative associations of writers on the basis of unity of views, interests, direction of creativity. These also include literary salons and “evenings” (for example, “Saturdays” by S. T. Aksakov, “Wednesdays” by Vyach. I. Ivanov, “Mondays” ... ... Literary Encyclopedic Dictionary
Literary groups of Russia: "Arzamas": Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, Konstantin Nikolayevich Batyushkov, Vasily Lvovich Pushkin, Sergei Semenovich Uvarov, Dmitry Nikolayevich Bludov, Nikolai Ivanovich Turgenev, Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, Pyotr Andreevich ... Wikipedia
Karamzinism did not quite coincide with the work of Karamzin himself. His innovation consisted of overcoming the old literary language, the old artistic techniques, the innovation of the Karamzinists consisted in the continuation, skillful use of tradition; they need old genres for parodies, old styles for their clash. In the depths of Karamzinism, criticism of Karamzin was born.
In 1801, young poets Andrei and Alexander I. Turgenev, A.S. Kaisarov, V.A. Zhukovsky, A.F. Merzlyakov, A.F. Voeikov, Rodzyanka, organized the “Friendly Literary Society”, which appeared as an act of protest against Karamzin and his school. Karamzin was accused not of being a bold innovator, but of the fact that his innovation turned Russian literature onto the wrong path of foreign borrowings.
The members of this society raised the question: “There is French, German, English literature, but is there Russian?” It was a question of romantic content, because it was the romantics who were primarily concerned about the issue of nationality. Their answer to their question was categorical and decisive: there is no Russian literature (“Can we use this word? This was blamed on Karamzin, who carried literature with the problem of personality, leading away from the problem of nationality. The members of the "Friendly Literary Society" were going to direct Russian literature in a different way. the members of the "Friendly Literary Society" decided to promote their direction of Russian literature with the help of literary criticism, freeing up space for the future national genius. Critical articles by Andrei I. Turgenev, V.A. Zhukovsky and A.F. Merzlyakova is a rather interesting material for understanding the origins of Russian romanticism.
Of particular interest are the poetic works of members of the society, they show how close they were able to come to a new quality of literature.
According to Yu.M. Lotman, "Elegy" (1802) by Andrei I. Turgenev belongs to the most significant phenomena of Russian lyrics of the early 19th century. She determined the whole set of motifs of the Russian romantic elegy: an autumn landscape, a rural cemetery, the ringing of an evening bell, reflections on early death and the transience of earthly happiness.”
Turgenev for the first time showed “what expressive possibilities the comparison of the autumn extinction of nature with the extinction of man and human happiness contains,” says L.G. Frizman. In principle, the images of the elegy were not something absolutely unheard of for the poetry of those years, the poetic means for their expression were new.
The main discovery of Andrei Turgenev's "Elegy", which anticipated the discovery of V.A. Zhukovsky is that "the text of a poem can mean more than the simple sum of the meanings of all its constituent words."
This discovery fundamentally distinguished A.I. Turgenev from the Karamzinists with their demand for clarity, simplicity, “common sense”, it was thanks to the Karamzinists with their poetics of semantic shifts, virtuosic art of observing and at the same time violating literary norms that Andrei Turgenev was able to make this discovery.
The text of the elegy was something more significant than the sum of the meanings of the words that make it up. Meanings are born “above” words.
Turgenev uses the poetics of the smallest semantic shifts, which was once proposed by the Karamzinists, and as a result, the reader sees a complex, far from clear, difficult to understand text, and again comes to the tradition of the difficult odic text, which is fundamentally contrary to Karamzinism.
A. Turgenev's "Elegy" presents us with a clear picture of the fact that the early romantic trends appeared as a protest against the dominance of the Karamzinists, and in fact they continued the poetic discoveries of the Karamzinists.
Problems of studying poetry
A. F. Merzlyakova
Course work
2nd year students
departments of Russian language and literature
Yukhanova Anna Dmitrievna
Scientific adviser -
Candidate of Philology
Art. teacher A. Yu. Balakin
1. Introduction……………………………………………………….………………..3
2. Friendly literary society………………………………….………...7
2.1. Society History…………………………………………………….…..7
2.2. Early poetry of A. F. Merzlyakov…………………………………….10
3. Songs and romances………………………………………………………………....16
3.1. Genre of “Russian song” and romance……………………………………….16
3.2. Songs and romances by A. F. Merzlyakov…………………………………18
4. Translations………………………………………………………………………26
5. Conclusion………………………………………………….…………….….. 32
6. Bibliography …………………………………………………………………....35
Introduction:
A. F. Merzlyakov (1778-1830) ̶ Professor of the Imperial Moscow University, critic, literary theorist, translator, poet. A personality that attracts the attention of researchers of Russian literature, but has not yet been studied enough. For example, Merzlyakov's poetic activity rarely becomes an object of scholarly interest. This problem becomes even more obvious if we think about the fact that the collected works of A. F. Merzlyakov still do not exist, and the collection of poems compiled by Yu. M. Lotman does not include all the poetic works of the author, contains bibliographic errors and can give only the most general idea of Merzlyakov's poetry.
The purpose of this work is to review the scientific literature, which presents studies of Merzlyakov's poetry, and to identify gaps in its study.
It should be noted that the development of the author's work is not always closely connected with his biography. In the case of Merzlyakov, we can clearly trace this connection and build a certain periodization of his poetry. Let's start with general biographical data: Merzlyakov was born in the city of Dalmatov, Perm province, into a poor merchant family. Fedor Alekseevich Merzlyakov, the father of the future professor, critic and poet, taught his son only to read and write. The boy's talent for learning was first noticed by his uncle Aleksey Alekseevich Merzlyakov, who served as the governor of the office under the governor-general of the Perm and Tobolsk provinces Aleksey Andreyevich Volkov. He persuaded his brother to send his son to Perm, where the boy later studied at the Perm public school, where the director of the school, I. I. Panaev, personally enrolled him. Once Panaev visited A. A. Merzlyakov, where he talked with his young nephew. Panaev found Alexei Fedorovich smart and capable, and the next day Merzlyakov was invited to the school. A year later, a student brought Panaev "Ode to Making Peace with the Swedes", which the enthusiastic director presented to Volkov. Volkov sent the work to the chief head of public schools, Peter Vasilyevich Zavadovsky, who offered an ode to Catherine II herself. By decree of the Empress, the ode was published in the Russian Store magazine in 1792.
Catherine ordered that Merzlyakov be sent to Moscow or St. Petersburg "to continue the sciences." In 1793, Alexey Fedorovich Merzlyakov entered the Moscow gymnasium at the university. Mikhail Matveyevich Kheraskov becomes its curator, whose "Rossiada" twenty years later Merzlyakov will critically analyze on the pages of the magazine "Amphion". Since 1795, Merzlyakov studied at the Imperial Moscow University, where he received a bachelor's degree in 1798-1799. In 1804, Merzlyakov became a master, then an adjunct and occupied the department of Russian eloquence and poetry, and from 1817 to 1818 served as dean of the verbal department. He held the same position from 1821 to 1828.
Despite his active administrative activities, Merzlyakov was mostly remembered by his contemporaries as a talented teacher and a brilliant improviser. D. N. Sverbeev, a student at the Imperial Moscow University since 1813, wrote the following in his memoirs about Merzlyakov’s lectures: “It seems that he never prepared for his impromptu lectures; how many times did it happen to me, for some reason his favorite, to interrupt his strong afternoon sleep half an hour before the lecture; then, in a hurry, he began to drink rum with tea from a huge cup and offered me to drink tea with rum with him. “Give me a book to take to the lecture,” he ordered me, pointing to the shelves. "What?" - "Whatever you want." And so, it happened, you take any one that comes to hand, and we are both together, he, enthusiastic about rum, I'm tipsy from tea, we are coming to the university. And what? The book unfolds and an excellent exposition begins.
In 1812, A.F. Merzlyakov opens the first free public literature course in Russia, the purpose of which is to familiarize society with the theory and history of literature. The conversations took place in the house of Prince B.V. Golitsyn: a well-known dancer, dandy and literary figure of that time. However, the conversations were interrupted by the invasion of Napoleon and resumed only in 1816 in the house of Agrafena Fedorovna Kokoshkina, the sister of Fyodor Fedorovich Kokoshkin, a famous theatrical figure and a great friend of Moscow literary circles. During the two stages of the existence of this course, Merzlyakov considered the general rules of eloquence and versification, in accordance with which he analyzed the works of the most famous Russian poets, mainly of the Lomonosov period. It should be said that the course was a great success both among young people, to whom it was originally oriented, and among noble persons of the capital.
Merzlyakov's public activity also consisted of participation in various societies. For example, he was a real and most active member of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, which arose at Moscow University in 1811. At each meeting, the professor read his poems or prose. Merzlyakov was also a member of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, the Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts, but probably the most important role in his poetic development was played by the Friendly Literary Society, which arose in 1801.
History of the Society
In the late 1790s, Merzlyakov became close friends with Andrei Ivanovich Turgenev and Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky. The personality of the latter needs no comment, but a few words should be said about Turgenev.
Andrei Ivanovich Turgenev (1781-1803) - poet, son of the director of Moscow University (1796-1803) and freemason Ivan Petrovich Turgenev, elder brother of the prominent Russian statesman Alexander Turgenev and the Decembrist Nikolai Turgenev. Referring to the studies of V. M. Istrin, the modern Russian literary critic and historian A. L. Zorin writes about the Turgenev brothers and their entourage that they “remained alien to the mystical hobbies of their predecessors<…>, but adopted the thirst for self-improvement and the special atmosphere of moral exactingness that distinguished the Moscow Freemasons. This remark perfectly defines the direction of the ideas and beliefs of the young poet Andrei Turgenev and his friend A.F. Merzlyakov at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries.
The origins of the society, which will be discussed in this chapter and which played an important role in the formation of Merzlyakov the poet, we find in the Literary Assembly, which arose in 1798 in the Moscow Imperial boarding school among the comrades of V. A. Zhukovsky. Members of the Assembly included, among others, Andrei and Alexander Turgenev and Alexei Merzlyakov. Researcher V. M. Istrin finds the beginning of this circle in the well-studied Novikov Friendly Scientific Society, arguing his position by the fact that the successors of the scientific society entered the Assembly at the boarding school, and then the Friendly Literary Society (we note that the latter included the already mentioned above Ivan Petrovich Turgenev). “From here,” writes Istrin, “there followed those pedagogical techniques that were practiced at the University Noble Boarding School and which subsequently determined the direction of the Friendly Literary Society; hence all the numerous speeches, both in the boarding school itself and in the meetings of the pupils of the boarding school, on moral and patriotic topics. Only the interest in poetry is new, but it was also an educational tool; the latter developed in the younger generation that new stream that had not been particularly noticeable before, namely, an interest in poetry. The main distinguishing feature of A. F. Merzlyakov’s environment of those years, Istrin calls “the influence of a sentimental trend” and the presence of “purely literary interests” (while Istrin considers “charity and moral self-improvement” to be the goal, and therefore the main area of interest of the Friendly Scientific Society, which relegates literature to the background).
V. M. Istrin also says that even before the existence of the Friendly Literary Society, its members often spent time together: they discussed and criticized each other's works, recommended poems and plays that should be translated into Russian.
Thus, in his work, V. M. Istrin considers the Friendly Literary Society insignificant in its independence, but in the context of previous and subsequent communities (the researcher cites Arzamas as an example of a later circle), he recognizes its historical significance, speaking of overcoming the “social element<…>in the form of charity", which was the basis of the Friendly Scientific Society, and about the assimilation, thanks to the latter, of the cult of friendship, which, subsequently, will turn out to be a common feature for many, many literary collections.
So, after Zhukovsky leaves the boarding house, the friends establish a new circle. The initiators of its creation, and later the main enthusiasts, are A. I. Turgenev and A. F. Merzlyakov. Thus, on January 12, 1801, the first meeting of the Friendly Literary Society was held in Voeikov’s house on Devichye Pole, in which brothers Andrei Ivanovich and Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, Alexei Fedorovich Merzlyakov, brothers Andrei Sergeevich Kaisarov and Mikhail Sergeevich Kaisarov, Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, Semyon Emelyanovich Rodzianko, Alexander Fedorovich Voeikov. At the same meeting, the "Laws of a Friendly Literary Society", compiled and read out by Merzlyakov, are signed. These laws were later published by N. S. Tikhonravov in the collection "The Society of Lovers of Russian Literature for 1891". They stipulate the goal, subject, means, procedure and other rules for the members of society.
Yu. M. Lotman calls the main task of the society "preparation for active, selfless service to the motherland." However, in society from the very beginning there is some inconsistency with this definition: the contradiction between friends. The presence of disagreement in the environment of the circle is also noticed by V. M. Istrin. He speaks of two speeches, namely, Zhukovsky's speech "On Friendship", delivered on February 27, and Merzlyakov's speech of March 1, which is a reaction to Zhukovsky's speech. In his speech with the characteristic title “On Activity,” Merzlyakov criticizes the “dreaminess” of his friends, in particular Zhukovsky, urging them to leave their dreams of the future, to look at activity as “the guardian and mother of all success.” Yu. M. Lotman managed to delve into the causes of disagreements. He writes: “In Moscow, intimidated by the Pavlovian terror, friends condemned despotism, dreamed of civic exploits, and often directly touched on the position of Russia.” Speaking of "friends", Lotman does not mean all the members of the circle, but precisely Merzlyakov, Andrei Turgenev, Andrei Kaisarov and Voeikov. They are opposed in their aesthetic views to Zhukovsky, Alexander Turgenev and Mikhail Kaisarov. The essence of the antinomy lies in the attitude towards Karamzinism, or, if we delve deeper into the nature of the problem, towards the purpose of literature: the first group of participants in the society condemns the “literary trend of Karamzin<…>first of all, for the rejection of civic themes, for diverting the writer's attention from the "high" content to the literary processing and elegance of the style "and thus defines civic poetry; the second group defends Karamzinism and focuses on subjective-lyrical themes in poetry, representing exactly the sentimental beginning that V. M. Istrin spoke about. This controversy soon split the society (in December 1801 the society disintegrated), but it also largely determined the further creative development of its participants, not excluding A.F. Merzlyakov.
Songs and romances
As mentioned above, in the Friendly Literary Society there was a question about national-original art, and therefore the interest in folklore from the members of the circle, including A.F. Merzlyakov, was great. In the first chapter, we have repeatedly noted the strong ideological influence of the poet Andrei Turgenev on the position and poetry of Merzlyakov. Yu. M. Lotman points out that "if Merzlyakov followed Andrei Turgenev in posing the problems of political freethinking, then in his interest in another significant issue - nationality - he turned out to be his leader."
Let us say that the members of the Friendly Literary Society solved the problem posed for themselves in different ways and, of course, achieved different results. Merzlyakov, his search led to the creation of songs. It should be noted that the brightest period in the poet's work is considered
1803-1807, when Merzlyakov was actively working on the creation of songs stylized as folklore, the so-called "Russian songs".
Translations
Dealing with the issue of A. F. Merzlyakov’s poetry, one cannot but pay attention to the translation activity that continued throughout his entire creative life. Merzlyakov translated works of various kinds and genres. Judging by the translations known to us (which happened in the publication or were in the projects), Merzlyakov knew French, German, Italian, ancient Greek and Latin to a sufficient extent. It would not be superfluous to note that the biography of the "fair translator of the ancients" has the same influence on his translations as on the work we have considered earlier. In this chapter, as far as possible, we will touch not only poetic translations, with the goal of revealing and supplementing the worldview of the author.
Returning to the Friendly Literary Society and the early period of Merzlyakov's activity in general, let's talk about the translation of Goethe's novel "The Suffering of Young Werther" conceived by him, Andrei Turgenev and Vasily Zhukovsky. As N. E. Nikonova writes, “having learned the experience and traditions of Karamzinism, the members of the Friendly Literary Society proclaimed new guidelines on the way to achieving the main task - the creation of authentic Russian literature. The source of this renewal, as is known, was the switch of focus from French to German literature, in which friends expected to find appropriate poetic means for expressing a romantic worldview. The translation was carried out from 1799 to 1802 and remained in manuscript. The translation of the friends of Schiller's "Deceit and Love" has not been preserved, although his work inspired young people incredibly. The German poet turned out to be “a singer of trampled human freedom and individual rights” for them, therefore it is not surprising that the circle is fascinated by Schiller’s “Robbers” and the existence of a project to translate his poem “Don Carlos”, which, apparently, was not implemented. “The anti-feudal, democratic ideas of the 18th century,” concludes Lotman, “were perceived by the leading group of the Friendly Literary Society not in their direct, most consistent version, represented in France by pre-revolutionary democratic philosophy, in Russia by Radishchev, but in the form of rebelliousness and free-thinking, characteristic of young Goethe and Schiller.
No less important for understanding Merzlyakov's work are his translations from Tirtei, made somewhat later and published in 1805 in Vestnik Evropy. They played a significant role in realizing the slogan of the creation of heroic art, which arose even in the Friendly Literary Society, and in many ways reflected the ideal of heroism that friends found in Spartan culture. It is noteworthy that “creating his translations from Tyrtaeus, Merzlyakov was not concerned with recreating the spirit of genuine antiquity. This is indicated by the fact that, knowing the Greek language and being familiar with the original text, he took the German translation as a model.<…>He was interested in something else - the creation of samples of Russian heroic poetry, where in the center is the image of the "great in men", which "flames - with an enviable passion to meet death." Thus, the connection of the early original work of the poet, which we reviewed in the second chapter, with interests in the field of translation cannot be denied.
"Idylls of Madame Desulliere" was published by Merzlyakov in a separate small edition in 1807. In addition to the idylls themselves, the publication includes a translator's preface, which describes the difficult fate of Antoinette Desulliere as a person and as a writer. Merzlyakov calls Desulier "the new Safa", referring the reader to the famous ancient Greek poetess from the island of Lesbos, whose poems the poet also translated. Unfortunately, we were unable to find reviews for this edition, but it was not difficult to conclude an independent observation by comparing the year of publication and Merzlyakov’s main area of interest during this period: in the third chapter of this work, we talked about the poet’s success in the genre of “Russian song”. These successes are connected, first of all, with how subtly the author felt the folk original beginning of peasant lyrics. Concerning the genre definition of the works of Ms. Desoulieres, we find that the idyll is designed to depict a calm life in the bosom of nature, while the works of Desoulieres "are woeful monologues" in which "the ideal world of nature, to which the author's imagination aspires, is sharply opposed to the human world" . Probably, this turned out to be interesting then for Merzlyakov the poet.
Around the same time, in 1808, the Eclogues of Publius Virgil Nason were published, translated by Merzlyakov. In the preface "Something about the eclogue" the poet reflects on the nature of the emergence of slavery. Lotman believes that "the thoughts of the author of the article on the eclogue were focused not so much on slavery in general, but on the fate of the Russian peasant." In this case, the thematic connection with the original "Russian songs" of the poet is obvious: in his works, Merzlyakov describes the grief of forced people, sympathizes with them. The anti-serfdom themes and the theme of freedom as a whole are close to A. F. Merzlyakov both in the early period and in the next stage of the development of the genre of “Russian song” and romance.
“Approximately around 1806, changes are planned in Merzlyakov’s attitude towards ancient culture. If during the period of creating translations from Tirtey Merzlyakov was mainly interested in the political sharpness, civic orientation of the work, the ancient world was perceived through the prism of conditional heroic ideas in the spirit of the 18th century (which is why he could, knowing Greek, translate from German), now his position is changing . Interest in the true life of the ancient world forces us to study the verse system of ancient poets and look for ways to adequately convey it by means of Russian poetry.<…>The literature of the ancient world was perceived by him as folk<…>However, the realistic idea that everyday life practice is a worthy subject of poetic reproduction was alien to Merzlyakov. The appeal to the ancient poets made it possible in this sense to glorify the "low", practical life. This determined the peculiarity of the style of Merzlyakov's translations, which combines Slavonicisms with words of a domestic, common character. All these remarks are relevant for "Imitations and translations from Greek and Latin poets by A. Merzlyakov", published in 2 parts in 1825-1826. The poet worked on them for a long time and they are considered the main asset of Merzlyakov's entire creative path.
Imitations and Translations includes passages from Homer, translations of Sappho, Theocritus, Tyrtheus and other poetic translations of the ancients, as well as the tragedies of Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles and passages from the Aeneid. Merzlyakov's use of the hexameter is important here: this refers researchers to his relationship with another well-known translator of those years, Gnedich. Despite the fact that today we consider the latter to be the father of the Russian hexameter, contemporaries have repeatedly claimed the primacy of Merzlyakov in this. For example, M. A. Dmitriev wrote: “Merzlyakov began to introduce hexameters, not Gnedich.” However, both of them in this case continued the tradition of Trediakovsky and Radishchev.
Lotman seems curious in this collection of Merzlyakov's experiments in "sapphic" size. “In his “folk songs,” Merzlyakov still very timidly tries to diversify the traditional syllabo-tonic verse with tonic, and verses like: “I didn’t think about anything in the world to grieve” were an exception. It is in the work on translations from Sappho that Merzlyakov comes to the rejection of the syllabic tonic, to the tonic measure that was characterized by Vostokov as inherent in the Russian song.<…>The translation from Sappho was first published in 1826, and Merzlyakov, apparently, took into account Vostokov's reasoning, deliberately bringing ancient poetry closer to the system, which he perceived as Russian, folk poetic<…>The intonational approach to the Russian folk song was also supported by the selection of vocabulary and phraseology: “beautiful sparrows”, “don’t crush my spirit”, “striking wings”, “that you are sad” ”.
In the same 1825, N. A. Polevoy published in the Moscow Telegraph magazine a review of the first part of the collection Imitations and Translations, noting their significance for the modern Russian reader, who, according to the critic, pays little attention to ancient literature, while “A truly enlightened writer must combine in his education the complete system of universal literature and, from the ideal of the elegant, conceived with the experience of centuries, finally extract the rules and patterns that must be followed.” Most of this review is devoted to Merzlyakov's introductory article "On the Beginning and Spirit of Ancient Tragedy", in which the translator actively reflects on the goals and objectives of translating ancient works. Very little is said about the works themselves, and only in a grammatical way, which is of no great interest to us.
One of the most important works for the poet was the translation of Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered from Italian, published in 1828, but begun in the mid-10s. Merzlyakov, who did not accept Karamzinism and later romanticism, turned to the tradition of the 18th century in creating his poetry. According to Lotman, this archaism was most noticeable in Jerusalem Delivered, which could not make it popular at the time of publication.
Thus, we can conclude that Merzlyakov's translations did not deserve the same weighty recognition as his songs and romances received, but their publications in magazines and collections did not go unnoticed.
Conclusion
So, above was a review of scientific and critical studies of the poetry of A. F. Merzlyakov. Also, an attempt is presented to reflect the evolution of poetic creativity through the study of the biography of the poet and his publications. The body of Merzlyakov's lyrics is small, which made it possible to consider most of his lifetime and posthumous publications.
In the course of the work, some gaps in the study of Merzlyakov's poetry became obvious: 1) lyrics that are not related to the three main areas touched upon in the main part of our work have been little studied. If odes, songs and translations are covered in the criticism and research of scientists, then the genre of the message, for example, and other minor genres remain in the shadows; 2) the border between “Russian songs” and Merzlyakov’s romances on scientific grounds has not yet been drawn, while when publishing the collection “Songs and Romances” in 1830, the poet himself divided his lyrical texts of this direction into two different genres, which we and see in the title of the book; 3) despite the considerable number of reviews on various Merzlyakov's translations, there were no separate studies of this sphere of the author's interests, i.e. there is no work that would set out periodization and principles of translation, genres, themes, etc.; 4) the only existing collection of poems compiled by Yu. M. Lotman does not include all the works of the poet and does not fully reflect the specifics of his work, and also contains many bibliographic errors, which causes difficulties when searching for Merzlyakov’s works published in periodicals or those mentioned Lotman articles by other scientists.
There is also an acute question about the significance of A. F. Merzlyakov’s work for the next generation of poets: if the influence of songs on followers is beyond doubt and is covered by criticism and research, then the situation is different with odic and translated lyrics. There is a need to define their role in the literary process.
Merzlyakov the poet may be of interest not only as the author of texts of various genres, but also as a close friend or good friend of such famous contemporaries as Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, the Turgenev brothers, and others. does not exist, while the influence of this not so famous poet on more famous ones is beyond doubt. Contemporaries for the most part recognized Merzlyakov's talent: A. S. Pushkin, for example, wrote in a letter to Pletnev dated March 26, 1831, that Merzlyakov was "a good drunkard who suffocated in a university atmosphere." At the same time, the poetic message found in the papers of P. A. Karatygin in the early 80s of the XIX century, where the name of Merzlyakov is mentioned along with the names of Karamzin, Krylov, Zhukovsky, turned out to be less well-known:
We have Titus Livius ̶ Karamzin,
Pash Fedr ̶ Krylov,
Tibull ̶ Zhukovsky,
Varro, Vitruvius ̶ Karazin,
And Dionysius is Kachenovsky!
Propertius ̶ languid Merzlyakov.
“In the mind of Pushkin,” Milman writes, “Merzlyakov thus had two faces - a poet, to whom he paid tribute, and a critic - an adherent of classicism, who is a clearly odious figure.”
Poetic creativity is only one of the aspects of the verbal activity of A. F. Merzlyakov. Many contemporaries remember him, first of all, as a brilliant orator, a professor at the Imperial Moscow University, whose lectures were distinguished by a high level of improvisation, and also as a critic, whose analyzes of contemporary Russian authors received different assessments, but still occupied an important place in Russian criticism to this day. still remain one of the most famous in this area. A certain degree of relevance or at least significance of Merzlyakov's aesthetic position can be confirmed by the re-edition in 1974 of "Russian Aesthetic Treatises of the First Third of the 19th Century." edited by M. F. Ovsyannikov, which included the most significant works of Merzlyakov. Also, the dissertation of V. G. Milman of 1984, which examines in detail the formation of Merzlyakov the critic, his main works and their influence on Russian literature, speaks of a long-term interest in the author’s aesthetic views.
Thus, we come to the conclusion that the personality of A.F. Merzlyakov is far from being fully studied. The study of the author's poetry may be of great importance for Russian literary criticism in general and for understanding the development of Russian lyrics of the 19th century in particular.
6. Bibliography
Individual editions
1. “Tune in, the muses are delighted ...” // The joyful voice of thanksgiving of the Moscow muses to the all-powerful monarch of Russia Alexander I, solemnly pronounced on April 1 for the merciful favor expressed by His Imperial Majesty to them in the highest rescripts to the heads of Moscow University dated April 4, 1801. M., 1801.
2. Glory // Poem. In the Provincial Printing House at A. Reshetnikov. M., 1801.
3. Poems on the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander I // Poems on the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander I. M., 1801.
4. Choir “Whom the Muses meet…” // Solemn speeches on the half-century anniversary of the Imperial Moscow University, spoken in a large audience on June 30, 1805, M., 1805.
5. Ode to Wisdom // Solemn speeches on the half-century anniversary of the Imperial Moscow University, spoken in a large audience on June 30, 1805. M., 1805.
6. Idylls of Madame Desoulieres, translated by A. Merzlyakov. M., 1807.
7. Eclogues of Publius Virgil Maron, translated by A. Merzlyakov, professor at the Imperial Moscow University. M., 1807.
8. The choir sung in the solemn meeting of the Imperial Moscow University, June 30, 1808 // Solemn speeches spoken in the public meeting of the Imperial Moscow University, June 30, 1808, M., 1808.
9. Imitations and translations from Greek and Latin poets by A. Merzlyakov: At 2 hours M., 1825-1826.
10. The genius of the fatherland and the muses // Speeches delivered at the solemn meeting of the Imperial Moscow University, July 5, 1828. M., 1828.
11. Liberated Jerusalem. M., 1828.
12. Songs and romances by A. Merzlyakov. M., 1830.
13. Merzlyakov A. F. Poems. L., 1958.
Journal publications
1. An ode composed by the Perm Main Public School by a thirteen-year-old student Alexei Merzlyakov, who, apart from this school, had no upbringing or teaching anywhere else // Russian store. M., 1792. Part 1.
2. True hero // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1796. Part 10. S. 255-256.
3. Night // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1796. Part 10. S. 155.
4. The old man in the coffin // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1796. Ch. 17. S.
5. Ross // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1797. Ch. 13. S. 143-144.
6. Great phenomena in the north // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1797. Ch. 13. S. 309-316.
7. Military field // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1797. Ch. 14. S. 164-173.
8. By the past year 1796 // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1797. Ch. 14. S. 175-176.
9. Milon // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1797. Ch. 14. S. 219-223.
10. The genius of friendship // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Ch. 17. S. 141-144.
11. My consolation // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Ch. 17. S. 157-160.
12. To the Urals // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Ch. 17. S. 173-176.
13. Innocence // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Ch. 17. S. 187-192.
14. Laura and Selmar // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Ch. 18. S. 141-143.
15. Racket // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Ch. 18. S.
16. Consolation in sorrow // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Ch. 18. S.
17. Poet // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Ch. 18. S. 174-175.
18. Sick. friend I. A. L-y // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Ch. 18. S.
19. Hymn to the incomprehensible // Morning dawn. 1803. No. 2.
20. Rural elegy // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Ch. 20. No. 6. S. 130-133.
21. Feeling in separation // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Ch. 21. No. 9. S. 43-44.
22. Kukov's shadow on Ovgi-gi island // Morning dawn. M., 1805. Book. 4. S. 254-263.
23. Ode to the destruction of Babylon // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Ch. 21. No. 11. S. 171-175.
24. Myachkovsky mound // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Ch. 22. No. 13. S. 56-59.
25. Gall // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Ch. 23. No. 18. S. 124-130.
26. Hymn to the incomprehensible // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Ch. 23. No. 20. S. 273-279.
27. Odes of Tyrteev // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Ch. 24. No. 21. S. 29-40.
28. Morning // Dawn. 1805. No. 4.
29. Poems for the victory of the Russians over the French at Krems (Composed upon receipt of the first news in Moscow) // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Ch. 24. No. 23. S. 238-240.
30. Idylls From Desulier // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Ch. 25. No. 1. S. 22-
31. Comparison of Sparta with Athens // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 25. No. 1.
pp. 30-31.
32. To Laura for the harpsichord: (From Schiller) // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Ch. 25. No. 2. S. 112-114.
33. The Triumph of Alexandrovo, or the Power of Music // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Ch. 25. No. 4. S. 273-279.
34. Unfortunately // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Ch. 25. No. 5. S. 50-52.
35. To Eliza // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Ch. 26. No. 6. S. 107-110.
36. Elegy: (“The suffering of love will be eased by separation! ..”) // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Ch. 27. No. 9. S. 22-26.
37. Titir and Melibey // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Ch. 27. No. 10. S. 99-105.
38. Alexis // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Ch. 27. No. 11. S. 281-286.
39. Belisarius Romance // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Ch. 28. No. 14. S. 115-116.
40. To her (Rondo): (“You loved me - I had fun with life ...”) // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Ch. 28. No. 15. S. 196.
42. Scene from the tragedy of Aeschylus, called: Seven leaders under Thebes // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Ch. 29. No. 17. S. 41-46.
43. Immortality // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Ch. 29. No. 18. S. 116.
44. Ah, the beautiful girl! .. // Journal of Russian Music for 1806, published by D. Kashin. M., 1806. No. 4. S. 12.
45. “Oh, what are you, my dear ...” // Journal of Russian Music for 1806, published by D. Kashin. M., 1806. No. 5. S. 5.
46. "Black-browed, black-eyed ..." // Journal of Russian Music for 1806, published by D. Kashin. M., 1806. No. 4. S. 8-9.
47. Ode to the New Year // Moscow News. 1807. No. 1. S.
48. To Eliza: (From whom I did not receive for a very long time my poems taken for reading) // Aglaya. 1808. Part 2. No. 1. S. 74-78.
49. To Eliza: (When she was angry with Cupid) // Aglaya. 1808. Part 2. No. 2.
pp. 85-87.
50. To friends: (On the death of A. I. Turgenev) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 37. No. 2. S. 145-148.
51. To Eliza: (“If I were loved, oh dear, by you ...”) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 37. No. 3. S. 237-238.
52. Death of Polyxena: (Excerpt from the Euripides tragedy: Hecuba) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 37. No. 4. S. 283-301.
53. To an unknown singer, whose pleasant voice I often hear, but whom I have never seen in person // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 38. No. 5. S. 13-17.
54. Excerpt from Alceste, Euripides tragedy: (Preparations for death and separation from the family) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 38. No. 7. S. 197-206.
55. Ulysses at Alcinous // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 38. No. 7. S. 223-229.
56. Olint and Sophronia: (Episode from Tassa [Liberated Jerusalem]) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 38. No. 8. S. 279-292.
57. What is life? : (Song among friends) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 39. No. 9. S. 50-53.
58. To Eliza, who suffers from a long illness // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 39. No. 10 S. 103-105.
59. Infernal Council: (Excerpt from Tassov Jerusalem) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 39. No. 11 S. 160-167.
60. Funeral song Z…. A ... chu Burinsky: (Composed on the day of his burial and petaya in the meeting of his friends) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 40. No. 13. S. 56-58.
61. Nizos and Euryalus // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 41. No. 20. S. 252-268.
62. Invocation of Calliope to the banks of the Nepryadva // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 42. No. 22. S. 109-112.
63. To Fortune // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Ch. 42. No. 24. S. 254-256.
64. Nature-teacher // Morning dawn. 1808. No. 6.
65. Lesson from mother // Friend of children. 1809. Part 2. No. 7. S. 371-377.
66. Choir of children to little Natasha // Friend of children. 1809. Part 3. No. 10. S. 237-246.
67. Morning // Friend of children. 1809. Part 3. No. 12. S. 449-452.
68. Dido: (Dedicated to Elise) // Bulletin of Europe. 1809. Ch. 43. No. 2. S. 87.
69. Dido: (End) // Bulletin of Europe. 1809. Ch. 43. No. 3. S. 172-193.
70. Cupid in the first minutes of his separation from Dushenka: (Lyric poem) // Bulletin of Europe. 1809. Ch. 45. No. 10. S. 91-121.
71. On the highest arrival of His Imperial Majesty in Moscow on December 6, 1809 // Bulletin of Europe. 1809. Ch. 48. No. 24. S. 298-301.
72. To His Imperial Majesty from loyal pupils of the Noble boarding school established at the Imperial Moscow University // Bulletin of Europe. 1809. Ch. 48. No. 24. S. 301-302.
73. Egyptian ambassadors (From the II book of Tassov Jerusalem) // Bulletin of Europe. 1810. Ch. 49. No. 2. S. 106-116.
74. From Tassov Liberated Jerusalem: (Third Song) // Bulletin of Europe. 1810. Ch. 51. No. 12. C. 274-296.
75. Celadon and Amelia // Bulletin of Europe. 1810. Ch. 54. No. 24. S. 290-292.
76. Two songs // Bulletin of Europe. 1811. Ch. 55. No. 2. S. 92-94.
77. To the Amur // Bulletin of Europe. 1811. Ch. 55. No. 2. S. 95.
78. For seven rings // Bulletin of Europe. 1811. Ch. 55. No. 2. S. 95.
79. Single combat of Tancred with Argant: (Excerpt from the VI book of Tassov Jerusalem) // Bulletin of Europe. 1811. Ch. 56. No. 5. S. 33-42.
80. To Neera // Bulletin of Europe. 1811. Ch. 57. No. 10. S. 112-114.
8. To Leela // Vestnik E
· "Friendly Literary Society"
In 1801, the young poets Andrei and Alexander I. Turgenev, A.F. Voeikov, A.S. Kaisarov, Rodzyanka, V.A. Zhukovsky, A.F. Merzlyakov organized a “Friendly Literary Society”, which arose as an act of protest against Karamzin and his school. Shortly before the emergence of the society, a conversation took place between Andrei Turgenev, Zhukovsky and Merzlyakov; it was about the poverty of Russian literature and the blame fell on Karamzin.
In the diary of Andrei Turgenev, these accusations are stated as follows: “ Perhaps there will be more excellent writers in trifles, and ... Karamzin is to blame for this. He made an era in Russian literature ... But - let's be frank - he is more harmful than useful to our literature, and more harmful because he writes so well ... Let them write worse, but only write more original, more important, more courageous, and not so much study petty births” Thus, Karamzin was reproached not for being a daring innovator, but for the fact that his innovation turned Russian literature onto the wrong path of foreign borrowings.
Society members asked the question: “There is French, German, English literature, but is there Russian?” It was a question of romantic content, because it was the Romantics who were primarily interested in the problem of nationality. Their answer to their own question was categorical: there is no Russian literature (“Can we use this word? Members of the "Friendly Literary Society" intended to direct Russian literature in a different way: "Sometimes one person will appear and, so to speak, will carry away his contemporaries with him. We know this; we ourselves had Peter the Great, but such a person for Russian literature should now be the second Lomonosov, not Karamzin. Imbued with Russian originality, endowed with a creative gift, he must give a different turn to our literature; otherwise the tree will wither, covered with pleasant flowers, but without showing either broad leaves or juicy nutritious fruits ”
· Since 1802, Karamzin began to publish
magazine “Bulletin of Europe”
and thus laid the foundation for a systematic coverage of Russian and Western European reality from the standpoint of emerging romanticism.
The magazine was a new type of publication. The issue consisted of three departments - literature, criticism and politics; the published materials were selected in such a way that a single semantic whole was obtained. The general task of the journal is to present a broad program for the development of national-original literature. In the department of politics, the idea of strengthening autocracy, statehood was carried out as a red thread, comparing Napoleon-Alexander I. The criticism department published articles about the place and role of literature in public life, about the reasons slowing down its success and the emergence of new authors, about what determines its development along the path of national identity. According to Karamzin, writers have enormous opportunities to influence society: “Authors help fellow citizens to think and speak better” (“Why are there few authorial talents in Russia?”) Literature, Karamzin now claims, “should have an impact on morals and happiness,” every writer is obliged “to assist in the moral education of such a great and strong nation as the Russian one; develop ideas, point out new beauties in life, nourish the soul with moral pleasures and merge it in sweet feelings with the good of other people” (“Letter to the publisher”) In this moral education, the main role should belong to patriotic education. The stronger the love for the fatherland, the clearer the path of a citizen to his own happiness. The ideas of “romantic patriotism” were set forth by Karamzin in a peculiar manifesto of the new Karamzin - the article “On cases and characters in Russian history that can be the subject of art” (1802)
In the department of literature, Karamzin published works that were closest to the program of the magazine, for example, “Rural Cemetery” by V.A. Russian").
An important quality of Karamzin's "Bulletin of Europe" is that it was not the publication of one author, but became a kind of center for communication between writers. The journal provided its pages to writers, if not of opposite trends and schools, then at least markedly different from each other. G.R.Derzhavin, I.I.Dmitriev, V.A.Zhukovsky, V.Izmailov and others collaborated in Vestnik Evropy. The journal united the best literary forces and synthesized a new quality of Russian literature.
Vestnik Evropy was the most famous, but not the only magazine. Writers of other views, or those who were published by Karamzin, published their works
· in the “Northern Herald” (1804-05) by I.I. Martynov,
· “Journal of Russian Literature” (1805) N.P. Brusilov,
· “Northern Mercury” (1805) and “Flower Garden” (1809-1810) by A.E. Izmailov and A.P. Benitsky;
· opposition to Vestnik Evropy was S.N. Glinka's journal Russkiy vestnik (1808-1824);
· the patriotic magazine “Son of the Fatherland” by N.I. Grech, which arose during the Patriotic War of 1812.
· “Free society of lovers of literature, sciences and arts”
In 1801, in St. Petersburg, as a counterbalance to another literary capital - Moscow - where the “Friendly Literary Society” appeared, the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts” was organized, which united those whose views did not coincide with either Karamzinists or with their rivals from the Friendly Literary Society. “Free society of lovers of literature, sciences and arts” united writers (G.P. Kamenev, I.M. Born, V.V. Popugaev, I.P. Pnin, A.Kh. Vostokov, D.I. Yazykov, A .E.Izmailov), sculptors (I.I.Terebenev, I.I.Galberg), artists (A.I.Ivanov), priests, archaeologists, historians, physicians, officials. The society developed a special literary trend, which researchers proposed to call, for example, the term "Empire" (36). Empire (from the French empire - empire) is usually called the style of Western European art of late classicism, mainly in architecture and fine arts; The Empire style is characterized by a combination of solemn monumentality with pomp and richness of interior decoration, decoration, imitation of the artistic models of Rome during the Empire. The Empire style expressed the idea of national pride and independence (for example, the Arc de Triomphe in Paris). Other researchers (37) believe that the terms "baroque" or "rococo" are more appropriate. The Baroque style (from the Italian barocco - whimsical) in architecture was embodied in the richness of the plastic decoration of facades and rooms, in ceremonial interiors with multi-color sculpture, modeling, carving, gilding, and picturesque ceilings; style expressed the idea of \u200b\u200blimitless diversity and the eternal variability of the world. The Rococo style differed from the Baroque in great mannerism, whimsicality, grace, often pastoral and erotic motifs; the style expressed the idea of a catastrophic state of the world and a disappearing order. The worldview of the participants in the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts” was characterized by a sense of national pride and independence, and a sense of the fragility and variability of the world, and a sense of a disintegrating order in the world - this contradictory mixture of ideas, which is difficult to unambiguously define, gave rise to a fairly recognizable literary style.
The creativity of the members of the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts” is characterized by an interest in the genres of classicism, stylization of late antiquity, and ornamentality. Poets use the genres of odes, epitaphs, inscriptions, miniatures, Horatian motifs of Epicurean pleasures in a mortal unstable world:
· “Moscow Society of Lovers of Russian Literature”
There was no strict stylistic consistency in the “Moscow Society of Lovers of Russian Literature”, which arose in 1811 (partly by analogy with the St. Petersburg “Free Society ...”). It was attended by authors of different directions: V.A. Zhukovsky and K.N. Batyushkov, A.F. Voeikov, A.F. Merzlyakov, F.N. Glinka. The historical and literary significance of such (“mixed”) societies lies in the fact that they objectively continued the polarization of literary movements, with one society originating in Karamzinism being formed mainly in Moscow, and a polar opposite literary movement in St. Petersburg. The existence of two capitals of the literary world became a feature of Russian literature at the beginning of the 19th century, the poet's residence became a signal of his ideological and aesthetic orientation (“Moscow admirers” and “Petersburg zealots”).
· “Conversation of lovers of the Russian word”
The organizer and head of the famous literary society "Conversation of the Lovers of the Russian Word" (1811-1816) was A.S. Shishkov, the author of "Discourses on the old and new syllable of the Russian language" (1803), in which he criticized Karamzin's theory of the new literary language and proposed my.
Shishkov criticized Karamzin not for the departure from classicism and movement towards romanticism, but for the wrong - unpatriotic - direction of the language reform: foreign people." The antithesis of “classic-romantic” in relation to Shishkov and Karamzin is clearly not suitable, if only because it is impossible to establish who is who: Shishkov, caring about the nationality of Russian literature, turns out to be more romantic than Karamzin. But Karamzin is not a classic either. The situation must be described in other terms.
The dispute between the “Shishkovists” and the “Karamzinists” was about the problem of a new style. Karamzin proposed to synthesize the existing bilingualism (Russian and French) into a single Europeanized Russian language, a pleasant and average language - common for written literature and for oral communication. Shishkov expressed concern about the loss of national identity in such a language and suggested the following. First, do not average the language, keep the distinction between bookish and colloquial: “In order to gain importance, a learned language always requires some difference from the common language. He sometimes shortens, sometimes copulates, sometimes changes, sometimes chooses a word.<…>Where it is necessary to speak loudly and majestically, he offers thousands of chosen words, rich in reason, abstruse and very special from those with which we explain ourselves in simple conversations ”Secondly, the bookish language must be created not on the principle of lightness, pleasantness, smoothness, but on the principle of richness of vocabulary, depth, sonority of the national language; Shishkov proposes to synthesize a high (according to Lomonosov's theory) style with its archaisms, a middle style with linguistic features of a folk song and partially “low vocabulary”, “in order to be able to place low thoughts and words in a high style, such as, for example: roar, ... drag for the hair, ... a daring head and the like, without humiliating the syllable with them and preserving all the importance of it” (40).
Thus, Shishkov's thought was directed against the smoothness and aestheticism of the Karamzinists, the salon elegance of album poems, and not against romantic trends. Both Karamzin and Shishkov take pre-romantic positions and argue only about the paths of the formation of romanticism.
This situation was most successfully described by Yu.N. Tynyanov, who proposed the terms “archaists” and “innovators”. Archaists are Shishkov, his supporters, participants in the “Conversation ...”, and there are older archaists (A.S. Shishkov, G.R. Derzhavin, I.A. Krylov, A.A. Shakhovskoy, S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov ) and younger, “young archaists” (P.A.Katenin, A.S.Griboyedov, V.K.Kyukhelbeker). The latter were distinguished even by greater radicalism, they attacked Karamzinists not only for the smoothness and pleasantness of the language in the French manner, but for disrespect for the people's faith and customs. So the well-known polemic between Katenin and Zhukovsky about the ballad genre developed as a folk faith and superstition. “Innovators” are not only Karamzinists, but those poets who were close and became a member of the literary society “Arzamas”, organized in 1816 in defiance of “Conversation ...”.
· "Arzamas"
The idea to organize their own literary society arose among the young supporters of Karamzin long before the appearance of Arzamas. In 1815, P.A. Vyazemsky, in a letter to A.I. Turgenev, said: “Why can fools be together? Look at the members of the “Conversation”: how horses are always in the same stable ... To be honest, I’m envious looking at them ... When we live like brothers: soul to soul and hand to hand? The reason soon appeared.
The Society of Unknown Lovers of Literature, including V.A. Zhukovsky, K.N. Batyushkov, A.S. Pushkin and many others. etc. All participants were given comic nicknames taken from Zhukovsky's ballads, namely: V.A. Zhukovsky - Svetlana, P.A. Vyazemsky - Asmodeus, D.V. Dashkov - Chu, A.I. Turgenev - Eolian harp, N. Bludov - Cassandra, A. S. Pushkin - Cricket, V. L. Pushkin - Here I am, F. Vigel - Ivikov crane, D. P. Severin (diplomat) - Frisky Cat, S. S. Uvarov - Old woman, S.P. Zhikharev - Thunderbolt, M. Orlov (future Decembrist) - Rein, D.I. Davydov - Armenian, K.N. Batyushkov - Achilles, A.I. Pleshcheev - Black Crow, A.F. Voeikov - Smoky stove, Nick. Ants - Adelstan, N. Turgenev - Warwick, etc. The nicknames of the Arzamas people continued the traditions of “nonsense” and “nonsense” of Karamzinism.
“It was a society of young people, interconnected by one living feeling of love for their native language and literature ... The persons who made it up were engaged in a strict analysis of literary works, applying the sources of ancient and foreign literature to the language and literature of the domestic, searching for principles that serve as the basis of a solid, independent theory of language, etc.” (S.S. Uvarov). “It was a school of mutual literary education, literary partnership” (P.A. Vyazemsky).
“Arzamas” existed in this form until 1819, when the new members of the society M.F. Orlov, N. Turgenev, Nick. Ants tried to give it a political direction, to organize an Arzamas magazine. These trends led to the extinction of “Arzamas” and the emergence in 1818-1819 of the Decembrist literary societies “Green Lamp” (A.S. Pushkin, F.N. Glinka, A. Delvig, N.I. Russian literature” (D.Khvostov, F.N.Glinka, A.A.Bestuzhev, K.F.Ryleev, V.K.Kyukhelbeker, O.M.Somov) - but these are phenomena of a different order (literary branches of political societies) .
3. The connection of Russian art and Russian literature with the main socio-political events of the 19th century
The best Russian writers consciously embarked on the path of serving society, seeing in this the highest purpose of art. “In our mental movement,” N.G. Chernyshevsky said about Russian literature, “it plays a more significant role than French, German, English in the mental movement of their peoples, and it has more duties than any other other literature... A poet and a novelist are indispensable in our country by anyone...” The writers themselves were also aware of this. Hence the deep sense of responsibility to the people, to Russia, which was characteristic of them: it was in our country that the type of writer was formed - a citizen, a fighter, a man of adamant, often hard-won convictions, high moral principles.
Reflecting on the role of literature in the destinies of mankind, M. Gorky argued that not a single Western literature arose with such force and speed, in such a powerful, dazzling brilliance of talent, as Russian literature, no one in Europe created such large, world-recognized books. , no one created such marvelous beauties under such indescribably difficult conditions as Russian writers.
A.P. Chekhov also clearly expressed the idea of the high purpose of art, of the responsibility of the writer. For him, a true writer is an obligated person, contracted by the consciousness of his duty and conscience. When Russian literature received worldwide recognition, foreign readers were acutely aware of its originality and unsurpassed power. She conquered them with her bold intrusion into life, intense search for truth, its heroes, full of lofty goals, always dissatisfied with themselves. What struck me sense of responsibility for the future of their country and humanity, which never for a moment left either Andrei Bolkonsky, or Pierre, or Raskolnikov, or Prince Myshkin. Russian writers made high demands on a person, they did not agree that people put their interests and selfishness in the foreground.
Advanced Russian literature has always lived by the most important, burning problems of the age. Painful questions, damned questions, great questions - this is how the social, philosophical, moral problems that were raised by the best writers of the past have been characterized for decades.
Beginning with Radishchev and ending with Chekhov, Russian writers of the 19th century they frankly spoke about the arbitrariness and impunity of some and the lack of rights of others, about social inequality, about the material and spiritual enslavement of man. Remember such works as “Dead Souls” by N.V. Gogol, "Crime and Punishment" F, M. Dostoevsky, "Tales" by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, “Who should live well in Russia” by N.A. Nekrasov, “Resurrection” by L.N. Tolstoy. The authors approached the solution of the most acute problems of our time from the standpoint of genuine humanism, from the standpoint of the interests of the people.
The fate of Russian writers was sometimes so tragic that the biographies of foreign writers look like a fairy tale of well-being against their background. Died in a duel A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov, A.S. Griboyedov died in terrible circumstances, Gogol died of hopelessness, K.F. civil execution (which commuted the death sentence) and exiled to hard labor
F.M. Dostoevsky, planted in the Peter and Paul Fortress by N.G. Chernyshevsky, excommunicated by L.N. Tolstoy. V.G. were subjected to constant persecution throughout their lives. Belinsky, N.A. Nekrasov and M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, D.I. Pisarev and N.A. Dobrolyubov. For many reasons, including political ones, I.S. Turgenev lived in France. At the end of the 19th century, in the case of the Narodnaya Volya, V.G. was sentenced to hard labor. Korolenko.
Most of the works of various genres went through such strict censorship, social and religious, that many books appeared either with a scandal, as was the case with "A Hero of Our Time", "The Government Inspector", "Dead Souls", "What Is To Be Done?", or were printed in a truncated form, or even saw the light decades later, as the play "Woe from Wit" by A.S. Griboyedov.
No matter what aspects of life the writers touched, from the pages of their creations it was always heard: who is to blame? what to do? These questions were raised in "Eugene Onegin" and in "A Hero of Our Time", in "Oblomov" and "Thunderstorm", in "Crime and Punishment", in Chekhov's stories and dramaturgy.
Revealing the role of the environment and historical conditions in the formation of a person, the writers at the same time tried to understand whether a person can withstand the influence of the life circumstances surrounding him. Is he free to choose his life path, or are circumstances to blame for everything? Ultimately, is a person responsible for what happens in the world around him, or not? All these questions are extremely complex, and writers painfully searched for answers to them. Everyone remembers the words of Bazarov: “Every person must educate himself ... And as for time, why will I depend on it? Let it better depend on me.” However, not everyone agreed with Turgenev's hero, and therefore the question of "relationships with life and over time always took on a polemical character."
"Who is guilty? What to do?" - these questions excited the consciousness and prompted Russian and foreign readers to take active action. The writers themselves could find different solutions, sometimes even erroneous, but the search for these solutions spoke of their deep interest in the fate of the country and all of humanity.
The idea of the welfare of the people constantly sounded in the works of Russian classics. From this point of view, they looked at everything around them, at the past and the future. The depiction of life phenomena, especially significant for the people, and their assessment from the point of view of their interests gave rise to that property of literature, which is called nationality. The writers themselves felt that they were flesh of the flesh of the people, and this gave their work a distinctly democratic orientation. “And my incorruptible voice was the echo of the Russian people,” said the young Pushkin. Lermontov's voice sounded "like a bell on a veche tower during the days of celebrations and troubles of the people." And Nekrasov, as if summing up the results of his creative activity, said in his declining years: "I dedicated the lyre to my people."
The nationality of Russian classical literature is inextricably linked with its other characteristic feature - patriotism. Anxiety for the fate of their native country, the pain caused by the troubles that it was undergoing, the desire to look into the future and faith in it - all this was inherent in the great writers, with all the difference in their ideological positions, their creative talents.
For leading Russian writers, love for the motherland is, above all, love for people's Russia, for those spiritual values that the people created. Literature has long found inspiration in oral folk art. Remember the tales of Pushkin and Shchedrin, Gogol's Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka, Nekrasov's Who Should Live Well in Russia. At the same time, true patriots have always hated the stranglers of advanced thought, the executioners of Freedom, Genius and Glory. With what crushing power Lermontov expressed these feelings in his poems "Farewell, unwashed Russia ..." and "Motherland"! How ironically and evilly Tolstoy speaks of anti-people Russia in War and Peace, and what love for the people is imbued with the pages of this epic dedicated to him! The best Russian writers considered it their highest patriotic duty to fight for the reorganization of life, for the good of the people, for human dignity.
All these ideological aspirations inevitably pushed Russian writers onto the path comprehensive knowledge of life . It was necessary to understand the inner meaning of what was happening, to understand the reasons for the complex and contradictory processes taking place in the world of social relations and in the human psyche. And of course, the more fully life was revealed to writers in the process of cognition, the more acutely they felt the need to reorganize it.
The urgent need to know life determined the main direction in the development of Russian literature of the 19th century - direction of critical realism. The desire for truth determined the character of Russian realism - its fearlessness in revealing the most complex phenomena of life, uncompromisingness in exposing social evil, insight in finding out its causes.
Various aspects of reality fell into the sphere of attention of realist writers (as Chernyshevsky said, everything of general interest in life): from the events of the historical life of peoples and states (“Poltava”, “War and Peace”) to the fate of a little man (“Overcoat”, “Poor people"); from processes of world-historical significance ("Patriotic War of 1812") to the most intimate emotional experiences. And everything was subjected to analysis, everything was the subject of intense reflection. It was not for nothing that Gorky noted that the whole vast world lay in the field of vision of the old writers, the world that they at all costs wanted to free from evil.
Closely connected with reality, the literature of critical realism captured all the changes that took place in the life of Russia, in human psychology. Changed over time appearance of the central character . The seal of what time lies on Chatsky, Onegin, Pechorin; it is obvious that for all their differences, Bazarov, Rakhmetov, Raskolnikov belong to approximately the same era; Turgenev historically accurately captured in his novels the type of Russian progressive figure at different stages of social development.
Moving from decade to decade, the themes that ran through all of Russian literature of the 19th century acquired new facets, new shades. So, in the era of the 20-30s, Pushkin spoke about the role of the people in history, about the love of freedom of the people (“the people are always secretly inclined to confusion”). On the verge of the 1940s and 1950s, Turgenev, in his Notes of a Hunter, came out with a passionate defense of the enslaved people, showed their moral superiority over the soul-owners.
In the conditions of the growing people's liberation movement of the 50-60s, the writers of revolutionary democracy (Nekrasov, Shchedrin) sought to show not only the strength of the people, but also their weakness. They set themselves the task of helping the people overcome the inertia and passivity engendered by centuries of slavery, and raise the people to the awareness of their fundamental interests. Nekrasov is indignant at the servile consciousness of a man from the people, Shchedrin's bitter laughter over a peasant who has twisted a rope for himself ("How one peasant fed two generals").
Based on the artistic achievements of Pushkin, Nekrasov and Tolstoy showed that the decisive force in the fate of the country is the people. Both "War and Peace" and "Who Lives Well in Russia" were born precisely from this view of the role of the masses in history.
One of the cross-cutting themes of Russian literature of the 19th century is, as you know, little man theme. A bold innovation in the literature of critical realism was the appearance among the heroes of Pushkin and Gogol of an unremarkable person, as if snatched from life itself - Samson Vyrin ("The Stationmaster"), and Akaky Akakievich ("The Overcoat"). Sympathy for this defenseless person who does not belong to the privileged classes is one of the clearest expressions of the humanism of the best writers of the past, their uncompromising attitude towards social injustice.
However, in the second half of the century, a small man, devoid of self-esteem, meekly bearing the burden of social adversity, a humiliated and insulted man (Dostoevsky) evokes in progressive writers not only compassion, but also condemnation ( A.P. Chekhov "Death of an official, Fat and thin"). For writers, the loss of a person's self-esteem was tantamount to moral death. Not only Chekhov, but also Ostrovsky and Dostoevsky were convinced that a person should not put up with the position of a worn rag.
The social shifts that took place in the second half of the 19th century gave rise to the need to cover Russia in artistic thought in its movement from the past to the present and future. From here the emergence of the broadest historical generalizations, deep historical concepts. Without this, neither "The Past and Thoughts", nor the poem "Who Lives Well in Russia", nor the novel "What Is to Be Done?", nor "War and Peace" could have been created. But the authors of these works owe much to the experience of their predecessors, such works as The Bronze Horseman and Dead Souls, which are full of reflections on the fate of Russia.
Whatever the Russian writers say, they always claimed
· faith in possibility of fair social relations,
· in the feasibility of their lofty social ideals which they sought to make available to readers.
· According to Nekrasov, literature should not deviate a single step from its goal - to elevate society to its ideal - the ideal of goodness, light, truth.
And such an angry writer as Saltykov-Shchedrin, crushing with his indignant laughter, it seems that everything he touched, called for assertion of a positive ideal.
Hence such a craving of Russian writers for the image of the best people of his time , such as Chatsky, Tatyana Larina, Insarov, Rakhmetov. The very concept of beauty in art, beauty in art, merged among Russian writers with the idea of goodness, truth, justice, to the struggle for the triumph of which they called their creativity.
