“friendly literary society.” Literary circles and salons of pre-revolutionary Russia
Karamzinism did not entirely coincide with the work of Karamzin himself. His innovation consisted of overcoming the old literary language, previous artistic techniques; the innovation of the Karamzinists consisted in the continuation, skillful use of tradition; they need old genres to parody, old styles to clash with. 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, Rodzianka, organized the “Friendly Literary Society,” which appeared as an act of protest against Karamzin and his school. Karamzin was accused not of being a brave innovator, but of the fact that his innovation turned Russian literature onto the wrong path of foreign borrowings.
Participants in this society posed the question: “There is French, German, English literature, but is there Russian?” This was a question of romantic content, because it was the romantics who were primarily concerned with the issue of nationality. Their answer to their question was categorical and decisive: there is no Russian literature (“Can we use this word? Isn’t it just an empty name when things, in fact, do not exist”). They blamed Karamzin for this, who fascinated literature with the problem of personality, leading away from the problem of nationality. The participants of the “Friendly Literary Society” were going to direct Russian literature in a different way. members of the “Friendly Literary Society” decided to promote their direction of Russian literature through literary criticism, making room for the future national genius. Critical articles by Andrei I. Turgenev, V.A. Zhukovsky and A.F. Merzlyakova is quite interesting material for understanding the origins of Russian romanticism.
The poetic works of members of the society are of particular interest; they show how close they were able to come to the new quality of literature.
According to Yu.M. Lotman, “Elegy” (1802) by Andrei I. Turgenev belongs to the most significant phenomena of Russian poetry of the early 19th century. She defined the entire set of motifs of Russian romantic elegy: the autumn landscape, the rural cemetery, the ringing of the evening bell, reflections on early death and the fleetingness of earthly happiness.”
Turgenev was the first to show “what expressive possibilities lie in the comparison of the autumn extinction of nature with the extinction of man and human happiness,” says L.G. Frizman. In principle, the images of elegy were not something completely unheard of in 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, virtuoso 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 “on top” of words.
Turgenev applies the poetics of the smallest semantic shifts, which was once proposed by Karamzinists, and in the end the reader sees a complex text, far from clear, difficult to understand, and again comes to the tradition of a complicated odic text, which is fundamentally contrary to Karamzinism.
“Elegy” by A. Turgenev presents us with a clear picture of the fact that early romantic trends appeared as a protest against the dominance of the Karamzinists, and in fact they continued the poetic discoveries of the Karamzinists.
One of the first literary circles of the beginning of the century was the Friendly Literary Society, founded in Moscow by a group of friends, graduates of the Moscow University boarding school, young writers brothers Andrei and Alexander Turgenev, V.A. Zhukovsky and others.
Back in 1797, Andrei Turgenev created and headed a literary circle at the boarding school, which in 1801 became a literary society. Its members were repeatedly published in the magazine of the University boarding house “Morning Dawn”. Meetings of participants usually took place in the house of the poet, translator and journalist A.F. Voeykova.
Members of the Friendly Literary Society set themselves the task of strengthening the national principle in literature and, although to some extent they supported Karamzin’s innovation in the field of language, they considered it wrong to follow foreign models, which, in their opinion, Karamzin sinned with. Subsequently, the positions of the members of the Friendly Literary Society and the Karamzinists became closer. Among the literary circles of the 1930s, Stankevich's circle occupied a prominent place.
It was a literary and philosophical association that formed in 1831 around the personality of Nikolai Vladimirovich Stankevich, a student and then a graduate of Moscow University. Stankevich wrote philosophical and poetic works, but all members of the circle later agreed that the greatest influence on them was not so much the works of their leader, but his very personality, surprisingly charming and interesting. Stankevich had the ability to awaken the work of thought and at the same time pacify and bring together the most irreconcilable opponents. His circle included people who were later destined to take completely different paths. Future Slavophiles K.S. met here. Aksakov and Yu.F. Samarin, future Westerners V.P. Botkin and T.N. Granovsky, V.G. Belinsky and M.A. Bakunin. Here friends studied philosophy, history, and literature. The role of Stankevich’s circle in the dissemination of the ideas of Schelling and Hegel in Russia was enormous. In 1839, the seriously ill Stankevich went abroad for treatment, from where he never returned, and the circle disintegrated. The circle that arose in the early 30s at Moscow University also became Society 11, which rallied around the young V.G. Belinsky and got its name from the number of the room that the future critic occupied in the university boarding house. The members of the circle did not limit themselves to discussing literary novelties and theatrical premieres; they studied philosophical works and discussed European political events. The works of its members were often read at the society's meetings.
Belinsky introduced his drama Dmitry Kalinin to his friends here. This caused great discontent among the authorities, which led to his expulsion from the university.
The inability to freely express one’s thoughts even in a friendly circle hindered the activities of literary circles and societies, so most of such associations in the 1830s and 1840s turned out to be short-lived.
Meetings of the Friendly Literary Society were held mainly in Voeikov's house near the Novodevichy Convent. At the meetings, speeches were read on various literary, social and moral topics: about the paths of Russian literature, about religion, fame, happiness.
They dreamed of a just reorganization of the world and considered literature to be the main means of influencing humanity. That’s why they wanted, first of all, to improve themselves as writers.
The attitude of the members of the Friendly Society is that of rebels, and not only in relation to literature. It was for his rebellion that they especially revered the German poet F. Schiller.
The work of the sensitive sentimentalist Karamzin aroused criticism from them. “He inclined us too much towards softness and softness. He should have appeared a century later, then, when we already had more works in the most important genres, then let him weave his flowers into domestic oaks and laurels,” - this is what Andrei Turgenev said in “Speech on Russian Literature” at one of the meetings of the Friendly society.
This ancient monastery is the mirror of our vows,
Where in the dilapidated house we feasted so sweetly...
Where, having inflamed the minds with wine and disputes
And love for humanity,
They wanted to redeem the bliss of their neighbors with blood,
At the joyful sound of glasses, choirs, lyres,
They were in a hurry to transform the world;
To us, careless youths,
And the impossible seemed possible...
The friendly literary society did not last long, from the second half of 1801, its participants began to leave Moscow one after another, going either to study abroad or to St. Petersburg to serve.
Problems of studying poetry
A. F. Merzlyakova
Course work
2nd year students
Department 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. History of society…………………………………………………………………….…..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 at 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 sufficiently studied. For example, Merzlyakov’s poetic activity extremely rarely becomes the object of interest of scientists. This problem turns out to be even more obvious if you 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 poems.
The purpose of this work is to review the scientific literature, which presents studies of Merzlyakov’s poetry, and to identify blind spots in its study.
It should be noted that the development of the author’s creativity is not always closely related to 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 Dalmatovo, Perm province, into a poor merchant family. Fyodor 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 Alexei Alekseevich Merzlyakov, who served as the ruler of the chancellery under the Governor-General of the Perm and Tobolsk provinces Alexei Andreevich Volkov. He persuaded his brother to send his son to Perm, where the boy subsequently studied at the Perm public school, where the director of the school, I. I. Panaev, personally enrolled him. One day Panaev visited A.A. Merzlyakov, where he talked with his young nephew. Panaev found Alexei Fedorovich smart and capable, and the very next day Merzlyakov was invited to the school. A year later, the student brought Panaev “Ode to Conclude Peace with the Swedes,” which the enthusiastic director presented to Volkov. Volkov sent the work to the chief head of public schools, Pyotr Vasilyevich Zavadovsky, and he presented an ode to Catherine II herself. By decree of the Empress, the ode was published in the magazine "Russian Store" in 1792.
Catherine ordered Merzlyakov to be sent to Moscow or St. Petersburg “to continue his science.” In 1793, Alexey Fedorovich Merzlyakov entered the Moscow gymnasium at the university. Its curator is Mikhail Matveevich Kheraskov, 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 he served as dean of the verbal department. He holds 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 he never prepared for his impromptu lectures; how many times has it happened to me, for some reason his favorite, to interrupt his sound afternoon sleep half an hour before the lecture; Then in a hurry he began to drink rum and tea from a huge cup and invited me to drink tea with rum with him. “Let me take the book to the lecture,” he ordered me, pointing to the shelves. “Which one?” - “Whatever you want.” And so, it happened, you take any one that comes to hand, and both of us, he, enthusiastic from rum, I, tipsy from tea, go to the university. And what? The book unfolds and the excellent exposition begins.”
In 1812, A.F. Merzlyakov opened the first free public literature course in Russia, the purpose of which was to introduce society to the theory and history of literature. The conversations took place in the house of Prince B.V. Golitsyn: a famous 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 the famous theater figure and great friend of the literary circles of Moscow, Fyodor Fedorovich Kokoshkin. Over the two stages of the existence of this course, Merzlyakov examined 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, whom it was initially aimed at, and among noble persons of the capital.
Merzlyakov’s public activities 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 poetry or prose. Merzlyakov was also a member of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, the Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and the 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
At the end of the 1790s, Merzlyakov became close to Andrei Ivanovich Turgenev and Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky. The personality of the second does not need 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 research 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 they adopted the thirst for self-improvement and the special atmosphere of moral exactingness that distinguished the Moscow Masons.” 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.
We find the origins of the society that will be discussed in this chapter and which played an important role in the development of Merzlyakov as a poet in the literary Assembly that arose in 1798 in the Moscow Imperial boarding school among the comrades of V. A. Zhukovsky. Members of the Assembly, among others, were Andrei and Alexander Turgenev and Alexey Merzlyakov. Researcher V.M. Istrin finds the beginning of this circle in the well-studied Friendly Scientific Society of Novikov, arguing his position by the fact that the successors of the learned society entered the Assembly at the boarding school, and then the Friendly Literary Society (note that the latter included the already mentioned above Ivan Petrovich Turgenev). “From here,” writes Istrin, “followed the 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 house itself and in meetings of boarding school students on moral and patriotic topics. What is new is only the interest in poetry, but it was also an educational tool; the latter developed in the younger generation that new current that was not particularly noticeable before, namely, interest in poetry.” Istrin calls the main distinguishing feature of A.F. Merzlyakov’s circle of those years “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 participants 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 to be insignificant in its independence, but in the context of previous and subsequent communities (the researcher cites Arzamas as an example of a later circle) recognizes its historical significance, speaking of its overcoming the “social element<…>in the form of charity,” which formed the basis of the Friendly Learned Society, and about the adoption, thanks to the latter, of the cult of friendship, which would later turn out to be a common feature for many, many literary collections.
So, after Zhukovsky left the boarding school, his friends established a new circle. The initiators of its creation, and subsequently the main enthusiasts, were A. I. Turgenev and A. F. Merzlyakov. Thus, on January 12, 1801, the first meeting of the Friendly Literary Society took place in Voeikov’s house on Devichye Pole, in which brothers Andrei Ivanovich and Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, Alexey Fedorovich Merzlyakov, brothers Andrei Sergeevich Kaisarov and Mikhail Sergeevich Kaisarov, Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, Alexander Ivanovich took part. Turgenev, Semyon Emelyanovich Rodzianko, Alexander Fedorovich Voeikov. At the same meeting, the “Laws of the Friendly Literary Society,” drawn up and read by Merzlyakov, were signed. These laws were later published by N. S. Tikhonravov in the collection “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature for 1891.” They stipulate the goal, subject, means, order and other rules for members of society.
Yu. M. Lotman calls the main task of society “preparation for active, selfless service to the homeland.” However, in society from the very beginning there is some inconsistency with this definition: contradiction between friends. The presence of disagreement among the circle was also noticed by V. M. Istrin. He talks about two speeches, namely Zhukovsky’s speech “On Friendship”, delivered on February 27, and Merzlyakov’s speech on March 1, which is a reaction to Zhukovsky’s speech. In his speech with the characteristic title “On Activity,” Merzlyakov criticizes the “daydreaming” of his friends, in particular Zhukovsky, calling on them to abandon dreams of the future and look at activity as “the guardian and mother of all success.” Yu. M. Lotman managed to delve into the reasons for the disagreements. He writes: “In Moscow, intimidated by Pavlov’s terror, friends condemned despotism, dreamed of civic exploits and often directly touched upon the situation in Russia.” When speaking about “friends,” Lotman does not mean all members of the circle, but specifically Merzlyakov, Andrei Turgenev, Andrei Kaisarov and Voeikov. They are contrasted in their aesthetic views with 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 society participants condemns “Karamzin’s literary direction<…>first of all, for the rejection of civic themes, for diverting the writer’s attention from “high” content to literary treatment and elegance of style” and thereby defines civic poetry; the second group defends Karamzinism and focuses on subjective lyrical themes in poetry, representing exactly the sentimental principle that V. M. Istrin spoke about. This controversy quite quickly 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, the Friendly Literary Society raised the question of nationally distinctive art, and therefore the interest in folklore on the part of the circle members, 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's say that the participants of the Friendly Literary Society solved the problem posed for themselves in different ways and, of course, achieved different results. Merzlyakov’s 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 actively worked on creating songs stylized as folklore, the so-called “Russian songs”.
Translations
When dealing with the issue of A.F. Merzlyakov’s poetry, one cannot help but pay attention to the translation activity that continued throughout his entire creative life. Merzlyakov translated works of various types and genres. Judging by the translations known to us (those that appeared in publications or those that were in projects), Merzlyakov had a sufficient command of French, German, Italian, ancient Greek and Latin. It would not be amiss to note that the biography of the “fair translator of the ancients” has the same influence on his translations as on the work we examined earlier. In this chapter, if possible, we will touch upon not only poetic translations, with the goal of revealing and complementing the author’s ideological attitudes.
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 Sorrows of Young Werther” conceived by him, Andrei Turgenev and Vasily Zhukovsky. As N. E. Nikonova writes, “having mastered the experience and traditions of Karamzinism, members of the Friendly Literary Society proclaimed new guidelines on the path to achieving the main goal - the creation of authentic Russian literature. The source of this renewal, as is known, was the switching of focus from French to German literary literature, in which the friends hoped to find appropriate poetic means for expressing a romantic worldview.” The translation was carried out from 1799 to 1802 and remained in manuscript. The friends' translation of Schiller's "Cunning and Love" has not survived, although his work incredibly inspired young people. The German poet turned out to be for them “the singer of trampled human freedom and individual rights,” so it is not surprising that the circle was fascinated by Schiller’s “Robbers” and the existence of a project to translate his poem “Don Carlos,” which, apparently, was not implemented. “Anti-feudal, democratic ideas of the 18th century,” Lotman concludes, “were perceived by the leading group of the Friendly Literary Society not in their immediate, most consistent version, represented in France by pre-revolutionary democratic philosophy, in Russia by Radishchev, but in the form of rebellion and free-thinking characteristic of young Goethe and Schiller."
No less important for understanding Merzlyakov’s work are his translations from Tyrtaeus, completed somewhat later and published in 1805 in the “Bulletin of Europe”. They played a significant role in the implementation of the slogan of creating heroic art, which arose in the Friendly Literary Society, and in many ways reflected the ideal of heroism that friends found in Spartan culture. It is noteworthy that “when creating his translations from Tyrtaeus, Merzlyakov was not concerned with recreating the spirit of true antiquity. This is indicated by the fact that, knowing Greek and being familiar with the original text, he took its German translation as a model.<…>He was interested in something else - creating examples of Russian heroic poetry, where in the center is the image of “the great in men”, who “flames with an enviable passion to meet death.” Thus, the connection between the early original work of the poet, which we reviewed in the second chapter, and interests in the field of translation cannot be denied.
“The Idylls of Madame Desoulières” was published by Merzlyakov in a separate small edition in 1807. In addition to the idylls themselves, the publication includes a preface by the translator, which describes the difficult fate of Antoinette Desoulières as a person and as a writer. Merzlyakov calls Desoulières “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 publication, but it was not difficult to make 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 successes in the genre of “Russian song.” These successes are connected, first of all, with how subtly the author felt the original folk origin of peasant lyrics. Touching upon the genre definition of Madame Desoulières’ works, we discover that the idyll is intended to depict a calm life in the lap of nature, while Desulières’ works “represent sorrowful monologues” in which “the ideal world of nature, to which the author’s imagination strives, is sharply contrasted with the human world.” . This probably turned out to be interesting then for Merzlyakov the poet.
Around the same time, in 1808, the Eclogues of Publius Virgil Naso, translated by Merzlyakov, were published. In the preface to “Something about the Eclogue,” the poet reflects on the nature of the origin 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 poet’s original “Russian songs” is obvious: in his works Merzlyakov describes the grief of forced people and sympathizes with them. Anti-serfdom themes and the theme of freedom in general were close to A.F. Merzlyakov both in the early period and in the subsequent stage of development of the genre of “Russian song” and romance.
“Approximately around 1806, changes were planned in Merzlyakov’s attitude towards ancient culture. If during the period of creating translations from Tyrtaeus, Merzlyakov was mainly interested in the political focus, the civic orientation of the work, the ancient world was perceived through the prism of conventional 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 makes us study the verse system of ancient poets and look for ways to adequately convey it through the 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. In this sense, turning to ancient poets provided an opportunity to glorify “low”, practical life. This determined the peculiarity of Merzlyakov’s translation style, which combines Slavicisms with words of an everyday, common nature.” All these comments 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 excerpts from Homer, translations of Sappho, Theocritus, Tyrtaeus and other poetic translations of the ancients, as well as tragedies of Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles and excerpts from the Aeneid. Merzlyakov’s use of hexameter is important here: this refers researchers to his relationship with another famous translator of those years, Gnedich. Despite the fact that today we consider the latter to be the father of the Russian hexameter, contemporaries have more than once asserted Merzlyakov’s primacy in this. For example, M.A. Dmitriev wrote: “Merzlyakov, not Gnedich, began to introduce hexameters.” However, both of them in this case continued the tradition of Trediakovsky and Radishchev.
Lotman finds Merzlyakov’s experiments in “sapphic” proportions interesting in this collection. “In his “folk songs” Merzlyakov still very timidly tries to diversify the traditional syllabic-tonic verse with a tonic, and poems like: “I didn’t think about grieving anything in the world” were an exception. It was in his work on translations from Sappho that Merzlyakov came to abandon the syllabic tonic, to the tonic meter that was characterized by Vostokov as inherent in 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 intonation approach to the Russian folk song was supported by the selection of vocabulary and phraseology: “beautiful sparrows”, “don’t crush my spirit”, “beating your wings”, “that I’m sad.”
In the same 1825, N. A. Polevoy published a review in the Moscow Telegraph magazine 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 grace, consistent with the experience of centuries, finally extract 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 manner, which is not of great interest to us.
One of the most important works for the poet was a translation from Italian of Tasso’s “Jerusalem Liberated,” published in 1828, but begun in the mid-1990s. Merzlyakov, who did not accept Karamzinism and subsequently romanticism, turned to the tradition of the 18th century in creating his poetry. According to Lotman, this archaism turned out to be most noticeable precisely in “Liberated Jerusalem,” which could not make it popular at the time of publication.
Thus, we can conclude that Merzlyakov’s translations did not deserve the same significant recognition that 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 by studying the biography of the poet and his publications. The corpus 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 criticism and scholarly research, 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 has not yet been drawn on a scientific basis, while when publishing the collection of “Songs and Romances” in 1830, the poet himself divided his lyrical texts of this direction into two different genres, which we see in the title of the book; 3) despite a considerable number of reviews of Merzlyakov’s various translations, no separate studies of this area of interest of the author have been carried out, i.e. there is no work that would set out the periodization and principles of translation, genres, themes, etc.; 4) the only existing collection of poems compiled by Yu. M. Lotman does not include all of the poet’s works 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 of articles by other scientists.
There is also an acute question about the significance of A.F. Merzlyakov’s work for the subsequent generation of poets: if the influence of songs on followers is beyond doubt and is illuminated by criticism and research, then with odic and translated lyrics the situation is different. There is a need to determine their role in the literary process.
Merzlyakov the poet can be interesting 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, etc. Separate works about the mutual influence of Merzlyakov with one of his comrades does not exist, while the influence of this not so famous poet on more eminent 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 the university atmosphere.” At the same time, less well known was a poetic message discovered in the papers of P. A. Karatygin in the early 80s of the 19th century, where the name of Merzlyakov is mentioned along with the names of Karamzin, Krylov, Zhukovsky:
We have Titus Livius - Karamzin,
Pash Fedr ̶ Krylov,
Tibullus ̶ Zhukovsky,
Varro, Vitruvius ̶ Karazin,
And Dionysius is Kachenovsky!
Propertius - languid Merzlyakov.
“In Pushkin’s mind,” writes Milman, “Merzlyakov, thus, had two faces - a poet, to whom he paid tribute, and a critic - an adept of classicism, who is a clearly odious figure.”
Poetic creativity is only one of the aspects of A. F. Merzlyakov’s verbal activity. Many contemporaries remember him, first of all, as a brilliant speaker, 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 modern 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 republication 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 long-term interest in the author’s aesthetic views is evidenced by V. G. Milman’s dissertation of 1984, which examines in detail the formation of Merzlyakov as a critic, his main works and their influence on Russian literature.
Thus, we come to the conclusion that the personality of A.F. Merzlyakov has not been fully studied. The study of the author's poetry can be important for Russian literary studies in general and for understanding the development of Russian lyric poetry of the 19th century in particular.
6. Bibliography
Selected editions
1. “Tune, the muses are delighted...” // The all-joyful voice of gratitude of the Moscow muses to the all-powerful monarch of the Russians, Alexander I, solemnly pronounced on April 1 for the most merciful favor expressed by His Imperial Majesty towards them in the highest rescripts to the heads of Moscow University dated April 4 of this 1801. M., 1801.
2. Glory // Poem. In the Provincial Printing House under A. Reshetnikov. M., 1801.
3. Poems for the accession to the throne of Sovereign Alexander I // Poems for the accession to the throne of Sovereign Alexander I. M., 1801.
4. Chorus “Whom the muses greet...” // Solemn speeches at the half-century anniversary of the Imperial Moscow University, spoken in a large audience on June 30th, 1805. M., 1805.
5. Ode to Wisdom // Solemn speeches at the half-century anniversary of the Imperial Moscow University, spoken in a large audience on June 30, 1805. M., 1805.
6. Idylls of Madame Desoulières, 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. Choir sung at the ceremonial meeting of the Imperial Moscow University, June 30th, 1808 // Solemn speeches spoken at the public meeting of the Imperial Moscow University, June 30th, 1808. M., 1808.
9. Imitations and translations from Greek and Latin poets by A. Merzlyakov: In 2 parts 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. Ode composed by the Perm Main Public School by thirteen-year-old student Alexei Merzlyakov, who, apart from this school, had no education or training anywhere else // Russian Store. M., 1792. Part 1.
2. True hero // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1796. Part 10. pp. 255-256.
3. Night // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1796. Part 10. P. 155.
4. The Elder in the Tomb // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1796. Part 17. P.
5. Ross // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1797. Part 13. pp. 143-144.
6. Great phenomena in the north // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1797. Part 13. pp. 309-316.
7. Battlefield // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1797. Part 14. pp. 164-173.
8. To the past year 1796 // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1797. Part 14. pp. 175-176.
9. Milon // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1797. Part 14. pp. 219-223.
10. The genius of friendship // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Part 17. pp. 141-144.
11. My consolation // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Part 17. pp. 157-160.
12. To the Urals // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Part 17. pp. 173-176.
13. Innocence // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Part 17. pp. 187-192.
14. Laura and Selmar // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Part 18. pp. 141-143.
15. Racket // A pleasant and useful way to spend time. 1798. Part 18. P.
16. Consolation in sadness // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Part 18. P.
17. Poet // A pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Part 18. pp. 174-175.
18. To the patient. friend I. A. L-u // Pleasant and useful pastime. 1798. Part 18. P.
19. Hymn to the incomprehensible // Morning dawn. 1803. No. 2.
20. Rural elegy // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Part 20. No. 6. P. 130-133.
21. Feeling of separation // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Part 21. No. 9. P. 43-44.
22. Kukov’s shadow on the island of Ovgi-gi // Morning dawn. M., 1805. Book. 4. pp. 254-263.
23. Ode to the destruction of Babylon // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Part 21. No. 11. P. 171-175.
24. Myachkovsky Kurgan // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Part 22. No. 13. P. 56-59.
25. Gall // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Part 23. No. 18. P. 124-130.
26. Hymn to the incomprehensible // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Part 23. No. 20. P. 273-279.
27. Tyrteev’s odes // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Part 24. No. 21. P. 29-40.
28. Morning // Morning dawn. 1805. No. 4.
29. Poems on the victory of the Russians over the French at Krems (Composed upon receipt of the first news in Moscow) // Bulletin of Europe. 1805. Part 24. No. 23. P. 238-240.
30. Idylls from Desoulières // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 25. No. 1. P. 22-
31. Comparison of Sparta with Athens // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 25. No. 1.
pp. 30-31.
32. To Laura at the harpsichord: (From Schiller) // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 25. No. 2. P. 112-114.
33. The Triumph of Alexandrovo, or the Power of Music // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 25. No. 4. P. 273-279.
34. Unfortunately // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 25. No. 5. P. 50-52.
35. To Eliza // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 26. No. 6. P. 107-110.
36. Elegy: (“The suffering of love will be eased by separation!..”) // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 27. No. 9. pp. 22-26.
37. Tityrus and Melibaeus // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 27. No. 10. P. 99-105.
38. Alexis // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 27. No. 11. P. 281-286.
39. Belisarius Romance // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 28. No. 14. P. 115-116.
40. To her (Rondo): (“You loved me - I had fun with life...”) // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 28. No. 15. P. 196.
42. Scene from Aeschylus’ tragedy, called: Seven Leaders at Thebes // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 29. No. 17. P. 41-46.
43. Immortality // Bulletin of Europe. 1806. Part 29. No. 18. P. 116.
44. Ah, beautiful girl!.. // Journal of Russian music for 1806, published by D. Kashin. M., 1806. No. 4. P. 12.
45. “Oh, what are you doing, my dear...” // Journal of Russian music for 1806, published by D. Kashin. M., 1806. No. 5. P. 5.
46. “Black-browed, black-eyed...” // Journal of Russian music for 1806, published by D. Kashin. M., 1806. No. 4. P. 8-9.
47. Ode for the New Year // Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1807. No. 1. S.
48. To Eliza: (From whom I did not receive my poems for a very long time, taken for reading) // Aglaya. 1808. Part 2. No. 1. P. 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. Part 37. No. 2. P. 145-148.
51. To Eliza: (“If only I were loved, oh dear, by you...”) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 37. No. 3. P. 237-238.
52. Death of Polyxena: (Excerpt from Euripides’ tragedy: Hecuba) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 37. No. 4. P. 283-301.
53. To an unknown singer whose pleasant voice I often hear, but whose face I have never seen // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 38. No. 5. pp. 13-17.
54. Excerpt from Alceste, Euripides’ tragedy: (Preparations for death and separation from family) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 38. No. 7. pp. 197-206.
55. Ulysses at Alcinous // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 38. No. 7. P. 223-229.
56. Olint and Sophronia: (Episode from Tassa [Liberated Jerusalem]) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 38. No. 8. P. 279-292.
57. What is life? : (Song among friends) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 39. No. 9. P. 50-53.
58. To Eliza, who suffers from a long-term illness // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 39. No. 10 P. 103-105.
59. Hellish advice: (Excerpt from Tassov Jerusalem) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 39. No. 11 P. 160-167.
60. Funeral song Z…. A...chu to Burinsky: (Composed on the day of his burial and sung in a meeting of his friends) // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 40. No. 13. P. 56-58.
61. Nizos and Euryalus // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 41. No. 20. P. 252-268.
62. Summoning Calliope to the banks of Nepryadva // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 42. No. 22. P. 109-112.
63. To Fortune // Bulletin of Europe. 1808. Part 42. No. 24. P. 254-256.
64. Nature as a teacher // Morning dawn. 1808. No. 6.
65. Lesson from mother // Friend of children. 1809. Part 2. No. 7. pp. 371-377.
66. Children’s Choir for little Natasha // Children’s Friend. 1809. Part 3. No. 10. P. 237-246.
67. Morning // Children's friend. 1809. Part 3. No. 12. P. 449-452.
68. Dido: (Dedicated to Eliza) // Bulletin of Europe. 1809. Part 43. No. 2. P. 87.
69. Dido: (End) // Bulletin of Europe. 1809. Part 43. No. 3. P. 172-193.
70. Cupid in the first minutes of his separation from Darling: (Lyrical poem) // Bulletin of Europe. 1809. Part 45. No. 10. P. 91-121.
71. On the highest arrival of His Imperial Majesty in Moscow on December 6, 1809 // Bulletin of Europe. 1809. Part 48. No. 24. P. 298-301.
72. To His Imperial Majesty from the loyal students of the Noble boarding school, established at the Imperial Moscow University // Bulletin of Europe. 1809. Part 48. No. 24. P. 301-302.
73. Egyptian ambassadors (From Book II of Tassov of Jerusalem) // Bulletin of Europe. 1810. Part 49. No. 2. P. 106-116.
74. From Tassov Liberated Jerusalem: (Song Three) // Bulletin of Europe. 1810. Part 51. No. 12. pp. 274-296.
75. Celadon and Amelia // Bulletin of Europe. 1810. Part 54. No. 24. P. 290-292.
76. Two songs // Bulletin of Europe. 1811. Part 55. No. 2. P. 92-94.
77. To the Amur // Bulletin of Europe. 1811. Part 55. No. 2. P. 95.
78. For seven rings // Bulletin of Europe. 1811. Part 55. No. 2. P. 95.
79. Single combat between Tancred and Argant: (Excerpt from Book VI of Tassov of Jerusalem) // Bulletin of Europe. 1811. Part 56. No. 5. P. 33-42.
80. To Neera // Bulletin of Europe. 1811. Part 57. No. 10. P. 112-114.
8. To Lila // Bulletin E
An association of like-minded writers from the students of the Moscow University boarding school took shape at the end of the 18th century. The initiator of the society was Andrei Ivanovich Turgenev. In 1797-1800, he headed the pre-romantic literary circle at the boarding school, which took shape in 1801 as the Friendly Literary Society.
The first meeting of the Friendly Literary Society took place on January 12, 1801. It included, in addition to A.I. Turgenev, brothers Andrei Sergeevich Kaisarov and Mikhail Sergeevich Kaisarov, Alexey Fedorovich Merzlyakov, Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, Semyon Emelyanovich Rodzyanko, Alexander Fedorovich Voeikov). Meetings of the Society began and took place for some time in Voeikov’s house on Devichye Pole.
In his speech “On the Main Laws of Society” A.F. Merzlyakov noted:
Our Society is an excellent preparation for our future life... I want to tell you that a person by himself does not mean anything... This is the birth of society! This is how one person, feeling the flame in his heart, gives his hand to another 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 your pride, have trust in your friends!...
If not every one of us is gifted with a subtle taste for the elegant, if not everyone can judge a translation or a composition completely correctly, then at least we will not doubt the good heart of the one telling us about 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 learned table and went home as good friends.
At one of the first meetings, Merzlyakov recited the hymn of the German romantic Schiller “To Joy”; members of the Society made translations of his works; A. I. Turgenev harshly criticized Karamzin’s work, Zhukovsky defended him...
Yu. M. Lotman believed that in the Society
at the moment of its inception, three leading trends in the literature of the pre-Pushkin period collided: the direction of dreamy romanticism associated with the name of Zhukovsky; the direction represented by Merzlyakov, alien to the culture of the nobility and developing the traditions of democratic literature of the 18th century, and, finally, the direction of Andrei Turgenev and Andrei Kaisarov... in whose activities the features that prepare the literary program of Decembrism clearly appear.
- Lotman Yu. M. Andrei Sergeevich Kaisarov and the literary and social struggle of his time. Vol. 63. - Tartu, 1958. - P. 25.
In the second half of 1801, members of the Society began to leave Moscow one after another, 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 the poem “To the dilapidated basement house of A. F. Voeikov”:
This dilapidated house, this deaf garden is a refuge of friends united by Phoebus, Where in the joy of their hearts they swore before heaven, They swore with their souls, Sealing the vow with tears, To love the fatherland and be friends forever ()
In the same 1801, the Friendly Society of Lovers of Fine Art arose in St. Petersburg, later called