“friendly literary society.” Literary societies and circles that arose in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century

The socio-political situation that developed in Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century contributed to a very noticeable revival of various spheres and aspects of literary life. By absorbing new ideas and concepts, Russian literature acquires closer connections with the urgent needs of the time, with the political events that took place at that time, and with the deep internal changes experienced by Russian society and the entire country during these years. A characteristic feature of this new historical era was an increased interest in the field of political and social life. “The leading issues of the time are state structure and serfdom; these questions excited the minds of contemporaries, were passionately discussed in the social and literary organizations that existed at that time... penetrated the pages of periodicals.”

Already in the 1800s. the total number of such publications reaches 60 and has been steadily increasing over the next decade. But by the beginning of the 1820s. is sharply declining, which is explained by the clearly visible correction of the government course, the onset of reaction, and the persecution of education.

In the conditions of social upsurge and the rapid growth of civil and national self-awareness caused by the Patriotic War of 1812, there is a further expansion and democratization of the readership, the development of new forms and criteria of literary criticism, and the formation of new principles and genres of Russian journalism. All this leads to the emergence of new types of journals. By introducing readers to a broad mental movement, they activate progressive public opinion.

Almanacs and printed publications

They played an important social role at the beginning of the 19th century. periodicals in which the best traditions of advanced Russian journalism of the 18th century were continued. (“Northern Herald” (1804-1805) by I. I. Martynov and “Journal of Russian Literature” (1805) by N. P. Brusilov). St. Petersburg publications were especially distinguished by their combative, offensive character (“Northern Mercury” (1805), “Flower Garden” (1809-1810) by A. E. Izmailov and A. P. Benitsky, etc.), to which magazine primacy was gradually moving.

If in the era of the 1800s - mid-1810s. Moscow magazines are the most popular ("Bulletin of Europe", 1802-1830), then in the late 1810s - the first half of the 1820s. Progressive publications published in St. Petersburg (Son of the Fatherland, Competitor of Education and Charity, etc.) acquire special weight. In the 1820s. advanced literary frontiers are firmly conquered by almanacs.

Reflecting very noticeable shifts and internal changes in the socio-political and cultural life of Russia, many Russian magazines of the first quarter of the 19th century. become conductors of advanced social ideas and political aspirations. Despite a certain eclecticism, the magazines of this time express the views of various social strata of Russian society with greater certainty than before, entering into an ideological and aesthetic struggle that was complex in its manifestations and final results.

He came up with a broad program of education and national-cultural transformation of the country at the very beginning of the new century. "Bulletin of Europe", whose publisher in 1802-1803. was N.M. Karamzin. It was during these years that the magazine emerged as a periodical of a new type, combining the seriousness and diversity of the published material (its pages covered modern political news, both Russian and foreign, the most interesting works of Russian literature were printed and reviewed) with the liveliness and accessibility of its presentation. Karamzin (as later Zhukovsky, who edited the “Bulletin of Europe” in 1808-1810) saw the main task of his publication in introducing broad layers of Russian society to the achievements of European culture. According to Karamzin, the magazine was supposed to contribute to the further rapprochement of Russia with Europe, to be a “messenger” of all that is most outstanding in the life of European countries, to keep the Russian reader informed about international political events and to cultivate his national self-awareness.

The exponent of other trends, in many ways opposed to the Europeanism and breadth of Karamzin’s journal, was published since 1808. "Russian Messenger" S. N. Glinka, who defended the patriarchal foundations of national existence and fiercely fought against the Frenchmania of the Russian nobility. Gravitating towards official patriotism, S. N. Glinka’s magazine, however, played an important role in the era of the anti-Napoleonic campaigns and especially in the Patriotic War of 1812. S. N. Glinka sought to attract the attention of the Russian public to national history, the origins of Russian art, jealously protecting everything is truly “Russian” from the invasion of a foreign element, as he believed, alien to everything Russian. In implementing this narrowly understood principle, Glinka reached the point of anecdotal bias (for example, he did not accept poems in his journal that contained mythological names), which ultimately deprived his journal of serious artistic support. Finding itself in a purely protective position, the Russian Messenger completely lost any significance after 1816 and was liquidated by the publisher himself in 1824.

On the general wave of patriotic upsurge, it arose in 1812. "Son of the Fatherland"(the initiators of the publication were A. N. Olenin, S. S. Uvarov, I. O. Timkovsky, and the long-term permanent editor was N. I. Grech). At first, the magazine was filled with news about the progress of military operations. After the end of the war, it became a magazine of the usual literary type for that time. Throughout the 1810-1820s. “Son of the Fatherland”, together with other printed organs (“Competitor of Education and Charity” and the Decembrist almanacs “Polar Star” and “Mnemosyne”) contributed to the consolidation of advanced social and literary forces, defended and defended the principles of the emerging romanticism of the Decembrist sense.

It must be emphasized that, with a certain diversity of content and not always sufficient clarity of their starting positions, magazines and almanacs of the first quarter of the 19th century. concentrated around certain literary and social groups. Becoming the arena of intense ideological struggle, they turned into original centers of circles, societies, and literary associations operating during these years. The connection between magazines and literary organizations is indicated in “Essays on the History of Russian Journalism and Criticism”, emphasizes their social orientation, helps to more accurately determine the specific features of each of them and outline the stratification within the struggling trends.

In an atmosphere of social upsurge, the civic consciousness of Russian literature is significantly increasing. “A writer who respects his title is as useful a servant of his fatherland as a warrior who defends it, as well as a judge, a guardian of the law,” wrote Zhukovsky, expressing new views on the purpose of literature.

Literary societies

A.F. Merzlyakov, recalling the revival of public hopes in the early 1800s, wrote that “at this time the desire and inclination for literature was brilliantly revealed in every rank...”. This tendency caused an influx of fresh forces into literature (not only nobles, but also commoners). Filled with lofty ideas about the goals of poetry, young authors sought to bring all possible benefit to their country. Surrounded by their like-minded people, equally enthusiastic enthusiasts of goodness and truth, they strived for active literary activity.

These were the “psychological motives” for uniting young authors into special circles and societies, which became the most characteristic form of organization of literary life of that time. They contributed to the aesthetic self-determination of different trends and directions in the literary process and their clearer differentiation.

Literary societies and circles that arose at the beginning of the 19th century make it possible to see deep, internal processes that often do not appear on the surface of literary life, but are nevertheless very significant in the overall progressive development of Russian literary and social thought.

The earliest of such associations is the “Friendly Literary Society,” which arose in January 1801, shortly before the well-known events of March 11 (the assassination of Paul I by a group of conspirators from among his inner circle). Under the conditions of a despotic regime, the organization of such a circle revealed the desire of the younger generation for socially useful activities. A member of the “Friendly Literary Society” A.F. Merzlyakov wrote: “This spirit, quick and charitable, produced quite a few private scientific literary collections, in which young people, united by acquaintance or friendship, composed, translated, analyzed their translations and works, and so "improved themselves in this way on the difficult path of literature and taste." These meetings were based on close friendships and common literary interests. The society, chamber in form, however, did not limit its activities to the solution of narrowly understood aesthetic problems.

It is not by chance that the “Friendly Literary Society” arose in Moscow, which at the beginning of the 19th century. was the focus of the best literary forces of that era. Karamzin lived here, and the members of the society themselves belonged to those literary circles that concentrated around the venerable writer. Gravity towards Karamzinism becomes the starting position for the majority of its members. Growing out of a student circle consisting of students of Moscow University and the University Noble Boarding School (Andrei and Alexander Turgenev, A. Voeikov, A. Kaisarov, S. Rodzianka, V. A. Zhukovsky), it included in its ranks the university teacher A.F. Merzlyakova. The rest were just beginning their literary career. However, in their person a new generation of writers declared themselves, not satisfied with the general direction of contemporary literary development and looking for new forms of introducing writing to the urgent needs of Russian reality at the beginning of the 19th century. The social situation that developed during these years required a more decisive invasion of literature into various spheres of Russian life. The most radical members of society (Andrei Turgenev, A. Kaisarov) undergo a rapid evolution, reconsidering their attitude towards Karamzinism, which has given serious grounds to modern researchers to regard their position as one of the early ways of forming the Decembrist ideology in Russia.6 Others remain faithful to the principles of Karamzinism (such is position of Zhukovsky and Alexander Turgenev). However, the participants in the society were characterized primarily not by differences, but by common aspirations: a passionate interest in the fate of Russia and its culture, hostility to inertia and social stagnation, a desire to contribute as much as possible to the development of education, the idea of ​​civic and patriotic service to the homeland. This is how the concept of “friendly community” is revealed and concretized, which formed the basis of this association, consisting of young enthusiasts, ardent champions of justice, haters of tyranny and serfdom, filled with sympathy for the poor. The society's meetings are characterized by an informal, relaxed tone and an atmosphere of heated debate, anticipating the organizational forms of Arzamas, the main core of which was the participants of the Friendly Literary Society.

The “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and the Arts”, which arose in St. Petersburg on July 15, 1801 and lasted much longer than the “Friendly Society,” began its activities as a friendly circle of like-minded young writers. It was brought to life by the same social atmosphere, fed by the same enthusiasm and pursued similar, although not identical, goals. First called the “Friendly Society of Lovers of the Fine” and soon renamed, it united people of various origins who were interested not only in literature, but also in other types of art: painting, sculpture. Over time, the society included sculptors (I. I. Terebenev and I. I. Galberg), artists (A. I. Ivanov and others), as well as representatives of various branches of scientific knowledge: archeology, history and even medicine (A. I. Ermolaev, I. O. Timkovsky, D. I. Yazykov, etc.). The “free society” is characterized by the diversity of its social composition: it includes in its ranks people from among petty officials, the clergy, and even from the merchant class. A Kazan merchant was, for example, the poet G. P. Kamenev, the author of “Gromvala” (1804). People of unknown origin were the poets and publicists I.M. Born and V.V. Popugaev, representatives of the most radical part of the “Free Society”. From illegitimate children of the nobility came I.P. Pnin and A.Kh. Vostokov, who from childhood experienced the hardships of this not-so-small social stratum, deprived of inheritance rights and forced to make their way in life on their own. It is not for nothing that Pnin, an “illegitimate” son not recognized by his father, Field Marshal N.V. Repnin, wrote such an exciting document as the treatise “The Cry of Innocence Rejected by the Laws” (1802), which is “a remarkable criticism of family and marriage in terms of the power of civil feeling in contemporary noble society."

Political radicalism, increased social activity, and democratism of social sympathies determine the “special face” of the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and the Arts” in the 1800s. Unlike the “Friendly Literary Society,” its participants strive to publicly declare their existence, seek official recognition and attention from the authorities. Thus, both well-known treatises by I. Pnin (“The Cry of Innocence” and “An Experience on Enlightenment in Relation to Russia”) were presented to Alexander I and earned the “highest approval.” The author, of course, did not seek awards, but practical, real results, hoping, with the help of the authorities, to implement a broad program for the development of education and social reforms in Russia.

In an effort to contribute to the fulfillment of this task, the “Free Society” received official approval in 1803, and at the same time the right to organize open meetings and publish its works. Members of the society published the almanac “Scroll of the Muses” (1802-1803), they began to publish a magazine called “Periodic publication of the Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts” (published in 1804, although only its only issue), actively collaborated in other periodical publications of the early 19th century.
The intense activity of the society attracted the progressive forces of the artistic and literary world of St. Petersburg and Moscow. In 1804-1805 its members were K. N. Batyushkov, A. F. Merzlyakov, S. S. Bobrov, N. I. Gnedich and others.

The first period of the society's activity (1801-1807), which not coincidentally coincided with the era of liberal trends, had the greatest historical and literary significance. Late 1800s it is experiencing a crisis caused by the death (1809) of one of the most active members of society - I. P. Pnin (who brought the spirit of broad social initiative to his work), as well as an intense internal struggle, which ended in the victory of the right, “well-intentioned” wing of society (D. I. Yazykov, A. E. Izmailov, etc.). The arrival of new members-Karamzinists (D.N. Bludov, V.L. Pushkin and especially D.V. Dashkov, who became the president of the society in 1811) brings some revival to its activities. They sought to give society a militant, offensive character, to turn it against their literary opponents - the “Slavophiles”-Shishkovists. These efforts encountered stubborn resistance from conservative members of the Society, adherents of the “high style” of Russian classicism.

“Strengthened and revitalized by new members, the society decided to publish a monthly literary magazine in 1812,” testifies N. Grech. — After heated and persistent debates, they decided to call it “St. Petersburg Bulletin.” At first, things went pretty well!.. But from the third book, disagreements and discord began. The “Vestnik” was directed directly against the Slavophiles: some members who were for some reason connected with Shishkov’s party did not like this. Others were oppressed by the superiority of the mind and talents of one of the members. They made it so that he had to leave society.” We are talking about Dashkov, who spoke at one of the meetings with a caustic “eulogy” to Count Khvostov, as mediocre as he was a prolific poet-conspirator. With the departure of Dashkov, the “Free Society” gradually faded away, and in 1812 it completely ceased its activities, in order to resume it only in 1816 with a significantly updated composition and headed by a new president, A.E. Izmailov. During this last period, around the society (nicknamed among writers Izmailovsky, after its president, or Mikhailovsky, after the place of its meetings), small writers were grouped, collaborating in the magazine “Blagomarnenny” published by it. According to V.N. Orlov, during these years it did not have any significant impact on the literary movement and remained “on the periphery of the ‘big’ literary life.” Joining the society of poets of the lyceum circle makes him an exponent of new trends in the literary process, already characteristic of the poetry of the 1820s. The clarifications that are given in connection with the last stage of the work of this society in V. G. Bazanov’s book “The Scientific Republic” seem significant. The researcher rightly notes that in the Mikhailovsky (Izmailovsky) Society in the second half of the 1810s. included not only “third-rate writers”, but also future Decembrists who were looking for forms and ways of actively influencing the social and literary movement of their time. The creation of the first associations of Decembrist writers was preceded by the period of future members of secret societies joining some literary societies of the 1810s. “The Decembrists take into account previous traditions and strive to subordinate previously created literary societies to their influence,” the researcher emphasizes, recalling that members of the Izmailovsky Society were K. F. Ryleev, A. A. Bestuzhev, V. K. Kuchelbecker, A. F. Raevsky (brother of V.F. Raevsky), O.M. Somov and other prominent Decembrist writers. Secret political organizations (“Union of Salvation” and then “Union of Welfare”) first focused on the “Free Society of Literature, Sciences and Arts,” gradually subordinating other literary associations of the first quarter of the 19th century to their influence.

Further crystallization of ideological and aesthetic principles, which occurred in the context of the demarcation of various public camps and social groups, became the basis of a number of literary societies that arose in the 1810s, which can rightfully be called the time of the highest flowering of this organizational form of literary life of the pre-Decembrist era.

The most traditional in its structure was one of the longest-lasting literary associations - "Moscow Society of Lovers of Russian Literature". It existed for more than 100 years. Created at Moscow University, this society included in its ranks its teachers, Moscow writers and simply lovers of literature. Detailed information about the organizational structure and activities of the society is contained in the memoirs of M. A. Dmitriev, who reports that it “was founded in 1811. From the very beginning, its chairman was Professor Anton Antonovich Prokopovich-Antonsky.” The society held monthly public meetings, on the eve of which a preparatory committee (of six members) met to decide “which plays should be read publicly, which should be published in the Proceedings of the Society, and which should be rejected.” M.A. Dmitriev writes further: “Each meeting usually began with the reading of an ode or psalm, and ended with the reading of a fable. The interval was devoted to other types of literature, in poetry and prose. Among the latter there were articles of important and useful content. Among them, the readings were: “Discourse on Verbs” by Professor Boldyrev; articles about the Russian language by A. Kh. Vostokov; discussions about Merzlyakov’s literature; about the Church Slavic language of Kachenovsky; experience about word order and paradoxes from Cicero, the eloquent Ivan Ivanovich Davydov. Here an excerpt from Gnedich’s “Iliad” was read and printed for the first time: “Feud of Leaders”; Zhukovsky’s first translations from Gebel: “Oatmeal Kissel” and “Red Carbuncle”; poems of the young Pushkin: “The Tomb of Anacreon”. “At the end of the meeting, Vasily Lvovich Pushkin usually consoled the company with a fable.”

As we see, the activities of the society are not distinguished by strict adherence to any one literary and aesthetic line; it remains within the local Moscow association of writers, but in general its position gravitates towards classicism, the principles of which are defended by the organizers and leaders of the society (especially A.F. Merzlyakov, who spoke out in 1818 against the hexameter and the ballad genre).

The time of greatest flowering of this literary association was 1818, when, according to M. A. Dmitriev, prominent St. Petersburg poets (Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, F. N. Glinka, A. F. Voeikov, etc.) simultaneously participated in its work.

A more consistent social and aesthetic platform was distinguished by “ Conversation between Russian word lovers"(1811-1816) - an association of conservative-minded St. Petersburg writers. The organizer and head of the “Conversation” was A. S. Shishkov, a zealous defender of classicism, the author of the famous “Discourse on the old and new syllable of the Russian language” (1803), which caused fierce controversy.

The fight against Karamzinism, the defense of the patriarchal foundations of Russian life (understood in reactionary-protective terms), the desire to return Russian literature to the stylistic and ethical norms of pre-Petrine culture, to the narrowly understood Lomonosov principle in Russian poetry - become the soil on which this very motley, a heterogeneous association in literary, aesthetic and socio-political terms. The activities of “Conversation” often received a one-sided negative assessment in scientific works. “Beseda” gained a reputation as a stronghold of literary Old Belief and the last refuge of dying classicism. The studies of Yu. N. Tynyanov, N. I. Mordovchenko and Yu. M. Lotman revealed the significant inaccuracy of such a representation. Along with ardent reactionaries - guardians and epigones of classicism, the "Conversation" included such famous authors as Derzhavin, Krylov and even the Karamzinist I. I. Dmitriev (who, however, did not take part in the work of the society).

According to F. F. Vigel, in its organizational structure, the “Conversation” had more “the appearance of a government place than an academic class,” and in it “in the distribution of places, more tables of ranks were kept than of talents.”14 Meetings of the society, as says Vigel, usually lasted “more than three hours... Ladies and socialites, who understood absolutely nothing, did not show, and perhaps did not feel, boredom: they were filled with the thought that they were performing a great patriotic feat, and they did this with exemplary self-sacrifice.”15 However, in the circle of “Conversations” they not only “flirted” and “yawned”, they did not only appeal to the patriotic feelings of the Russian nobility. Here the first steps were taken towards studying the monuments of ancient Russian literature, here they read “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” with enthusiasm, were interested in folklore, and advocated for the rapprochement of Russia with the Slavic world. The literary and aesthetic production of the “besedchiki” was far from unambiguous. Even Shishkov not only defends the “three styles,” but also recognizes the need to bring the “pompous,” “Slavic” style closer to the common language. In his poetic work he pays tribute to the sentimental tradition (“Poems for Children”). Even more complex is the question of the literary position of S. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, who combined a commitment to the epic of classicism with an interest in pre-romantic poetry (Jung and Ossian). In this regard, the observation of G. A. Gukovsky is correct, noting that in its literary production “Conversation” was “a persistent, albeit inept, student of romanticism.” In the writings of D. Gorchakov, F. Lvov, N. Shaposhnikov, V. Olin and others, the researcher finds “elegies in the spirit of Zhukovsky, and a romantic ballad, and sentimental lyrics, and light poetry.” Such experiments, however, are experimental in nature, and the main activity of the “talker” poets is carried out on a different aesthetic basis associated with classicism, and indicates that the main genres in the system of classicism (ode, epic) are moving to the literary periphery and becoming property epigones.

The creation of “Conversation” drew a sharp line between the “Shishkovists” and their literary opponents, the Karamzinists, and intensified the literary struggle of the 1810s, during which not only the previous literary and polemical genres were mobilized (such as the “heroic-comic poem”, parody ), not only the “legal” possibilities of the Russian press (magazines, books), but also handwritten literature, which had its own diligent and attentive reader. Fierce debates, going beyond narrow friendly circles and literary associations, became the property of wider sections of society. The spectators who filled the theater halls were also actively involved in them. The Russian stage is also becoming a place of fierce literary battles. In particular, the history of the emergence of the most significant literary society of this time, Arzamas, which in its activities provided examples of a new organizational structure and more diverse forms of literary polemics (pamphlet, epigram, comic cantata, etc.), was connected with it.

The reason for creating "Arzamas" served as the premiere of the comedy by A. A. Shakhovsky (an active “talker”) “A Lesson for Coquettes, or Lipetsk Waters,” which took place at the St. Petersburg Maly Theater in September 1815. Known for his attacks against Karamzin and his young supporters (the comedy “New Stern”, and -comic poem “Plundered Fur Coats”), Shakhovskoy this time ridiculed the balladeer Zhukovsky, who was gaining wide popularity in literary and reading circles.

Around Zhukovsky, the appearance of “Lipetsk Waters” was perceived as a declaration of open war against the Karamzinists and caused the mobilization of all the “internal reserves” of this camp. To organize a rebuff to “Conversation,” it was decided to create their own literary society, using the motifs of D. N. Bludov’s pamphlet “A Vision in Some Fence, Published by a Society of Learned People,” addressed to Shakhovsky and his followers. Under the guise of an obese traveler who spent the night at an inn in the city of Arzamas, Nizhny Novgorod province, Bludov portrayed the author of “Lipetsk Waters”, who took up arms “against a meek young man” (Zhukovsky), “shining with talents and successes.” At the same inn, the pamphleteer turned out to be an accidental witness to a meeting of unknown young people - lovers of literature. These imaginary Arzamas meetings gave Zhukovsky’s friends the idea of ​​creating a literary society of “unknown lovers of literature,” called “Arzamas.”

Founded with literary and polemical purposes, the Arzamas society parodied in its structure the organizational forms of the “Conversation” with the service-class and literary hierarchy that reigned in it. In contrast to Beseda, Arzamas was a closed, friendly, emphatically particularistic society, although most of its members, by the nature of their official activities, were in close contact with government - including diplomatic - circles. Parodying the official ritual of Beseda meetings, upon joining Arzamas, each member had to read a “eulogy” to his “late” predecessor from among the living members of Beseda and the Russian Academy (Count D.I. Khvostov, S. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, A. S. Shishkov himself, etc.). The “eulogies” of the Arzamas residents parodied the “high” genres beloved by the talkers, ridiculed the florid-archaic style, errors against taste and common sense, and the sound cacophony of their poetic opuses.

The humorous Arzamas messages and protocols (written by the secretary “Svetlana”, i.e. Zhukovsky) and especially the speeches of the Arzamas residents were a living stimulus to the flowering of humorous genres of Russian literature.

Despite its outward “frivolity,” Arzamas was by no means a purely entertaining society. Its members waged a bold and decisive struggle against routine, against social and literary conservatism, against outdated aesthetic principles, against everything that interfered with the establishment of new literature. At the Arzamas meetings, the best works of A. Pushkin, Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, Vyazemsky, V.L. Pushkin and others were heard. “Arzamas”, according to the correct definition of P.A. Vyazemsky, was a school of “literary partnership”, mutual literary education. The society has become a center of advanced Russian literature, attracting progressively-minded youth.

The activities of “Arzamas” reflected deep internal changes in Russian life itself and in the social and literary situation after the Patriotic War of 1812. In the battles of the Arzamas people with the “dead” “Conversations”, in ridicule of the dead scholasticism of their writings, in caustic attacks Arzamas parodies and the striking sharpness of epigrams were something more than hostility with a literary movement that was receding into the past. Behind all this were hidden new concepts about personality, which was gradually liberated from the power of narrow, class-feudal morality, from the ideological oppression of ideas developed in the era of absolutism. In Arzamas they argued not only about literature, but also about the historical past and future destinies of Russia. They warmly condemned everything that interfered with social progress.

Members of the society liked to call their union the “Arzamas brotherhood,” emphasizing not only their organizational community, but also their deep spiritual kinship.

The people of Arzamas considered their most important task to be the struggle to unite the best literary forces. And here their allies were not only like-minded writers,20 but often also writers of a different literary and aesthetic orientation, for example Krylov and Derzhavin, who, as is known, were members of the “Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word.”

In 1817, members of secret Decembrist organizations M. F. Orlov, N. I. Turgenev, N. M. Muravyov joined Arzamas. They made an attempt to reform Arzamas society, insisting on the adoption of “laws” and charters, and on the creation of their own printed organ (Arzamas magazine). Not satisfied with the general direction of Arzamas’ activities, which were primarily related to the solution of literary issues (albeit understood quite broadly), the Decembrists sought to turn the Arzamas people to the burning problems of the era, to make society a tribune for intense political struggle. Created to solve other ideological and creative problems, “Arzamas” in its internal structure did not meet the requirements and aspirations of radically minded new members of society, which led to an internal split, and then the cessation of all its activities (1818).

Those trends in social and literary development, the spokesmen of which were in "Arzamase" M. Orlov and N. Turgenev lead to the emergence of new organizational forms - literary associations of the Decembrist era. Founded in 1818-1819. The “Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” and the “Green Lamp” were literary branches (“boards”) of secret societies.

In accordance with the charter "Union of Welfare" The Decembrists sought to subordinate to their influence those literary societies that seemed capable of carrying out the tasks of broad educational and propaganda work (“to trample on ignorance,” to turn “minds to useful pursuits,” to “knowledge of the fatherland,” “to true enlightenment”).

The creation of Decembrist associations proper - on a fundamentally new ideological and organizational basis - dates back to the second half of the 1810s, marked by the rapid maturation of Decembrism. Participants in secret societies were charged with creating legal and illegal literary branches (“governments”) and subsequently monitoring their work. The organization of the above-mentioned societies is connected with the implementation of this most important, from a socio-literary point of view, principle.

"Green Lamp", which received its name from the place of its venerable meetings (took place in St. Petersburg, in the house of N. Vsevolozhsky, in a hall illuminated by a lamp with a green lampshade), was an illegal literary society with a strong political overtones. The society included in its ranks young “radicals”, supporters of the political transformation of Russia and even republicans by conviction. The “Green Lamp” was dominated by a spirit of independence and a sharp rejection of the modern Russian order. Participants of the society, among whom we find Pushkin, F. Glinka, A. Delvig, N. Gnedich, theater critics D. Barkov, Ya. Tolstoy, publicist A. Ulybyshev, young “rakes” full of “freethinking” (P. Kaverina, M Shcherbinin, etc.), are distinguished by the breadth and diversity of their cultural interests, and actively collaborate in St. Petersburg magazines. According to the testimony of secret society leaders (in the investigative commission), who, however, sought to somewhat downplay the political significance of this society for tactical purposes, republican poems and anti-government epigrams were read at its meetings.

The activity took other, legal forms. Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature" Having gone through a complex internal evolution, accompanied by a fierce struggle between its right, “well-intentioned” (N.A. Tsertelev, B.M. Fedorov, D.I. Khvostov, V.N. Karazin) and the left, Decembrist wing (F.N. Glinka , N. and A. Bestuzhev, K. F. Ryleev, A. O. Kornilovich, V. K. Kuchelbecker, O. M. Somov, etc.), the society by 1821 had become a true center of Russian advanced culture, the center its most progressive forces. The activities of the society are varied: regular meetings with a discussion of everything that is most remarkable in “Russian literature”, a fundamental ideological and aesthetic struggle for the creation of truly national literature, the development and analysis of scientific problems (civil history, political economy, aesthetics); open public meetings that attract a wide range of participants; finally, supporting progressive magazines with his works (“Son of the Fatherland”, “Nevsky Spectator”, later organizing the almanac “Polar Star” by Ryleev and Bestuzhev), publishing his own magazine (“Competitor of Education and Charity”) - this is not a complete list of those areas in which the program of this Decembrist literary association was carried out. The scale of his work characterizes the enormous influence that the Free Society acquired in literary circles in the 1820s, becoming the most influential and most significant of all organizations of this type.

In 1823, a “ Society of Philosophers", which included such subsequently prominent literary figures as V. F. Odoevsky, D. V. Venevitinov, I. V. Kireevsky, S. P. Shevyrev, M. P. Pogodin and others. This society essentially revealed represents an association of a new type, no longer gravitating so much towards socio-literary and political issues, but towards philosophical and aesthetic problems, which acquired paramount importance already in the post-December era. However, on the eve of December 14, 1825, the wise men also found themselves drawn into the sphere of Decembrist influence. At the meetings of the society, the question of the need for “changes in the form of government” was also raised. After the defeat of the Decembrists, the wise men stopped their meetings and destroyed the archives of the society.

Literary societies and circles of the first quarter of the 19th century. were not only a special form of literary life. They played a significant role in the social and literary process of that time, in the development of aesthetic platforms and the consolidation of ideological and artistic forces, in improving the forms of literary polemics. They contributed to the rapprochement of literature with the needs of social development in Russia and the awakening of wider interest in literary creativity. Having completed this most important task, literary societies and circles exhausted their function, and the urgent need for their activities gradually disappeared.

The consolidation and demarcation of literary forces occurs during the years of the Nicholas reaction on a significantly different and predominantly socio-philosophical basis.

At the very beginning of the century, a Friendly Literary Society arose in Moscow, composed of former students of the Moscow Noble University Boarding School. The main participants of the society: the Turgenev brothers - Andrei and Alexander, 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 and theorist of classicism. The first meeting of the society took place on January 12, 1801. In the same year it collapsed under the influence of internal disagreements and everyday circumstances. Consequently, his activity partly 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 wonderful beginning.” The participants developed the "Laws of the Friendly Literary Society", which defined the goal, subject and means of the society. It was supposed that critical translations and works in Russian would be examined, useful books and their own works would be discussed. The task of mastering the “theory of fine arts,” i.e., aesthetics, and the practical desire to develop aesthetic taste were highlighted. Society was not alien to moral and political goals. The task of cultivating a high sense of patriot-citizen was especially emphasized. That’s why they talked, even often, “about freedom, 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 crawl in the dust before them; let flatterers with a dead soul crawl before them; here are your sons standing 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 his twentieth year, in 1803), criticized on two fronts. In both Lomonosov and Karamzin, he saw the most important shortcoming - the inability to depict the life of the people, a weak expression of 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 the remnants of Russian literature, in these precious remnants, and especially in songs do we find and feel the character of our people.”

* ("Literary Heritage", vol. 60, book. I. M., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956, pp. 327, 336.)

Andrei Turgenev was the first to express a bold 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, and thinks that this influence will instill pettiness in Russian literature. Russian literature, in his opinion, needs a new Lomonosov, a Lomonosov - not an 18th-century writer who exhausted his talent “in praise of monarchs,” but a Lomonosov of a new type - “imbued with Russian originality,” who devoted his creative gift to lofty and immortal subjects that were important for all of Russia. . Such a writer “must give a different turn to our literature” *.

* (Ibid., page 334.)

"Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and Arts" (1801-1807)

The friendly society lasted too short 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 of Russian literature and culture of the first decade of the 19th century. These progressive figures united six months after the formation of the Friendly Society into the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and the Arts.” It included poets, publicists, artists: I. P. Pnin, A. X. 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 the society.

The “Free Society” grew up in the field of Radishchev’s great ideas; in it, the advanced social thought of Russia at the beginning of the century reached its 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 destruction of slavery is the main idea of ​​his journalism. It penetrates his main work - “On the Welfare of National Societies” (1801-1804). His special work is devoted to this idea - “On Slavery and Its Beginnings and Consequences in Russia,” written no earlier than 1807 and no later than 1811 (discovered in the archives in 1959). Popugaev is indignant at serfdom, reveals its harmful influence on all aspects of Russian life and comes to the conclusion: a state struck by the disease of slavery, not thinking about its speedy eradication, “strives for its downfall!” Popugaev convinced Tsar Alexander I to “restore freedom to the oppressed people” *.

I.P. Pnin knew Radishchev well, was personally acquainted with him, and admired him. He began and continued to write his work “An Experience on Enlightenment in Relation 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 is against decisive upheavals in society. He is for the class system to remain unbreakable 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 the 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 the economy and culture of Russia. 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 define their rights and obligations, to eradicate the very possibility of “abuse of power by landowners over their peasants.” Pnin stood for class-based education, but accessible to all Russian people, so that people would not be kept “as if in the darkness of a prison.”

In the works of the most prominent poets of the Free Society, questions were raised that advanced Russian literature had been thinking about throughout the century.

Image of Radishchev

An important merit of the poets of the “Free Society” was the full of love glorification of the first Russian revolutionary, the desire to convey to future generations the bright, sublime, great image of the writer-fighter and noble thinker. Ivan Born’s work “On the Death of Radishchev” (September 1802) tells that, while in exile, Radishchev “became a benefactor” for the inhabitants of the Irkutsk province. Having learned about 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 writer’s ideals and aspirations with the real conditions of Russian life.

* (I. M. Born. To the death of Radishchev. To the [society of] [amateurs] and [graceful]. In the book: "Poets-Radischevites". Large series of the poet's library. M., "Soviet Writer", 1935, pp. 244-245.)

In the same September 1802, Pnin wrote poems on the death of Radishchev. In them, he highlighted the following traits of a writer-fighter: selfless struggle for the common good, civic courage, kindness of heart and greatness of mind. “The flame of the mind has gone 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 1805 the Severny Vestnik magazine reprinted the chapter “Wedge” from Radishchev’s “Travel” under the title, distracting the attention of censorship: “An excerpt from the papers of one Russian.” The best works of the Free Society writers reflect Radishchev’s cherished thoughts. None of them rose to the heights of Radishchev’s revolutionary consciousness, however, at the beginning of the century, no one but them expressed indignation against slavery, the darkness of the people, and despotism with such sincerity and conviction. They differed from Radishchev in their ideas about 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 democratic intellectuals V.V. Popugaev, P.M. Born; I. P. Pnin and A. Vostokov joined them on many issues.

Hymn to man

Radishchev's students and followers, 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 all-conquering energy and will. Their glorification of man is clearly directed against his humiliation by the conditions of feudal society and religious dogmas. In the ode “Man,” Pnin decisively shortened Derzhavin’s formula: “I am a king, I am a slave, I am a worm, I am a god.” He completely rejected the definitions of “slave” and “worm”. Pnin leaves only two definitions of a person: “You are the king of the earth, you are the king of the universe” and “You are on earth as God is in heaven.” God owns the creation of the universe and control that the laws of rotation of the planets and the change of seasons are observed, so that the harmonious order in the “system of the world” (ode “God”) is not disturbed. Man is the owner of the earth, the ruler of everything living and dead that is on the earth, in its depths and in the elements of the universe. He establishes a certain system of social life, he is responsible for both happiness and evil in life. His will and mind transform the creation of God, decorate nature with wondrous wonders of creative work, art and inspiration. Pnin translates Radishchev’s brilliant ideas about man-creator, expressed in his philosophical treatise “On Man, His Mortality and Immortality” into the language of poetry and challenges 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 enlighten him. He achieved everything, achieved everything “through his work and experience.”

From Pnin’s humanistic concept of man, the idea of ​​incompatibility of the concepts: man and slave naturally followed.

Other poets and educators 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 creator man, the ruler of knowledge. For Popugaev, Born, Vostokov, man is Socrates, Radishchev, Galileo, Newton, Voltaire, Locke, Lomonosov, Lavoisier, Kant, Franklin. Glorifying man, the educators of the Free Society highly raised the intellectual level of emerging Russian poetry. Vostokov begged merciless time not to condemn the common fate of oblivion to “the good of valor and the wise with sweet speech.” In his letter to Born, Parrot calls not in words, as is typical of a “poor and pitiful creature,” but in fact to love science, to understand the true greatness of Socrates and Franklin, to strive for truth together 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 pan-European capitalist development, the educators 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.”

Above the earthly atmosphere, ascend, 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 around at the abysses of the air, despising the thunder of Perun, commanding the elements to obey *

* (Ivan Pnin. Essays. M., Publishing House of the All-Union Society of Political Prisoners and Exiled Settlers, 1934, p. 67.)

Born, with all his social aspirations, is busy with the earthly destinies of people, and he praises the inspired sage for the fact that

With the swiftest eye he measures the Abyss, full of innumerable worlds *

* (I. Born. Ode to truth. In the book: "Poets-Radischevites". Large series of the poet's library. L., "Soviet Writer", 1953, p. 239.)

The first enlighteners of the 19th century paved wonderful paths with their creative quests! Enormous prospects for Russian poetry were outlined in their imperfect but sincere poems! 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 knows no reconciliation, in relation to the entire socio-political system of Russia.

The ideal of freedom and justice

In the poems of Vostokov, Pnin, Born, the Ideal of Freedom condemns lies and injustice, darkness and ignorance, and 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 glorifies the equality of all before the law; the poet assures readers that where there is no omnipotent law, there “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 Calistratus” glorifies Harmodius and Aristogiton, young friends, heroes of ancient Greece, who put an end to the tyrant Hipparchus. The idea of ​​tyrant warfare, Born’s lively response to the assassination of Paul I, firmly entered the consciousness 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 is raised about the unnaturalness of domination of some over others. But Popugaev’s Radishchev’s pathos of exposing the cruelty and injustice of slavery 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 lips of his hero, “at the end of the century.” Both in his journalistic treatises, right up to the essay “On Slavery,” and 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.

Popugaev's poems more than once express faith in a change in social relations. The time will come, he thinks,

The slave will not grovel before his master, the burdens of the chain will be destroyed, evil will dissipate like smoke ("Appeal to Friendship") *.

* (In the book: "Poets-Radischevites". Large series of the poet's library. L., "Soviet Writer", 1935, p. 274.)

During this blessed time, life will “reconcile the lamb and the wolf.” With words painting a utopian picture of universal prosperity, Popugaev did not think of calling 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, even if he collects “countless millions,” will only do so 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" Popugaev touches on the most lively theme of our time - the theme of the tyrant. Like all the educators of the Free Society, he is full of hatred for tyranny and despots and shares a common belief in the death of tyrants, no matter how powerful they are. But he also has his own special heartfelt thought. The history of Europe and Russia, in his opinion, proves that the fall of tyrants and despots is inevitable not because their rule contradicts moral principles and a sense of justice. The fate of tyrants is predetermined, for sooner or later they are subject to the wrath of the indignant masses, aroused by their evil deeds:

Demetrius, surrounded by guards, Nero in the golden chambers, will fall from the enraged mob and perish from the deeds of evil.

However, along with this, Popugaev sometimes falls into the tone of Pnin, turning to the powers that be so that they uphold the laws and preserve the happiness of people. Then the great and virtuous Titus, Peter, and Aurelius, whom the people “honored as gods” (“Pygmalion”), stood before his eyes in an ideal light.

The Great Antithesis: Hero of the Mind and Hero of the Sword

While the activities of the “Free Society” educators unfolded, the Russian people literally did not have time to recover from one military campaign before they were plunged into new military adventures and bloody clashes.

Under these conditions, the members of the “Free Society” set up and illuminated in their works a great antithesis, which has not lost its deep meaning to this day: they contrasted the hero of the bloody sword and destruction with the hero of reason, the hero-creator. They took up arms against the age-old prejudices that inspired respect for those who gained fame for themselves with the blood of hundreds and thousands of people.

Popugaev passionately calls to earth the “genius of the world.” In the poem “In case of Angerstain’s generous deed,” he compares two types of heroes and gives preference to a crown of victories, filled not with “the blood of neighbors,” but with “tears of gratitude.” For the sage, as the poem “To Friends” says, “the sword of Attil is terrible,” the sage does not even want triumphant glory if it is associated with “bloody laurels.” Addressing the rulers 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, do not be pompous and do not shed the blood of a subject” (“Genius on the ruins of Nero’s golden palace”).

Born, in his dithyramb to Radishchev, contrasted the people's love for the thinker-fighter with the bloody glory of “the formidable scourges of humanity, these bloodthirsty conquerors.”

Vostokov poses the question: to whom does true heroism belong and to whom should true glory be assigned - to the one who obtained it with the sword, or to the one who guided peoples on the path of truth, wisdom and good? The poet reproaches people for their foolishness, that they marvel at the heroism of those who destroy villages and “seek to destroy cities with fire.” Tearing through the veil of prejudice that placed Alexander the Great on 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 elegance,” “Shishak,” “Toward Fantasy,” one of Vostokov’s most cherished thoughts was his thought about undisturbed peace on earth. Twenty years before Pushkin, he and Saint-Pierre reveled in the dream of eternal peace between nations. It was fun for him to create an idyll-joke, where unbroken love reigned, where the sword and spear became a child’s toy, the weapons were all taken away and happy people could say:

Mars is disarmed by us, the god of death is in our power! ("Big") *

* (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 unique angle from which they perceived the life of all people on earth, the life of the entire human race. While in the countries of capitalist civilization the colonial ideology was developing and strengthening with might and main, when trade in live goods, yellow and black slaves was briskly going on in various world markets, Russian educators, outraged by the slavery of their half-brothers, peasants, raised their voices of protest against the trampling of human rights and 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 humanity constitutes a single family of peoples. Addressing Justice as the highest justice on earth, Pnin begs, among many other important things, to do one more thing:

Collect all nations, Children of the same Nature, under the shadow of your power *.

* (Ivan Pnin. Essays. M.. Publishing house of the All-Union Society of Political Prisoners and Exiled Settlers, 1934, p. 81.)

Vostokov dreamed of a time when it would be possible for a humanist sage

Gather, arrange, enlighten the Peoples... ("Towards Fantasy")

Parrots called national and racial prejudices “shackles” on the people of the modern world and passionately wanted to help people throw them off. The greatness of the human soul, in his opinion, calls to “love all peoples like brothers...”.

Popugaev glorified those

Who will tame the groans of the poor? Ready to fly overseas, Ready to enlighten his brothers, Pour gold into distant lands.

In this regard, his essay “The Negro” takes on 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, torn away from his native land, relatives and close people, is interpreted as a protest against the position of “white blacks”, 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 decisive condemnation of white American planters for their barbaric, unworthy attitude towards blacks. The planter - "the fiercest 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, “supermans” of the bourgeois world.

In the works of the Free Society poets, Russian literature of the 19th century received a remarkable ideological charge. Their basic ideas are powerful rockets capable of lifting literature to great heights. They built a bridge from Radishchev to the Decembrists and Pushkin.

Creative quests of members of the "Free Society"

The lofty social, philosophical, humanistic ideas of the enlighteners did not receive a corresponding 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 deadness 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 regard, sentimentalism did not lag behind it) made the ode the main form of expression of loyal feelings, and as a means chose the so-called “soaring” with cumbersome allegories, far-fetched likenings and comparisons, with an abundance of Church Slavonicisms, an obligatory sign of “high calm", then the enlighteners turned the ode into a means of promoting the ideas of curbing autocratic power, glorifying civic pathos and free, all-powerful human thought. “Ode to the Worthy” by Vostokov, “Ode to Justice” by Pnin, ode “Happiness” by Popugaev or “Ode to Kalistrat” by Born have nothing in common, for example, with Derzhavin’s ode “On the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander I” or with Karamzin’s ode “On the solemn Coronation of His Imperial Majesty Alexander I, Autocrat of All Russia." The enlighteners discarded the poetic props that accompanied the ode, and began to look for a firm and precise word to express the painful truth of civic ideas and the feelings of not a slave, not a loyal subject, but a thinking person who recognized his human dignity. The ode of the servile hymn of a “subject” is replaced by the ode of a citizen striving to raise his homeland to a new level of social progress. Therefore, where both the classicist and the sentimentalist use worn-out words of memorized praise for the monarch and the inviolability of the existing system, there the enlightener introduces into general use great words that were recently banned - “citizen”, “fatherland” (“Ode to the Worthy”).

Like the ode among the classicists, the message among the sentimentalists was a favorite poetic genre. 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, to bear chains for the truth, to shed blood for the common good” (Popugaev, “To Friends”). The tone of the message is combative, the rhythm is cheerful, the feeling is collected, the word is full of energy. The sentimentalist's horizons are confined to the microscopic sphere of lost friendship and love; the enlightener sees the big world of human existence with contradictions, struggles 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 the sentimentalist's language: the sweet hour of death, the messengers of the grave, providence, the creator, murmurs, prayers. The Enlightenment speaks in a different language: truth, the pursuit of truth, tyrants' scepter, patriot, Locke, Newton, Franklin, Cato, fellow citizens, the benefit of society.

Enlightenment educators engaged in socio-philosophical problems also touched on the topic of nature. But if any of them had to turn to this poetic plot, he showed a much greater sense of reality than his fellow classicists and sentimentalists. The best proof is Vostokov’s poem “Towards Winter”:

Come to us, mother winter, and bring the frosts with you!

This is how this piece begins. Life-specific words and comparisons, metaphors and epithets make up the fabric of the poem: fluffy snow, drizzle, let's not get cold, hare, winter, skittish, icy land, biting frosts. It is said about the invisible work of internal spiritual forces: “How winter ripens under the snow.” Artistically unconstrained, this poem is nevertheless truly poetic and folk in its basic tone, speech, and view of nature. It reflected a tendency towards the rapprochement of poetic creativity with 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. The dormant village loops awakening to the morning labors. Thoughts, worries, sorrow and joy have now awakened in them: The gates have creaked, the frequent clash of threshing flails can be heard *.

* (A. Vostokov. Poems. Large series of the poet's library. L., "Soviet Writer", 1935, p. 92.)

Such poems cannot be found either in classicism or in the sentimentalism of that time. Here one can feel the movement of poetic creativity towards real reality in its national, purely Russian essence. And in that sphere of poetic inspiration in which, it seems, the palm should belong to sentimentalism - in the description of the vicissitudes of love - Vostokov in some of his poems is far superior to dull singers. Here are the lines from Vostokov’s poem “To the Goddess of My Soul”:

Come, and with your full lily hands enclose your sweet arms, And tenderly press your maiden breasts to my beating heart, - Press, and let me taste life, I envy the gods, In the bosom of your charms. From my fiery kisses let the whiteness of my elastic breasts turn red*.

* ("Scroll of the Muses", book. I, page 76.)

It is easy to notice 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 became part of the flesh and blood of great Russian poetry, starting with Pushkin.

Along all creative lines, the most gifted poet among the educators 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 theme, and in verse, and in language. In the depths of the poetic creativity of the “Free Society”, the socio-political terminology of high civil poetry in Russia was developed, here they were looking for ways for poetry to enter the expanses of Russian life, and attempts were immediately 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 the creation of a fairly powerful and rich ideological arsenal, the most important problem in the literary and artistic development of Russian society in the 19th century was the struggle for the development of the literary language.

Members of the "Free Society" fought on two fronts: against the reactionary course of Shishkov and against his critics, the Karamzinists. In this spirit, the “Journal of Russian Literature” came out with “Letter to the Publisher” by N.P. Brusilov and “Severny Vestnik” with “Letter from an Unknown”.

I. M. Born in “A Brief Guide to Russian Literature” (1808), speaking out against the “fearful purification of the language” that Shishkov demanded, criticized the Karamzinists for the spirit of servility and imitation of others while not paying attention to their own, native, “often superior to others.” He condemned the style developed by sentimentalists as unusual for the natural Russian language. “Why,” asks Born, “change the meaningful brevity and noble simplicity of the Slavic for sluggish and inflated verbosity?” *

* (I. M. Born. A short guide to Russian literature. St. Petersburg, 1808, p. 132.)

When the sentimental magazine "Patriot" by V. Izmailov reproached the author of the drama "Generosity, or Recruitment" Ilyin that a writer "born with a kind heart and noble feelings" should not engage in the "mean language" of bailiffs and clerks, " Northern Messenger" replied: "The expression vile language is a remnant of the injustice of the time when they spoke and wrote vile people; but now, thanks to humanity and laws, vile people and vile tongue we don't! but there is, like all nations, vile thoughts, vile deeds" * .

* ("Northern Herald", 1804, part III, No. 7, pp. 35-36.)

Such battles, revealing the democratic basis of the ideology of the Free Society enlighteners, show the originality of their position in disputes about language and style. They saw before them not one, but two ideologically alien camps - the Shishkovists and the Karamzinists. Both of them sought to keep Russian literature confined to a narrow circle. Along with the spirit of citizenship and the struggle for progress, members of society introduced trends of folk motifs, forms and language into poetry. While the "Northern Messenger" on behalf of the "Free Society" was engaged in an ideological dispute with the Karamzinists, when the "Journal of Russian Literature" denounced them for neglecting the merits of their native language and clogging it with unnecessary foreignness, Vostokov worked on compiling a set of Russian folk songs , meaning to give writers a genuine source of national creativity, not distorted or disfigured by any alterations and adaptations to the taste of the foreign 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 phrases, poetic images and vocabulary of oral poetry, wrote large works in the spirit of epics, of which “Pevislad and Zora” Vostokova is downright wonderful.

Vostokov proved in practice how fruitful the poet’s turn to oral folk art is. He enriched the poetic language with magnificent folk words and phrases: alone; in a light dress he hurries to take a walk in the green garden; the tear sank into the water; like a nightingale in the spring; I’m not happy about broad daylight; nodding his head; turned red from crying; kiss the girlish tears from your cheeks; jump on a horse; from the hill looking out over the field, the harp was striking the bells; meet; found; stops and listens, takes a step and looks around; stately shoulder; the Dnieper turned blue; to anger; became depressed and sad. Vostokov has a sad guslar

He wants to evoke sounds of abuse - The sounds of feasting and joy, To dispel strong thoughts. No, in vain the rebellious strings murmur; They publish only one thing: only languid, sad... ("Pevislad and Zora")

Aesthetic principles of the enlighteners

The enlighteners of the "Free Society", growing up to stop the decline of classicism and sentimentalism, succumbing to one degree or another to the influence of the immediate poetic environment, nevertheless developed their own original concepts about the essence and purpose of literary and artistic creativity. They have a lot of poems dedicated to the Plenirs and Aglayas, there are frequent sighs and aahs, there are meaningless glorifications of huts, secluded corners of nature, etc. But the most vivid, vital and progressive in their work is generated by the desire to tell their 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 talking 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, suddenly, like lightning, are cut through by a social idea. As for the best poetic achievements of the enlighteners, their pathos lies entirely in the idea of ​​high citizenship, in the glorification of brightly colored social emotions. It was precisely due to the fact that the main thing that distinguished them was the preaching of the ideas of courageous and active activity for the good of the fatherland, for the happiness of their fellow citizens, that the educators of the “Free Society” came close to the most important aesthetic principle - the requirement for a work to have a clearly expressed socially significant goal. "Any work, romantic, 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 of 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 “Censorship Committee” was established, which determined the conformity of submitted works with the high goals of society. It took responsibility for the “good name of each member,” seeing this as a sure condition for protecting the “honor of the entire society.” As a result, a “Censorship Committee” was needed and a categorical prohibition on publishing works “without the special permission of the Society.” And these were not just words. A. Izmailov and N. Ostolopov were temporarily expelled from society only because, without his knowledge, they “sent their plays to Moscow, to Karamzin’s “Bulletin of Europe” *. How jealously the dignity and prestige of the society was guarded is evidenced by the incident with the admission of Konstantin Batyushkov to membership. He was accepted for writing in imitation of the French "Satire", but with a reservation, which was expressed by the censor Vostokov: "For a young author to join the Society, it is necessary that he present something from his works" **.

* (V. Desnitsky. Selected articles on Russian literature of the 18th-19th centuries. M.-L., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1958, p. 142.)

** (Vl. Orlov. Russian enlighteners of 1790-1800. M., Goslitizdat, 1950, p. 223.)

Led by democratically minded commoners, the “Free Society”, at the best time of its history, attempted to organize the literary, artistic and scientific forces of advanced Russia on the basis of unbreakable discipline, so important when the main writing cadres came from the nobility, known for Manilov’s licentiousness and disorganization.

The lofty goal of serving the common good with one’s pen was realized in the unique aesthetic ideal of the Enlightenment. This ideal is outlined in the speech and poems of I. Born “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 of Vostokov as “History and Fables”, “Ode to the Worthy” . The latter was accepted as a programmatic and aesthetic work of society. This ode opened the first collection of essays by members of the society, “Scroll of the Muses.” Vostokov proclaims that the poet’s muse should be truth. Poetry is freed from praise by those unworthy of this world, regardless of whether they hold high ranks or are children of wealth and nobility. She is also exempt from praise from those who imagine themselves to be heroes, but forget about their duty “to be fathers and uphold 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 everyone who shines with wealth, orders, digs up in the archives of their ancestors, is proud of the antiquity of the family, boasts of titles, ranks, etc. The hero of true poetry must be 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 his life and property in order to save his fellow citizens from disaster and give them a happy fate, sing, holy one, your hymn to him!

Such a person, a true and not an imaginary hero, “will constitute the people’s happiness,” he will be followed by “the blessing of later great-grandchildren,” to him will be the glory of centuries and the golden word of a solemn ode:

And for such and such a muse is divine, Oh, for such 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 published 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 Enlightenment.

The main line of literary development of the Free Society goes from Radishchev and Derzhavin to the Decembrists and Pushkin. However, this line was broken 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 benefits

The discovery and scientific research of the works of poets and educators is a merit of Soviet literary criticism. The first scientific publication, broadly representing the heritage of the poets of the “Free Society”, was published in 1935 under the title: “Poets-Radischevites. Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts.” Ed. and comments by Vl. Orlov, introductory articles by V. A. Desnitsky and Vl. Orlova. M., “Soviet Writer”, large series “Poet’s Library”. The work of 24 poets of the “Free Society” is presented here and there is a “biographical note” about each one. The publication 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” is determined as a link connecting 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 and Exiled Settlers published a book: Ivan Pnin. Essays. 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 poems, the book contains all of Pnin’s prose, philosophical and journalistic works: “The Experience of Enlightenment in Relation to Russia”, “The Cry of Innocence Rejected by Laws”, “Writer and Censor”. The dubia section contains many interesting works from 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 "Poet's Library" a book was published in 1935: Vostokov. Poems. Ed., intro. article and note Vl. Orlova. 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 minor works in verse, parts I-II. St. Petersburg, 1805-1806 and Poems. In 3 books. St. Petersburg, 1821.

In the small series "Poet's Library" a collection of selected poems by Pnin, Popugaev, Born and Vostokov was published: "The Radishchev Poets". L., 1952. Intro. article, preparation of text and notes by Vl. Orlova. The Appendix contains poems on the death of Ivan Pnin, published in the publication: Ivan Pnin. Essays. 1934. The Historical-Mythological Dictionary explains the names and mythological images so frequent in the works of the enlighteners of the Free Society.

Scientific research into the heritage of the poets of the Free Society has appeared only in our time, first in the form of introductory articles to various publications of the poets-educators of the Free Society, and then as separate chapters of textbooks, the academic History of Russian Literature, and university textbooks. V. Desnitsky’s great work “From the history of literary societies of the early 19th century” has not yet lost its significance, which contains 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 USSR Academy of Sciences, 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 V. Orlov. the results of the study of this problem, the work “Russian Enlighteners of 1790-1800.” M.-L., Goslitizdat, 1950 - awarded the State Prize (second ed. - M., 1953).

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

"Friendly Literary Society" an association of like-minded Moscow writers that formed at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. from pupils, later graduates of the Moscow University boarding school. Organizer A.I. Turgenev. In 1797–1800, he headed a pre-romantic literary circle at the boarding school, which took shape in 1801 as the “Friendly Literary Society”; it included V.A. Zhukovsky, poet, translator, art theorist A.F. Merzlyakov, A.S. Kaisarov, N.I. Gnedich, lawyer, playwright and translator N.N. Sandunov, A.F. Voeikov, in whose house on Devichye Pole society meetings were often held, and others. The members of the society, revealing a commonality of anti-tyrant and civic aspirations, represented a fairly wide range of litas. addictions. Meetings of the Friendly Literary Society were attended by P.A. Vyazemsky, F.I. Tyutchev, A.I. Polezhaev, M.Yu. Lermontov. In the boarding house magazine “Morning Dawn” (the first years of the 19th century), many Moscow writers, boarding school students, began to publish.

Literature: Istrin V.M., Junior Turgenev circle and A.I. Turgenev, in the book: Archive of the Turgenev brothers, v. 2, St. Petersburg, 1911; Lotman Yu.M., A.S. Kaisarov and the literary and social struggle of his time, “Scientific Notes of the University of Tartu”, 1958, c. 63.

• - founded by N.I. Novikov in Moscow in 1779 to help fathers raise children and publish useful books. Renamed Printing Company...

  Russian Encyclopedia

• - LITERARY BORROWING. Unlike influence in the proper sense, borrowing is always conscious...

  Dictionary of literary terms

• - see literary influence...
• - one of the types of creative communication between writers; can manifest itself in the borrowing of plots and images, in the use of already known motifs and ideas, in the perception by one writer of the moods and ideals of another...

  Terminological dictionary-thesaurus on literary criticism

• - a concept that characterizes the unity of the most significant creative features of literary artists within a certain historical period...

  Terminological dictionary-thesaurus on literary criticism

• - in the strict sense - the use in a literary work of an artistic image or a phrase from another work, designed for the reader to recognize the image...
• - non-periodic collections of the Academy of Sciences dedicated to Ch. arr. publication of unpublished materials on Russian history. literature and societies. thoughts. Ed. since 1931...
• - lit.-political Moscow student circle. university, which formed in the fall of 1830 around the young V. G. Belinsky...

  Soviet historical encyclopedia

• - also called Hainbund, in honor of Lessing's ode: "Der Hügel u. der Hain", compiled in the 70s. last century from fans of Klopstock and opponents of the French. influence in it. literature. The soul of the circle was Boyer, publisher...
• - arose from the thoughts and initiative of prof. Moscow univ.. I. G. Schwartz and N. I. Novikov...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - in Tilsit, founded in 1879 by Bezzenberger, Neselman, Gisevius, Miklosic, Kurshat, Iv. Basanovich, Kontsevich and others, with the participation of both local lovers of the Latvian language, ethnography and history, and scientists...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - a non-periodical scientific publication dedicated to the publication of unpublished materials on the history of literature and social thought and their study. Founded in 1931...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - charitable and educational, 1779-84, Moscow. Founded by N.I. Novikov to help fathers raise children and publish useful books. Renamed Printing Company...

  Large encyclopedic dictionary

• - "" - non-periodic collections of the Russian Academy of Sciences since 1931, Moscow. Publication of unpublished documentary materials on the history of Russian literature and social thought. 98 tons came out...

  Large encyclopedic dictionary

• - LITERARY SOCIETY OF THE 11th NUMBER - a literary and political circle of common students at Moscow University in 1830-31. Named after the room number in the dormitory where V. G. Belinsky lived and where the circle met...

  Large encyclopedic dictionary

• - ...

  Synonym dictionary

"Friendly Literary Society" in books

VI Friendly proposal

From the book People and Dolls [collection] author Livanov Vasily Borisovich

VI Friendly proposal The Minister of War rose from his chair, walked around his impressive desk and, smiling, holding out both hands to Kromov, moved towards him. “Hello, Mr. Kromov,” said the minister. - I hope you have forgiven my persistence? - Good

A. L. Zorin At the origins of Russian Germanophilism (Andrei Turgenev and the Friendly Literary Society)

From the book New Trinkets: Collection for the 60th Anniversary of V. E. Vatsuro author Peskov Alexey Mikhailovich

A. L. Zorin At the origins of Russian Germanophilism (Andrei Turgenev and the Friendly Literary Society) “In reality, the spirit of the people is determined by literature, and is not something from which it could be explained,” wrote G. G. Shpet. You can agree with this formula or

From the book The Devil's Kitchen author Morimura Seiichi

Friendly appeal to the readers My attempts to scrupulously trace the post-war history of “Detachment 731” are explained by the desire to draw attention to the danger of the emergence of national madness and national arrogance and to make at least a small contribution to the cause

Friendly message to readers

From the book The Devil's Kitchen author Morimura Seiichi

Friendly appeal to readers My attempts to scrupulously trace the post-war history of “Detachment 731” are explained by the desire to draw attention to the danger of the emergence of national madness and national arrogance and to make at least a small contribution to the cause

From the book Sketches, album recordings author Gogol Nikolay Vasilievich

<ДРУЖЕСКОЕ ШУТЛИВОЕ ПАРИ.>Printed by autograph (LB; code M. 3213 No. 19). On the back is crossed out: “We, the undersigned, joined the two above-mentioned mortgagees with a bottle of champagne: the first to Gogol-Yanovsky, and the second to the orphan Pashchenko. V. Prokopovich.

Friendly message from Nagarjuna

From the book Initiations and initiates in Tibet [another version] author David-Neel Alexandra

Friendly message from Nagarjuna

From the book Initiations and initiates in Tibet author David-Neel Alexandra

A Friendly Message from Nagarjuna In the second collection of Lamaist canonical books, called "Danjur" (bstan-khgyiur) (commentary to the first collection of canonical books "Kanjur"), there is a famous message attributed to the great Indian philosopher Nagarjuna,

1.2.7. The fifth meaning of the word “society” is a society in general of a certain type (type of society, or special society)

From the book Philosophy of History author Semenov Yuri Ivanovich

1.2.7. The fifth meaning of the word “society” is a society in general of a certain type (a type of society, or a special society). A huge number of sociohistorical organisms existed and exist. It is impossible to understand this multitude without classifying sociohistorical

6. The fifth meaning of the word “society” is a society in general of a certain type (type of society, or special society)

From the book Course of lectures on social philosophy author Semenov Yuri Ivanovich

6. The fifth meaning of the word “society” is a society in general of a certain type (a type of society, or a special society). A huge number of sociohistorical organisms existed and exist. It is impossible to understand this multitude without classifying sociohistorical

LITERARY, EXCLUSIVELY LITERARY

From the book Thoughts on Literature author Akutagawa Ryunosuke

LITERARY, EXCLUSIVELY LITERARY WORK, DEprivED OF WHAT CAN BE CALLED “NARRATIVE” I do not believe that the best work is the one devoid of “narration”. And that’s why I don’t say: write only works that lack “narrative.” Before

A little friendly confession

From the book Social Influence author Zimbardo Philip George

A small friendly confession: “With Your Majesty’s permission,” said Nobby, “I did not write this letter.” But they won't prove it. There is no signature. “So much the worse,” said the King, “it means you are up to something bad, otherwise you would have signed up like all honest people.” Lewis

Italian Literary Society

From the book Create Your Own Enemy. And other texts on occasion (collection) by Eco Umberto

Italian Literary Society Then it all turned out like this: Balestrini once told me (I don’t know if I was the first to whom he said this, we were then sitting in a diner in the Brera area) that the time had come, following the example of the German “Group 47,” to unite everyone who breathes the same air,

Under friendly neighing

From the book Scandals (December 2008) author Russian life magazine

To the accompaniment of friendly neighing, in Kozlovka (Chuvashia), on the Alley of Glory of the participants of the Great Patriotic War, local teenagers painted photographs of the heroes of those years with a black marker. Swastikas and offensive inscriptions appeared on portraits of front-line soldiers. Vandals were detained

Friendly word

From the book Excitement, Joy, Hope. Thoughts on parenting author Nemtsov Vladimir Ivanovich

A Friendly Word In recent years, we have quite often begun to talk about good and bad taste. A number of articles, brochures, and many radio broadcasts appeared. They talk about this in classes at cultural universities. Moreover, administrative measures are already being taken to

2. Maintain friendly fellowship (13:23,24)

From the book of Hebrews by Brown R.

2. Maintain friendly fellowship (13:23,24) Know that your brother Timothy has been set free; and I, together with him, if he comes soon, will see you. 24 Greet all your teachers and all the saints. The Italians greet you. Even in these traditional greetings there is a sense of seriousness.

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 that neither you nor I alone can take!.. If you have noble ambition... then give up 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 who says our mistakes; 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...

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 for service, 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 lonely garden is a refuge for 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 (1801)

Notes

Literature

Osokin V.N. His poems are captivatingly sweet... V.A. Zhukovsky in Moscow and the Moscow region. - M.: Moscow worker, 1984. - 192 p. - 50,000 copies.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what a “Friendly Literary Society” is in other dictionaries:

An association of like-minded Moscow writers, formed at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. from pupils, later graduates. Organizer A.I. Turgenev. In 17971800 he headed the pre-romantic literary work at the boarding house... Moscow (encyclopedia)

"Friendly Literary Society"- FRIENDLY LITERARY SOCIETY association of students of Moscow. un that and Mosk. University noble boarding house. Existed since Jan. until the fall of 1801, meetings were held in the house of A.F. Voeikov in Moscow. Inside Obva, two main ones stood out. groups: for... ... Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary

- - famous poet. ?. CHILDHOOD (1783-1797) The year of birth of Zhukovsky is determined differently by his biographers. However, despite the evidence of P. A. Pletnev and J. K. Grot, indicating the birth of J. in 1784, it must be considered, like J. himself... ...

- (born in 1800, died on May 4, 1824 in St. Petersburg) daughter of D. P. Pozdnyak. She was a well-educated woman who fluently spoke four European languages, had an excellent command of the Russian language and had good knowledge of “easy” foreign languages... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Ponomareva (Sofya Dmitrievna, née 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. I 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 her many of the then writers. A.E. visited her especially often... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

LITERARY CIRCLES- LITERARY CIRCLES, creative associations of writers based on unity of views, interests, directions 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 Nikolaevich Batyushkov, Vasily Lvovich Pushkin, Sergei Semenovich Uvarov, Dmitry Nikolaevich Bludov, Nikolai Ivanovich Turgenev, Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, Pyotr Andreevich ... Wikipedia