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 come to the surface. literary life, but nevertheless very significant in the overall progressive development of Russian literary and social thought.

The earliest of these 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 a craving younger generation to socially beneficial activities. A.F. Merzlyakov, a member of the “Friendly Literary Society,” 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 writings, and thus thus perfected themselves on the difficult path of literature and taste.

5 These meetings were based on close friendly unity and commonality of literary inclinations. The society, chamber in form, however, did not limit its activities to the solution of narrowly understood aesthetic problems.

"Friendly Literary Society" is not accidental arises in Moscow, which at the beginning of the XIX century. was the center 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.

The inclination towards Karamzinism becomes the starting point for most of its members. Growing out of a student circle, consisting of pupils of Moscow University and the University Noble Boarding School (Andrey and Alexander Turgenev, A. Voeikov, A. Kaisarov, S. Rodzyanka, V. A. Zhukovsky), it included in its ranks the teacher of the university A.F. Merzlyakova.

The rest were just starting their literary career. However, in their person, a new generation of writers declared itself, not satisfied with the general direction of their contemporary literary development and looking for new forms of introducing writing to the pressing needs of Russian reality. early XIX in.

The social situation that developed during these years required a more decisive intrusion of literature into different areas Russian life. The most radical members of society (Andrei Turgenev, A. Kaisarov) are undergoing a rapid evolution, reconsidering their attitude towards Karamzinism, which has given serious grounds for a modern researcher to regard their position as one of the early ways in which the Decembrist ideology was formed in Russia.

Others remain faithful to the principles of Karamzinism (such is the position of Zhukovsky and Alexander Turgenev). However, the participants in the society were characterized, first of all, not by differences, but by common aspirations: an ardent interest in the fate of Russia and its culture, hostility to inertia and social stagnation, a desire to contribute to the development of education, the idea of ​​civil and patriotic service to the motherland.

This is how the concept of a “friendly community” is revealed and concretized, which formed the basis of this association, which consisted of young enthusiasts, ardent champions of justice, haters of tyranny and serfdom, filled with sympathy for the poor.

Society meetings have an informal, casual tone and an atmosphere of heated debate, anticipating organizational forms"Arzamas", the main core of which was made up of members of the "Friendly Literary Society".

As a friendly circle of young like-minded writers, the "Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts" began its activities, which arose in St. Petersburg on July 15, 1801 and lasted much longer than the "Friendly Society".

It was called into being by the same social atmosphere, fed by the same enthusiasm, and pursued similar, though not identical, aims. 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 forms 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 industries scientific knowledge: archeology, history and even medicine (A. I. Ermolaev, I. O. Timkovsky, D. I. Yazykov and others).

The "free society" is characterized by the diversity of its social composition: it includes in its ranks people from the environment of petty bureaucracy, the clergy, and even from the merchant class. The Kazan merchant was, for example, the poet G. P. Kamenev, the author of Thunderstorm (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.

I. P. Pnin and A. Kh. Vostokov came from illegitimate noble children, who from childhood experienced the hardships of the position of this not so small social stratum, deprived of hereditary rights and forced to make their way in life on their own.

It is not for nothing that Pnin, the “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 Laws” (1802), which is “a remarkable critique of family and marriage in terms of the strength of civil feeling in contemporary noble society.

Political radicalism, increased social activity, democratism of social sympathies define the "special face" of the "Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts" in the 1800s. In contrast to the "Friendly Literary Society", its members strive to publicly declare their existence, seek official recognition and signs of attention from the authorities.

So, both well-known treatises by I. Pnin (“The Cry of Innocence” and “An Experience on Enlightenment Regarding Russia”) were presented to Alexander I and deserved “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" in 1803 received official approval, and at the same time the right to hold open meetings and publish their works. Members of the society published the almanac "The Scroll of the Muses" (1802-1803), began to publish a magazine called "Periodical publication of the Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts" (published in 1804, however, only its only issue), actively collaborated in other time-based editions of the early 19th century.

The intensive activity of society attracted the progressive forces of the artistic and literary world Petersburg and Moscow. In 1804-1805. K. N. Batyushkov, A. F. Merzlyakov, S. S. Bobrov, N. I. Gnedich and others became its members.

The first period of the society's activity (1801-1807) had the greatest historical and literary significance, and it was no accident that it coincided with the era of liberal trends. In the late 1800s it is going through a crisis caused by the death (1809) of one of the most active members of society - I.P. Pnin (who introduced the spirit of broad social initiative into 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 and others).

Some revival in its activities is brought about by the arrival of new Karamzinist members (D. N. Bludov, V. L. Pushkin, and especially D. V. Dashkov, who became president of the society in 1811). They sought to give society a militant, offensive character, to turn it against their literary opponents, the "Slavenophiles"-Shishkovists.

These efforts ran into 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 from 1812 a monthly literary magazine, - testifies N. Grech. “After a heated and stubborn debate, we decided to call it the Saint Petersburg Bulletin.

At first, things went pretty well!.. But disagreements and strife began from the third book. The Vestnik was directed directly against the Slavophiles: this was not to the liking of certain members associated for some reason with Shishkov's party. Others were crushed by the superiority of the mind and talents of one of the members.

They made it so that he had to withdraw from society. We are talking about Dashkov, who spoke at one of the meetings with a caustic "eulogy" to Count Khvostov, who was as mediocre as he was a prolific poochist poet. With the departure of Dashkov, the Free Society gradually fades away, and in 1812 it completely ceases its activity in order to resume it only from 1816 with a significantly renewed composition and headed by a new president, A.E. Izmailov.

In this last period, around the society (nicknamed among the writers Izmailovsky, after its president, or Mikhailovsky, after the place of its meetings), small writers are grouped, collaborating in the journal Blagonamerenny published by it. According to VN 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."

The entry into 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. Essential are the clarifications that are given in connection with the last stage of the work of this society in the book by V. G. Bazanov "Academic Republic".

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 contemporary social and literary movement.

The creation of the first associations of Decembrist writers was preceded by the period when future members of secret societies entered some literary societies of the 1810s.

“The Decembrists take into account the old traditions and seek to subordinate the previously created literary societies to their influence,” the researcher emphasizes, recalling that K.F. Ryleev, A.A. Bestuzhev, V.K. Kyuchelbeker, A.F. (brother of V. F. Raevsky), O. M. Somov and other prominent Decembrist writers.

Secret political organizations (the "Union of Salvation", and then the "Union of Welfare") first oriented themselves towards the "Free Society of Literature, Sciences and Arts", gradually subordinating other literary associations of the first quarter of the 19th century to their influence.

History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983

Karamzinism did not quite coincide with the work of Karamzin himself. His innovation consisted of overcoming the old literary language, the old artistic techniques, the innovation of the Karamzinists consisted in the continuation, skillful use of tradition; they need old genres for parodies, old styles for their clash. In the depths of Karamzinism, criticism of Karamzin was born.

In 1801, young poets Andrei and Alexander I. Turgenev, A.S. Kaisarov, V.A. Zhukovsky, A.F. Merzlyakov, A.F. Voeikov, Rodzyanka, organized the “Friendly Literary Society”, which appeared as an act of protest against Karamzin and his school. Karamzin was accused not of being a bold innovator, but of the fact that his innovation turned Russian literature onto the wrong path of foreign borrowings.

The members of this society raised the question: “There is French, German, English literature, but is there Russian?” It was a question romantic content, after all, it was the romantics who were primarily concerned about the issue of nationality. Their answer to their question was categorical and decisive: there is no Russian literature (“Can we use this word? This was blamed on Karamzin, who carried literature away with the problem of personality, leading away from the problem of nationality. The members of the "Friendly Literary Society" were going to direct Russian literature in a different way. the members of the "Friendly Literary Society" decided to promote their direction of Russian literature with the help of literary criticism, freeing up space for the future national genius. Critical articles by Andrei I. Turgenev, V.A. Zhukovsky and A.F. Merzlyakova is a rather interesting material for understanding the origins of Russian romanticism.

Of particular interest are the poetic works of members of the society, they show how close they were able to come to a new quality of literature.

According to Yu.M. Lotman, "Elegy" (1802) by Andrei I. Turgenev belongs to the most significant phenomena of Russian lyrics of the early 19th century. She determined the whole set of motifs of the Russian romantic elegy: an autumn landscape, a rural cemetery, the ringing of an evening bell, reflections on early death and the transience of earthly happiness.”

Turgenev for the first time showed “what expressive possibilities the comparison of the autumn extinction of nature with the extinction of man and human happiness contains,” says L.G. Frizman. In principle, the images of the elegy were not something absolutely unheard of for the poetry of those years, the poetic means for their expression were new.

The main discovery of Andrei Turgenev's "Elegy", which anticipated the discovery of V.A. Zhukovsky is that "the text of a poem can mean more than the simple sum of the meanings of all its constituent words."

This discovery fundamentally distinguished A.I. Turgenev from the Karamzinists with their demand for clarity, simplicity, “common sense”, it was thanks to the Karamzinists with their poetics of semantic shifts, their virtuosic art of observing and at the same time violating literary norms that Andrei Turgenev was able to make this discovery.

The text of the elegy was something more significant than the sum of the meanings of the words that make it up. Meanings are born “above” words.

Turgenev uses the poetics of the smallest semantic shifts, which was once proposed by Karamzinists, and as a result, the reader sees a complex, far from clear, difficult to understand text, and again comes to the tradition of a difficult odic text, which is fundamentally contrary to Karamzinism.

A. Turgenev's "Elegy" presents us with a clear picture of the fact that the early romantic trends appeared as a protest against the dominance of the Karamzinists, and in fact they continued the poetic discoveries of the Karamzinists.

At the very beginning of the century, a Friendly Literary Society arose in Moscow, made up of former pupils of the Moscow Noble University Boarding School. The main members of the society: the Turgenev brothers - Andrei and Alexander, the young Zhukovsky, A.F. Voeikov, the Kaisarov brothers - Andrei and Mikhail. An active member of the society was A. F. Merzlyakov, known for his "folk" songs, who later became a professor, theorist of classicism. The first meeting of the society took place on January 12, 1801. In the same year, it fell apart under the influence of internal disagreements and worldly circumstances. Consequently, part of his activity took place under the conditions of the political terror of Paul I, and for the most part- already in a short period of "Alexander's days of a wonderful beginning." The participants developed the "Laws of the Friendly Literary Society", which determined the goal, subject and means of the society. It was supposed that critical translations and essays in Russian would be examined, useful books and own works discussed. The task of mastering the "theory of fine arts", that is, aesthetics, and the practical desire to develop an aesthetic taste were singled out. Society was not alien to moral and political goals. The task of cultivating a high feeling of a patriot-citizen was especially emphasized. Therefore, they even often talked about "liberty, about slavery." In a speech about love for the fatherland, Andrei Turgenev connected the idea of ​​patriotism with the idea of ​​high human dignity: “The kings want slaves to grovel before them in the dust; let flatterers crawl before them with a dead soul; here your sons stand before you!”.

The same Andrei Turgenev, the brightest head in society and, undoubtedly, a person who promised a lot (he was born in 1784, died - in the twentieth year, in 1803), criticized on two fronts. Both in Lomonosov and in Karamzin, he saw the most important shortcoming - the inability to depict the life of the people, a weak expression of the national-Russian content. Andrei Turgenev drew the attention of listeners to the only true source of original national artistic creativity. This source is oral folk poetry. “Now,” he said, “only in fairy tales and songs do we find remnants of Russian literature, in these precious remnants, and especially in songs we find and still feel the character of our people” * .

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

Andrei Turgenev was the first to express a daring doubt about the existence of Russian literature, a doubt that would be heard more than once in the first thirds of XIX century and will cause a storm of controversy. Looking into the future of Russian literature, Turgenev fears the harmful influence on it from Karamzin and his imitators, he thinks that this influence will instill pettiness in Russian literature. Russian literature, in his opinion, needs a new Lomonosov, Lomonosov is not an ode writer of the 18th century, who exhausted his talent "in praise of monarchs", but Lomonosov of a new type - "saturated with Russian originality", who devoted his creative gift to important, lofty and immortal subjects important for all of Russia . Such a writer "should give a different turn to our literature" * .

* (Ibid., p. 334.)

"Free society of lovers of literature, sciences and arts" (1801-1807)

The friendly society did not last long enough to have a significant impact on the development of Russian literature. But in the speeches of such members as Andrei Turgenev, very important tasks of national literary development were outlined, which were the subject of close attention of the most progressive figures in Russian literature and culture in the first decade of the 19th century. These progressive figures united six months after the formation of the Friendly Society in the "Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts." It included poets, publicists, artists: I. P. Pnin, A. Kh. Vostokov, N. A. Radishchev (son of the great revolutionary writer), sculptor I. I. Terebenev, artists: A. I. Ivanov and F F. Repin and many others. The initiators and leaders of the "Free Society" during its heyday (1801-1807) were the ideological followers of Radishchev - V. V. Popugaev, I. M. Born, I. P. Pnin. In 1805, K. N. Batyushkov joined the Free Society. N. I. Gnedich was close to society.

"Free Society" grew up in the field of Radishchev's great ideas, in which the progressive social thought of Russia at the beginning of the century reached the highest level development. This is clear from the analysis of the socio-political views of such representatives of society as I. P. Pnin, V. V. Popugaev and I. M. Born.

The strongest side of Popugaev's ideology is his passionate hatred of serfdom. The abolition of slavery main idea his journalism. It penetrates his main work - "On the welfare of popular societies" (1801-1804). This idea is devoted to his special work - "On slavery and its beginning and consequences in Russia", written no earlier than 1807 and no later than 1811 (discovered in the archives in 1959). Parugaev is outraged by serfdom, reveals its pernicious influence on all aspects of Russian life and comes to the conclusion: the state, afflicted with the disease of slavery, not thinking about its speedy eradication, "is striving for its fall!" Popugaev urged Tsar Alexander I to "return freedom to the oppressed people" * .

IP Pnin knew Radishchev well, was personally acquainted with him, bowed before him. He began and continued to write his work "Experience on Enlightenment with Respect to Russia" while communicating with Radishchev. The influence of Radishchev's ideas on Pnin is undeniable. But the main thing in his ideology is liberal enlightenment.

Pnin against the decisive upheavals of society. He is for remaining indestructible in Russia estate system. But Pnin is against the complete lack of rights of the serfs, against their complete defenselessness before the master. Hiding behind the name of Turkey, allegedly speaking about Turkish pashas, ​​he painfully describes the fate of the Russian serf.

Just like Popugaev, Pnin sees serfdom as an evil that stands in the way of the development of Russia's economy and culture. But unlike Popugaev, Pnin does not make demands to destroy serfdom. He considers it sufficient for the well-being of Russia to streamline relations between landowners and peasants, to allow peasants to have movable property, to accurately and firmly determine their rights and obligations, and to eradicate the very possibility of "abuses of the power of landlords over their peasants." Pnin stood for enlightenment, class-based in nature, but accessible to all Russian people, so that people would not be kept "as if in the darkness of a dungeon."

In the works of the most prominent poets of the Free Society, questions were raised that had been pondered by progressive Russian literature throughout the century.

The image of Radishchev

An important merit of the poets of the "Free Society" was full of love the chanting of the first Russian revolutionary, the desire to convey to future generations a bright, sublime, great image of a writer-fighter and a noble thinker. In the work of Ivan Born "On the death of Radishchev" (September 1802) it is said that, being in exile, Radishchev "became a benefactor" for the inhabitants of the Irkutsk province. Upon learning of his return to the capital, "grateful people flocked to him at a distance of five hundred miles" * . Born explains the death of Radishchev by the incompatibility of the ideals and aspirations of the writer with real conditions Russian life.

* (I. M. Born. On the death of Radishchev. To [society] [lovers] and [gentle]. In the book: "Poets-radishchevtsy". Large series of the poet's library. M., "Soviet writer", 1935, pp. 244-245.)

In the same September 1802, Pnin wrote poems on the death of Radishchev. In them, he singled out such features of the writer-fighter: selfless struggle for the common good, civic courage, kindness of heart and greatness of mind. "The flame of the mind went out," the poet says with sorrow.

Members of the "Free Society" contributed to the publication of Radishchev's works (without "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow") in 1807-1809. On their initiative, in the journal Severny Vestnik in 1805, the chapter "Wedge" from Radishchev's "Journey" was reprinted under the heading that distracted the attention of censorship: "An excerpt from the papers of one Russian." Radishchev's cherished thoughts are reflected in the best writings of the writers of the Free Society. None of them rose to the heights of Radishchev's revolutionary consciousness, nevertheless, at the beginning of the century, no one, except for them, expressed indignation against slavery, the ignorance of the people, despotism with such sincerity and conviction. They differed from Radishchev in the idea of ​​the path to freedom and progress, but they sincerely shared his social aspirations and his ideals. This is true of such writers of the Free Society as the democratic intellectuals V. V. Popugaev and P. M. Born; I. P. Pnin and A. Vostokov adjoined them on many issues.

Hymn to man

The disciples and followers of Radishchev, the educators of the Free Society, developed and consolidated the humanistic principle of our literature. The image of a person for enlighteners is the embodiment of beauty, wisdom and overpowering energy and will. Their glorification of man is clearly directed against his humiliation by the conditions of a feudal society and religious dogmas. In the ode "Man" Pnin decisively shortened Derzhavin's formula: "I am a tsar, I am a slave, I am a worm, I am a god." He completely rejected the definitions of "slave" and "worm." 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, that in the sky is a god." God owns the creation of the universe and control over the observance of the laws of rotation of the planets, the change of seasons, so that the orderly order in the "system of the world" (ode "God") is inviolable. Man is the master of the earth, the lord of everything living and dead that is on earth, in its bowels and in the elements of the universe. He establishes a certain order public life, he is responsible for both happiness and evil in life. His will and mind transform the creation of God, adorn nature with marvelous divas of creative work, art and inspiration. Radishchev's brilliant ideas about the human creator, expressed in his philosophical treatise "On Man, His Mortality and Immortality", Pnin translates into the language of poetry and disputes Derzhavin's opinion that man could not become himself without the intervention of God. Pnin's man declares that he does not know about any higher beings "who would come down from heaven" and enlightened him. He achieved everything, reached everything "through his labor and experience."

From Pnin's humanistic conception of man, the idea of ​​the incompatibility of the concepts of man and slave flowed by itself.

Other poets-enlighteners of the "Free Society" did not write such detailed hymns to man. But the idea of ​​the greatness of man is very dear to all of them, and each of them said his word of admiration for the man-creator, the master of knowledge. For Popugaev, Born, Vostokov, a person is Socrates, Radishchev, Galileo, Newton, Voltaire, Locke, Lomonosov, Lavoisier, Kant, Franklin. Glorifying man, the educators of the "Free Society" raised the intellectual level of the emerging Russian poetry to a high level. Vostokov begged the merciless time not to doom the common fate of oblivion of "good valor and wise sweet speech." Parrots, in a letter to Born, calls not in words, as is typical of a "poor and miserable creature," but in deeds to love science, to understand the true greatness of Socrates and Franklin, to strive for truth along with Locke and Newton.

Sensitive to what was happening at the end of the 18th century in the science and technology of advanced Europe, instigated by the process of drawing Russia into the pan-European capitalist development, the enlighteners of the Free Society in their hymns to man devoted a lot of space to the idea of ​​the power of the human mind over space and time.

Vostokov loved those moments of spiritual insight when thought, embracing the universe, "rushes to distant worlds." Man has weighed and measured nature, his mind, like a ray, penetrates "through the abyss" and makes its way "to the beginnings of all things."

Earth above the atmosphere Rise up, king of the world, man! *

* (A. Vostokov. Poems. Large series of the poet's library. L., "Soviet writer", 1935, p. 82.)

These passionate words of Vostokov echo what Pnin thought in the ode "Man":

Oh, how majestic you are, When you leave the earth And soar in spirit into the clouds; Looking over the abyss of air, Peruns, despising the thunders, You command to obey the elements *

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

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

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

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

The first educators of the 19th century paved wonderful paths with their creative searches! Enormous prospects for Russian poetry were outlined in their imperfect, but sincere verses! His high humanism the poetry of the Free Society was a bitter reproach to modernity. From here begins the militant opposition of the Russian literature XIX century 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, lie and injustice, darkness and ignorance, are condemned, a hymn is sung in honor of active, energetic and courageous people, standing up for the "suffering fatherland" ("Ode to the Worthy" by Vostokov). In "Ode to Justice" Pnin sings of the equality of all before the law, the poet assures readers that where there is no omnipotent law, "everyone is unhappy - from the farmer to the king." In the name of happiness itself, Pnin conjures the tsar to limit the autocratic principle to the principle of the constitution. The era of bourgeois transformations in Europe was reflected in the Russian enlightener in the form of a purely bourgeois legal consciousness.

Unlike Pnin, Born in the "Ode of Kalistrat" ​​glorifies Harmodius and Aristogeiton, young friends, heroes of ancient Greece, who put an end to the tyrant Hipparchus. The idea of ​​tyranny, Born's lively response to the assassination of Paul I, firmly entered the minds of the noble Decembrist revolutionaries.

The idea of ​​social inequality and protest against the division of people into masters and slaves are expressed with particular force in Popugaev's essay "The Negro". In the allegorical form of the story about the fate of the Negro Amru, who was taken into slavery, the question was raised about the unnatural domination of one over the other. But Radishchev's pathos of exposing the cruelty and injustice of slavery in Popugaev is weakened by the belief that it will fall under the blow of justice. The inevitable punishment of justice will overtake the enslavers, he says through the mouth of his hero, "at the end of the age." As in his journalistic treatises, right up to the essay "On Slavery", so in this literary work, Popugaev hopes for the enlightened and good will of the new tsar, Alexander I. "At the end of the century" is a transparent indication of that.

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

A slave will not grovel before his master, Heavy chains will be destroyed, Evil will dissipate like smoke ("Appeal to Friendship") * .

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

In this blessed time, life "will reconcile the lamb with the wolf." With words that paint a utopian picture of universal prosperity, Popugaev did not intend to call for social peace, as is typical of sentimentalists. He is talking about the fact that in the future all the social forces of the present will acquire a new social nature. Then Croesus himself, if he collects "countless millions," then only in order to use them for the common good. The lamb and the wolf will be reconciled precisely because the wolf will no longer be a wolf, and the lamb will no longer be a lamb. In the poem "To Friends" Parrots touches on the most lively theme of our time - the theme of a tyrant. Like all the Enlighteners of the Free Society, he is full of hatred for tyranny and despots and shares the common confidence in the death of tyrants, no matter how powerful they are. But he also has his own special sincere thought. The history of Europe and Russia, in his opinion, proves that the fall of tyrants and despots is inevitable not because their rule is contrary to moral principles and a sense of justice. The fate of tyrants is predetermined, because sooner or later the anger of the indignant masses, raised by their evil deeds, falls upon them:

Demetrius, surrounded by guards, Nero in golden chambers Will fall from the enraged mob And perish from evil deeds.

However, along with this, Popugaev sometimes falls into the tone of Pnin, referring to strong of the world this so that they observe the laws and preserve the happiness of people. Then the great and virtuous Titus, Petra, Aurelius, whom the peoples "honored by the gods" ("Pygmalion"), stood before his eyes in an ideal light.

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

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

Under these conditions, the members of the "Free Society" raised and illuminated in their works a great antithesis that has not lost its deep meaning to this day: they opposed the hero of the bloody sword and destruction to the hero of reason, the hero-builder. They took up arms against age-old prejudices that inspired respect for those who earned their glory with the blood of hundreds and thousands of people.

Parrots passionately calls to earth the "genius of the world." In the poem "In the event of Angerstein's generous deed," he compares the two types of heroes and prefers the crown of victories, drunk not with the "blood of one's neighbors", but with "gratitude with a tear." For a sage, says the poem "To Friends", "the sword Attilus is terrible", the sage does not want triumphant glory if it is associated with "bloody laurels". Addressing the lords of the kingdoms, he says: "Do not exhaust your fellow citizens in order to surprise the universe." "Do not covet foreign lands" ("Pygmalion"), "Do not be arrogant in your dreams, magnificent and do not shed the blood of the subject" ("Genius on the ruins of the golden palace of Neronov").

Born, in his praise of Radishchev, contrasted the people's love for the thinker-fighter with the bloody glory of "the formidable scourges of mankind, these bloodthirsty conquerors."

Vostokov raises the question: to whom does true heroism belong and to whom should true glory be assigned - for the one who got it with the sword, or for the one who instructed the peoples on the path of truth, wisdom and goodness? The poet reproaches people for being unreasonable, that they marvel at the heroism of those who devastate villages and "strive to destroy cities with fire." Breaking the veil of prejudices that elevated Alexander the Great to the pedestal of glory, he refuses to see the difference between him and the barbarian Attila.

As can be seen from the poems: "Parnassus, or the mountain of grace", "Shishak", "To fantasy", - one of the most cherished thoughts of Vostokov was his thought about undisturbed peace on earth. Twenty years before Pushkin, he, along with Saint-Pierre, reveled in the dream of eternal peace between peoples. It was fun for him to create an idyll-joke, where undisturbed love reigned, where the sword and spear became a child's toy, weapons were all taken away and happy people could say:

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

* (A. Vostokov. Poems. Large series of the poet's library. L., "Soviet writer", 1935. p. 113.)

The idea of ​​the unity of the human race

The fundamental philosophical and humanistic foundations of the worldview of the poets of the "Free Society" determined the peculiar angle of view from which they perceived the life of all people on earth, the life of the entire human race. While the colonial ideology was developing and strengthening with might and main in the countries of capitalist civilization, when trade in live goods, yellow and black slaves was briskly on various world markets, Russian enlighteners, outraged by the slavery of their half-brothers, peasants, raised their voices of protest against the violation of human rights and human rights. the dignity of people, regardless of the color of their skin and the degree of development of their culture.

Man is the greatest creation of nature, and all mankind constitutes a single family of peoples. Turning to Justice as the highest justice on earth, Pnin begs, among many other important things, to do one more thing:

Gather together all the peoples, Children of one Nature, Under the shadow of your power *.

* (Ivan Pnin. Works. M.. Publishing House of the All-Union Society of Political Prisoners and Exiles-Settlers, 1934, p. 81.)

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

Gather, arrange, enlighten the Peoples ... ("To fantasy")

Parrot called national-racial prejudices "fetters" on the man of the modern world and passionately wanted to help people throw them off themselves. The greatness of the human soul, in his opinion, calls "to love, like brothers, all peoples ...".

Parrots glorified those

Who tame the groans of the poor Ready to fly across the oceans, Ready to enlighten brothers, Pouring gold into distant lands.

In this regard, his essay "The Negro" acquires a special meaning. In Soviet literary criticism, the allegorical meaning of this essay is revealed, and the position of the Negro Amru, who is being taken into slavery, having been torn away from his native land, his relatives and close people, is interpreted as a protest against the position of "white negroes", Russian serfs. This understanding of the essay is correct, but it is not enough. In addition to the allegorical, the work also has an undoubted direct meaning - a strong condemnation of white American planters for their barbaric, unworthy attitude towards blacks. The planter - "the most ferocious tiger" - is hated by the Russian enlightener as the worst enemy of the human race. The poet is entirely on the side of Amru and his people.

Thus, a certain tradition was created in advanced Russian literature, developing from Radishchev through the enlighteners of the "Free Society" to Pushkin, a tradition that in our time is called the feeling and ideology of internationalism, irreconcilable with the chauvinistic views of the colonialists, imperialists, "supermen" of the bourgeois world.

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

Creative searches of members of the "Free Society"

The high social, philosophical, humanistic ideas of the enlighteners did not receive an appropriate poetic embodiment.

The poetry of the "Free Society" is remarkable for its search for new forms, style, means of expression, new poetic tonality, poetic vocabulary and rhythm. Members of society sought to break out of the conventions and dead things of both sentimentalism and classicism. In most cases, their position can be assessed as a state of uninterrupted ideological and creative polemics with the epigones of classicism and sentimentalism, a polemic that concerns the main motives of creativity, themes, genres and language. If classicism (in this respect, sentimentalism did not lag behind it) made the ode the main form of expression of loyal feelings, and chose the so-called "soaring" as a means with cumbersome allegories, far-fetched similitudes and comparisons, with an abundance of Church Slavonicisms, an obligatory sign of "high calm", then the enlighteners turned the ode into a means of propagating the ideas of curbing autocratic power, glorifying civil pathos and free omnipotent human thought. Vostokov's "Ode to the Worthy", Pnin's "Ode to Justice", Popugaev's "Happiness" ode or Born's "Ode to Kalistrat" ​​have nothing in common, for example, with Derzhavin's ode "On the 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 accompanying the ode, and began to look for a firm and precise word to express the sick truth of civil ideas and the feelings of not a slave, not a loyal subject, but a thinking person who was aware of his human dignity. The ode to the servile hymnology of the "subject" has been replaced by an ode to the citizen, striving to raise his homeland to a new stage of social progress. Therefore, where both the classicist and the sentimentalist use the worn words of memorized praises of the monarch and inviolability the existing system, there the educator introduces into common use the great words that were recently banned - "citizen", "fatherland" ("Ode to the Worthy").

Like an ode to the classicists, so the message was a favorite among the sentimentalists 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, for the truth there is even no shackles, for the common good shed blood” (Popugaev, “To friends”). The tone of the message is combative, the rhythm is vigorous, the feeling is collected, the word is full of energy. The outlook of the sentimentalist is closed in the microscopic sphere of lost friendship and love; the educator sees the big world of human existence with contradictions, struggle and aspirations, in the name of which one can "shed blood". The sentimentalist has a narrow world of egocentrism. The Enlightener in his messages is a citizen of the world, a son of humanity. In a sentimentalist's language: sweet hour of death, messengers of the grave, providence, creator, murmuring, prayers. The Enlightener speaks in a different language: truth, striving for truth, tyrants' scepter, patriot, Locke, Newton, Franklin, Cato, fellow citizens, the good of society.

Enlighteners, busy with socio-philosophical problems, also touched upon the theme of nature. But if any of them had to turn to this poetic plot, he showed a much more sense of reality than his fellow writers from the classicists and sentimentalists. The best proof is Vostokov's poem "To Winter":

Come to us, mother winter, And bring frost with you!

This is how this work begins. Life-specific words and comparisons, metaphors and epithets make up the fabric of the poem: fluffy snow, drizzle, we won’t get cold, hare, winter, fearful, icy land, sharp frosts. It is said about the invisible work of inner spiritual forces: "How winter ripens under the snow." Unsustained in artistic terms, this poem, nevertheless, in its basic tone, speech, view of nature is truly poetic, folk. It showed a tendency towards the convergence of poetic creativity with the national-Russian reality.

The same Vostokov wrote wonderful lines in the poem "Autumn Morning":

Little by little the hills become clearer, The darkness disappears from the fields. Dormant village loops waking up To the morning labors calls. Thoughts, worries, sorrow and joy have now woken up in them: The doors have creaked, one can already hear the frequent Battle of threshing flails *.

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

Such verses cannot be found either in classicism or in the sentimentalism of that time. Here one can feel the movement of poetic creativity towards reality in its national, purely Russian essence. And in that sphere of poetic inspiration, in which, it seems, the palm of primacy should belong to sentimentalism - in describing the vicissitudes of love - the East in some of his poems far surpasses the dull singers. Here are the lines from Vostokov's poem "To the goddess of my soul":

Come, and with full lily hands Into sweet embraces, And tenderly to my beating heart Press girlish Persians, - Press, and let me taste life, I will envy the gods, In the bosom of your charms. From my fiery kisses, let it redden Elastic breasts whiteness * .

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

It is easy to see that the desire to express the feeling of love in plastic images, this desire of Vostokov, apparently, was not in vain for Batyushkov, a member of the Free Society, and then entered the flesh and blood of great Russian poetry, starting with Pushkin.

In all creative lines, the most gifted poet among the 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 subject matter, and in verse, and in language. In the depths of the poetic creativity of the Free Society, the socio-political terminology of the high civil poetry of Russia was developed, here they searched for ways for poetry to enter the expanses of Russian life, and immediately attempts were made to find in folk poetry and verse the basis for the success of poetic creativity.

The struggle of the educators of the "Free Society" for the development of the literary language

In addition to creating a sufficiently powerful and rich ideological arsenal, the most important problem of the literary and artistic development of Russian society in the 19th century was the struggle for the development of the literary language.

The members of the Free Society fought on two fronts: against Shishkov's reactionary course and against his critics, the Karamzinists. In this spirit, the "Journal of Russian Literature" with "Letter to the Publisher" N. P. Brusilova and "Northern Vestnik" with "Letter from the Unknown" spoke.

I. M. Born in his "Short Guide to Russian Literature" (1808), speaking out against the "fearful purification of the language" demanded by Shishkov, criticized Karamzinists for the spirit of servility and imitation of someone else's while inattention to one's own, native, "often someone else's superior." He condemned the style developed by the sentimentalists as unusual for the natural Russian language. "Why," Born asks, "is the meaningful brevity and noble simplicity of the Slavonic changed to sluggish and inflated verbosity?" *

* (I. M. Born. Quick Guide to Russian literature. St. Petersburg, 1808, p. 132.)

When the sentimental magazine "Patriot" by V. Izmailov reproached Ilyin, the author of the drama "Generosity, or Recruitment", that a writer "born with a good heart and noble feelings" should not engage in the "vile language" of stewards and clerks, " Severny Vestnik" answered: "The expression vile language is a remnant of the injustice of the time when they spoke and wrote vile people; but now, thanks to philanthropy and laws, vile people and vile language we don't have! but there, like all peoples, vile thoughts, vile deeds" * .

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

Such clashes, revealing the democratic basis of the ideology of the Enlighteners of the "Free Society", show the originality of their position in disputes over language and style. They saw before them not one, but two ideologically alien camps - the Shishkovites and the Karamzinists. Both of them sought to keep Russian literature closed in a narrow circle. Together with the spirit of citizenship and the struggle for progress, members of society introduced into poetry the spirit of folk motifs, forms and language. While the Severny Vestnik, on behalf of the Free Society, was having an ideological dispute with the Karamzinists, when the Journal of Russian Literature denounced them for neglecting the merits of their native language and polluting it with unnecessary foreign language, Vostokov worked on compiling a code of Russian folk songs , having in mind to give the writers a true source of national creativity, not distorted or disfigured by any alterations and adaptations to the taste of the foreignized noble public. The poets of the "Free Society" - and above all A. Kh. Vostokov - practically developed the tonic system of versification characteristic of folk poetry, assimilating the turns, poetic images and vocabulary of oral poetry, wrote in the spirit of epics great works, of which "Pevislad and Zora" by Vostokova is downright wonderful.

Vostokov proved in practice how fruitful the poet's appeal to oral folk art was. He enriched the poetic language with magnificent folk words and phrases: one alone; in a light dress he hurries to walk in the green garden; a tear has sunk into the water; like a nightingale in spring; not happy in broad daylight; nodding head; turned red from weeping; to kiss the tears of a girl from your cheeks; jump on a horse; looking over the field from the hill, striking the harp at the bells; meet; is found; stops and listens, takes a step and looks around; stately shoulder; the Dnieper turned blue; anger; pissed off and pissed off. Vostokov has a sad gusler

Wants to evoke swearing sounds - Sounds of feast-fun, To dispel a strong thought. No, in vain the rebellious murmur the strings; they publish one thing Only languid, depressing ... ("Pevislad and Zora")

Aesthetic principles of the enlighteners

The Enlighteners of the Free Society, growing up in the halt of the decline of classicism and sentimentalism, succumbing to the influence of the immediate poetic environment to one degree or another, nevertheless developed their own original concepts of the essence and purpose of literary and artistic creativity. They have many poems dedicated to the Plenirs and Aglays, sighs and gasps are not uncommon, they come across empty glorifications of the hut, secluded corners of nature, etc. But the brightest, most vital and progressive in their work is generated by the desire to tell contemporaries where to look for the path to the public good. The best of them, no matter what they write about, tend to turn to talk about inequality, injustice, oppression of the innocent, in order to express their favorite thought about a new life. Sometimes even frankly sentimental messages or descriptions of nature, insignificant idyllic pictures are suddenly, like lightning, cut through by a social idea. As for the best poetic achievements of the enlighteners, their pathos is all in the idea of ​​high citizenship, in the glorification of brightly colored social emotions. Precisely due to the fact that the main distinguishing quality of them consisted in preaching the ideas of courageous and vigorous activity for the benefit of the fatherland, for the happiness of fellow citizens, the educators of the "Free Society" came close to the most important aesthetic principle - the requirement from the work of a clearly expressed socially significant goal. "Every work, novelistic, historical, moral or philosophical, declare a goal"- this is how this requirement is formulated in the resolution of the "Free Society" *.

* (Vl. Orlov. Russian enlighteners 1790-1800. M, Goslitizdat, 1950, p. 210.)

At the same time, the first attempt in the history of our literature was made to place artistic creativity, as well as scientific creativity, under the ideological control of the collective. Each member of the "Free Society" had to report to his comrades at least once a month, presenting his work to the general court. In addition, a special "Committee of Censorship" was established, which determined the compliance of the submitted essays with the lofty goal of society. It assumed responsibility for the "good name of each member", seeing in this the right condition for protecting the "honor of the whole society." As a result, a "Committee of Censorship" and a categorical prohibition to print works "without the special permission of the Society" were needed. And it wasn't just words. A. Izmailov and N. Ostolopov were temporarily excluded from society only because, without his knowledge, "they sent their plays to Moscow, to Karamzin's Vestnik Evropy"*. How jealously the dignity and prestige of society was guarded is evidenced by the incident with the admission of Konstantin Batyushkov as a member. It was accepted as a Satire written by him in imitation of the French "Satire", but with a reservation, which was expressed by the censor of the East: "For a young author to enter the Society, it is necessary that he submit something from his works" **.

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

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

Led by democratically minded raznochintsy, the "Free Society" at the best time of its history made an attempt to organize the literary, artistic and scientific forces of advanced Russia on the basis of inviolable discipline, so important when the main writers came from a noble environment, known for Manilov's licentiousness and disorganization.

The lofty goal - serving the common good with one's pen - was realized in a peculiar aesthetic ideal of the enlighteners. This ideal is outlined in I. Born's speech and poems "On the Death of Radishchev", in Popugaev's odes in honor of Angerstein and Academician Lepekhin, in his poems "To Friends" and in such works by Vostokov as "History and Fable", "Ode to the Worthy" . The latter was accepted as a program-aesthetic product of the society. This ode opened the first collection of works by members of the society "The Scroll of Muses". Vostokov proclaims that the poet's muse must be truth. Poetry is freed from praise by the unworthy of this world, regardless of whether they walk in high ranks, whether they are children of wealth and nobility. She is also exempt from praise for those who imagine themselves a hero, but forget about their duty "to be fathers, to keep the law." Finally, it is not the business of poetry, guided by truth, to praise social inertia, which remains "in guilty inaction" when "the fatherland suffers." Vostokov expresses the idea, common to the most prominent educators, that it is not their business to sing Pindar's "heroes", generals and kings, as well as all those who shine with wealth, orders, dig up their ancestors in the archives, proud of the antiquity of the family, boast of titles, ranks, etc. The hero of true poetry should be the one who is able to stand up for the truth, for the common good, who is a real citizen, a "sufferer of the truth" with a beautiful soul and an all-conquering will.

Addressing his muse, Vostokov says:

But whoever sacrifices life, property, To save fellow citizens from disaster And deliver them a happy fate, Sing, holy one, your hymn to that!

Such a person, a true, and not an imaginary hero, "will make up the happiness of the people", he will be followed by "blessing of the late great-grandchildren", he will be the glory of centuries and golden word solemn ode:

And such and such a muse is divine, Oh, such is only a word of praise In an important tone, from ruby ​​lips, With a pure golden tongue! *

* (A. Vostokov. Ode to the worthy. "Scroll of the Muses", 1802, book. I, p. 5. In the publication of "Poems" in 1821, Vostokov redid the quoted last stanza of the ode and its second stanza, weakening them. In this weakened version, they are printed in our publications.)

The aesthetic ideal outlined by the poetry of the enlighteners of the "Free Society" passed into the civil poetry of the Decembrists. This explains the historical significance of the ideological and aesthetic platform of the enlighteners.

The main line of the literary development of the Free Society goes from Radishchev and Derzhavin to the Decembrists and Pushkin. However, this line was cut short at the end of the first decade of the 19th century. In 1807, the society actually ceased to exist. His works were forgotten for many years.

Sources and aids

The discovery and scientific study of the work of poets-enlighteners is a merit of Soviet literary criticism. The first scientific publication, widely presenting the heritage of the poets of the "Free Society", was published in 1935 under the title: "Poets-radishchevtsy. Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts". Ed. and comments by Vl. Orlov, introductory articles by V. A. Desnitsky and Vl. Orlov. M., "Soviet Writer", a large series of "Poet's Libraries". Here is the work of 24 poets of the "Free Society" and about each there is " curriculum vitae". 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" are 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 published a book for exiled settlers: Ivan Pnin. Works. M., 1934. Pnin's work was known throughout the 19th century, but the publication of his works in this form was carried out for the first time. Along with the poems, the book contains all of Pnin's prose, philosophical and journalistic works: "An Enlightenment Experience Regarding Russia", "The Cry of Innocence Rejected by the Laws", "The Writer and the 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 "Library of the Poet" in 1935, a book was published: Vostokov. Poems. Ed., entry. article and notes Vl. Orlov. L., "Soviet writer". This is the third edition of the poet's poems. The first two appeared during his lifetime, these are lyrical experiments and other small works in verse, parts I-II. St. Petersburg, 1805-1806 and Poems. In 3 books. SPb., 1821.

A collection of selected poems by Pnin, Popugaev, Born and Vostokov was published in the small series "Library of the Poet": "Poets-radishchevtsy". L., 1952. Entry. article, text preparation and notes Vl. Orlov. The Appendix contains poems on the death of Ivan Pnin, published in the publication: Ivan Pnin. Works. 1934. Historical and mythological dictionary explains the names and mythological images, so frequent in the works of the enlighteners of the "Free Society".

Scientific studies of the heritage of the poets of the "Free Society" appeared only in our time, first in the form of introductory articles to various editions of the poets-educators of the "Free Society", and then as separate chapters of textbooks, the academic "History of Russian Literature", university textbooks. Until now, the great work of V. Desnitsky "From the history of literary societies of the early 19th century" has not lost its significance, where there is a section "From the history of the "Free Society of Lovers of Sciences, Literature and Arts" (the latest edition in the book: V. Desnitsky. Selected articles in Russian literature XVIII-XIX centuries M. - L., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1958). Vl. Orlov. His final work, summarizing the results of the study of this problem, is "Russian Enlighteners of the 1790-1800s". M. - L., Goslitizdat, 1950 - awarded the State Prize (second ed. - M., 1953).

Literary societies and organizations in the first third of the 19th century

1. “FRIENDLY LITERARY SOCIETY”

Karamzinism did not quite coincide with the work of Karamzin himself. His innovation consisted of overcoming the old literary language, the old artistic techniques, the innovation of the Karamzinists consisted in the continuation, skillful use of tradition; they need old genres for parodies, old styles for their clash. In the depths of Karamzinism, criticism of Karamzin was born.

In 1801, young poets Andrei and Alexander I. Turgenev, A.S. Kaisarov, V.A. Zhukovsky, A.F. Merzlyakov, A.F. Voeikov, Rodzyanka, organized the “Friendly Literary Society”, which appeared as an act of protest against Karamzin and his school. Karamzin was accused not of being a bold innovator, but of the fact that his innovation turned Russian literature onto the wrong path of foreign borrowings.

The members of this society raised the question: “There is French, German, English literature, but is there Russian?” It was a question of romantic content, because it was the romantics who were primarily concerned about the issue of nationality. Their answer to their question was categorical and decisive: there is no Russian literature (“Can we use this word? This was blamed on Karamzin, who carried literature away with the problem of personality, leading away from the problem of nationality. The members of the "Friendly Literary Society" were going to direct Russian literature in a different way. the members of the "Friendly Literary Society" decided to promote their direction of Russian literature with the help of literary criticism, freeing up space for the future national genius. Critical articles by Andrei I. Turgenev, V.A. Zhukovsky and A.F. Merzlyakova is a rather interesting material for understanding the origins of Russian romanticism.

Of particular interest are the poetic works of members of the society, they show how close they were able to come to a new quality of literature.

According to Yu.M. Lotman, "Elegy" (1802) by Andrei I. Turgenev belongs to the most significant phenomena of Russian lyrics of the early 19th century. She determined the whole set of motifs of the Russian romantic elegy: an autumn landscape, a rural cemetery, the ringing of an evening bell, reflections on early death and the transience of earthly happiness.”

Turgenev for the first time showed “what expressive possibilities the comparison of the autumn extinction of nature with the extinction of man and human happiness contains,” says L.G. Frizman. In principle, the images of the elegy were not something absolutely unheard of for the poetry of those years, the poetic means for their expression were new.

The main discovery of Andrei Turgenev's "Elegy", which anticipated the discovery of V.A. Zhukovsky is that "the text of a poem can mean more than the simple sum of the meanings of all its constituent words."

This discovery fundamentally distinguished A.I. Turgenev from the Karamzinists with their demand for clarity, simplicity, “common sense”, it was thanks to the Karamzinists with their poetics of semantic shifts, their virtuosic art of observing and at the same time violating literary norms that Andrei Turgenev was able to make this discovery.

The text of the elegy was something more significant than the sum of the meanings of the words that make it up. Meanings are born “above” words.

Turgenev uses the poetics of the smallest semantic shifts, which was once proposed by Karamzinists, and as a result, the reader sees a complex, far from clear, difficult to understand text, and again comes to the tradition of a difficult odic text, which is fundamentally contrary to Karamzinism.

A. Turgenev's "Elegy" presents us with a clear picture of the fact that the early romantic trends appeared as a protest against the dominance of the Karamzinists, and in fact they continued the poetic discoveries of the Karamzinists.

2. “BULLETIN OF EUROPE”

Andrei Turgenev accused Karamzin of having a harmful effect on Russian literature, but did not take into account that romantic trends could also touch Karamzin himself and that he could develop, and even more than his critics. The journal Vestnik Evropy began to be published by Karamzin in 1802, which marked the beginning of a systematic coverage of Russian and Western European reality from the standpoint of emerging romanticism.

Vestnik Evropy was a new type of publication. The issue of the magazine consisted of three sections - literature, politics and criticism. The materials published in it were selected in such a way that a single semantic whole was obtained. The main objective of the journal was to present broad program formation of national-original literature. In the policy section, the central idea was the strengthening of statehood, autocracy, the comparison between Napoleon and Alexander I. In the criticism section, there were mainly articles about the position and role of literature in public life, about the reasons that slowed down its success, about what contributes to it. development along the path of national identity. Karamzin believed that writers have enormous opportunities to influence society: “Authors help fellow citizens to think and speak better” (“Why are there so few authors' talents in Russia?”). Now Karamzin says that literature “should have an influence on morals and happiness”, every writer is obliged to “help moral education of such a great and strong people as the Russian one; develop ideas, point out new beauties in life, nourish the soul with moral pleasures and merge it in sweet feelings with the good of other people” (“Letter to the publisher”). Patriotic education should be of primary importance in this moral education. Karamzin outlined his ideas of “romantic patriotism” in the article “On cases and characters in Russian history that can be the subject of art” (1802) - a kind of manifesto of the new Karamzin.

The Literature Department published works closest to the program of the magazine, for example, “Rural Cemetery” by V.A. Zhukovsky, to whom in 1808 Karamzin handed over the publication of Vestnik Evropy, and began writing the 12-volume History of the Russian State.

Vestnik Evropy was not the publication of one author, it was the center of communication between writers. It was the result of the synthesis of a new quality and the unification of the best literary forces of Russian literature. On the pages of the magazine, one could meet writers of almost opposite directions and schools that differed markedly from each other (G.R. Derzhavin, V.A. Zhukovsky, I.I. Dmitriev, V. Izmailov, and others).

Vestnik Evropy was the most popular magazine. But he wasn't the only one. Writers who had different views on this matter or the same ones that were published by Karamzin published their works in the Journal of Russian Literature (1805) by N.P. Brusilov, “Northern Herald” (1804-05) I.I. Martynov, “Northern Mercury” (1805) and “Flower Garden” (1809-1810) by A.E. Izmailov and A.P. Benitsky. Opposition to Vestnik Evropy was the magazine S.N. Glinka "Russian Messenger" (1808-1824). At this time, the magazine “Son of the Fatherland” by N.I. also gained great popularity. Grecha of a patriotic nature, published during the Patriotic War of 1812. Journals not only united authors, but also contributed to the aesthetic self-determination of the diverse attitudes and directions of the literary process.

3. “FREE SOCIETY OF LOVERS OF LITERATURE, SCIENCES AND ARTS”

By the 1810s, literary life in Russia gradually acquired a clearer outline, which was mainly facilitated by literary circles and societies, most of which appeared after the well-known “Friendly Literary Society”. Arising and disintegrating, “overflowing” into others, linking up with magazines, publishing their own, literary societies contributed to the process of crystallization of the poetic principles and aesthetic views of the awakening romanticism.

In 1801, the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts” appeared in St. Petersburg, bringing together everyone whose positions did not coincide with either the Karamzinists or the members of the Moscow “Friendly Literary Society”.

“Free society of lovers of literature, sciences and arts” brought together writers (G.P. Kamenev, I.M. Born, V.V. Popugaev, I.P. Pnin, A.Kh. Vostokov, D.I. Yazykov, A. .E. Izmailov), artists (A.I. Ivanov), sculptors (I.I. Terebenev, I.I. Galberg), historians, priests, doctors, archaeologists, officials. Society developed a special literary direction- called "Empire". Empire (from the French empire - empire) - a style in architecture and fine arts of Western European art of late classicism. The Empire style is characterized by a synthesis of solemn monumentality with the pomp and richness of interior decoration, decoration, imitation of the artistic models of Rome during the Empire. He expressed the idea national pride and independence (for example, the Arc de Triomphe in Paris). It is also believed that the definitions of “baroque” or “rococo” are more appropriate. The Baroque style (from the Italian barocco - whimsical) in architecture was embodied in the richness of the plastic decoration of facades and rooms, in the grand interiors with multi-color sculpture, modeling, carving, gilding, and picturesque shades; style expressed the idea of ​​\u200b\u200blimitless diversity and the eternal variability of the world. The Rococo style differed from the Baroque in great mannerism, whimsicality, grace, often pastoral and erotic motifs; the style expressed the idea of ​​a catastrophic state of the world and a disappearing order. And the feeling of national pride and independence, and the feeling of a decaying order in the world, and the feeling of the fragility and variability of the world were characteristic of the worldview of the members of the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts”.

They showed interest in the genres of classicism, ornamentation, stylization of late antiquity.

When D.N. Bludov, D.V. Dashkov, V.L. Pushkin's poets began to use the style of the Karamzinists. In society, the range of styles, trends and their shades, combined together, is too wide, and most importantly, there was an intensive process of crossing individual creative manners, therefore, the aesthetic principles of society are almost not amenable to systematization. But still, the society had an aesthetic basis, the term “neoclassicism” is most suitable for it. The characteristic features of neoclassicism include an interest in the literature of classicism, in antiquity, a preference for rigor and distinctness of style, somewhere imitative. Neoclassicism allowed the coexistence of multidirectional aesthetic systems of Karamzinist V.L. Pushkin, an opponent of the Karamzinists A.F. Merzlyakova, “classic” N.I. Gnedich and others - which happened in the "Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts".

Enlightenment ideas were expressed in periodicals published by the society and related to it - the almanac "The Scroll of the Muses" (1802 - 1803), journal. “Periodical publication of the society of lovers ...” (1804 - only one issue was published), journal. "Northern Messenger" (1804 - 1805), "The magazine grew up. literature” (1805), “St. Petersburg Bulletin” (1812) and others. devices and education.

The society lasted until 1807, after internal squabbles, the leadership passed to members who were moderate in their views, and it withered away, having lost its former significance.

4. “MOSCOW SOCIETY OF LOVERS OF RUSSIAN LITERATURE”

In 1811, the “Moscow Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” arose. There was no strict stylistic consistency in it. The members of the society were the authors of various directions: V.A. Zhukovsky and K.N. Batyushkov, A.F. Voeikov, F.N. Glinka, A.F. Merzlyakov.

The historical and literary significance of these “mixed” societies lies in their objective continuation of the polarization of literary movements, with one society originating in Karamzinism being formed mainly in Moscow, and a polar opposite literary movement in St. Petersburg. The existence of two capitals of the literary world became a special distinctive quality of Russian literature at the beginning of the 19th century; the poet's residence showed his ideological and aesthetic orientation (“Moscow admirers” and “Petersburg zealots”).

5. “CONVERSATION OF LOVERS OF THE RUSSIAN WORD”

The well-known literary society “Conversation of the Lovers of the Russian Word” was founded in 1811 by A.S. Shishkov, the author of Discourses on the Old and New Syllabus of the Russian Language (1803), in which he criticized Karamzin's theory of the new literary language and proposed his own. Shishkov criticized Karamzin for the unpatriotic direction of the language reform: “Instead of depicting our thoughts according to the rules and concepts adopted from ancient times, which have been growing and rooted in our minds for many centuries, we depict them according to the rules and concepts of a foreign people.” The opposition “classic-romantic” clearly does not fit Shishkov and Karamzin, if only because it is impossible to establish who is who: Shishkov, caring about the nationality of Russian literature, turns out to be more romantic than Karamzin. But Karamzin is not a classic either. This situation needs to be described in other terms.

The topic of discussion between the “Shishkovists” and the “Karamzinists” was the problem of the new style. Karamzin's proposal was to create a synthesis of the existing bilingualism (Russian and French) into one whole Europeanized Russian language - common for both written literature and oral communication. Shishkov suggested that this would lead to the loss of national identity in such a language. He suggested: firstly, not to average the language, but to maintain the distinction between the written language and the language of oral communication: “A learned language always requires some difference from the common language in order to acquire importance. He sometimes shortens, sometimes copulates, sometimes changes, sometimes chooses a word.<…>Where it is necessary to speak loudly and majestically, there he offers thousands of chosen words, rich in reason, abstruse and very special from those with which we explain ourselves in simple conversations”; secondly, the bookish language should be created not on the principle of lightness, pleasantness, smoothness, but on the principle of richness of vocabulary, depth of meaning, sonority national language; According to Lomonosov's theory, Shishkov proposes to synthesize a high style with its archaisms, a middle style with the linguistic features of a folk song, and partially “low vocabulary”, “in order to be able to place low thoughts and words in a high style, such as, for example: roar, ... drag hair, ... a remote head and the like, without humiliating the syllable with them and preserving all the importance of it. Shishkova was against the smoothness and aestheticism of Karamzinists, the salon elegance of album poems, but at the same time he was not against romantic trends. The convictions of both Karamzin and Shishkov are pre-romantic, and their polemics are based only on the paths of the formation of romanticism.

Yu.N. Tynyanov proposed the terms "archaists" and "innovators" to describe this situation. Archaists are Shishkov, his supporters, participants in the “Conversations ...”, and, moreover, he divided them into subgroups: senior archaists (G.R. Derzhavin, A.A. Shakhovskoy, A.S. Shishkov, I.A. Krylov , S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov) and younger, so-called “young archaists” (A.S. Griboedov, P.A. Katenin, V.K. Kyuchelbeker). The most radical were the Young Archaists, who accused the Karamzinists of the smoothness and pleasantness of the language in the French manner, and, most sharply, of disrespect for the people's faith and customs. And he called “innovators” not only Karamzinists, but all poets - members of the Arzamas literary society, organized in 1816.

6. "ARZAMAS"

The young Karamzinists had the idea of ​​creating their own literary society long before the appearance of Arzamas.

In 1816, a member of the society "Conversations ..." A.A. Shakhovskaya (by the way, it was he who previously ridiculed Karamzin in the comedy “New Stern”) in the image of the tearfully flirtatious poet Fialkin in his freshly published comedy “A Lesson for Coquettes, or Lipetsk Waters”, ridiculed Zhukovsky. The result of the "Lipetsk waters" was the "terrible war on Parnassus." V.L. Pushkin, D.V. Dashkov, D.N. Bludov, P.A. Vyazemsky and others. This kind of literary battle became the reason that the poets, who previously had not the most unambiguous relationships, became, in a way, like-minded people. D.N. Bludov wrote a satirical pamphlet “A Vision in a Fence, Published by a Society of Learned People”, where allegedly in the city of Arzamas the author of “Lipetsk Waters” spent the night in an inn and accidentally saw a meeting of unknown lovers of literature .. Based on this pamphlet, the idea arose to organize a society unknown lovers of literature, including V.A. Zhukovsky, K.N. Batyushkov, A.S. Pushkin and more. etc. All participants were given comic nicknames taken from Zhukovsky's ballads, namely: V.A. Zhukovsky -- Svetlana, A.I. Pleshcheev -- Black Raven, D.V. Dashkov -- Chu, A.I. Turgenev -- Aeolian harp, D.N. Bludov -- Cassandra, P.A. Vyazemsky -- Asmodeus, A.S. Pushkin - Cricket, N. Turgenev - Warwick, V.L. Pushkin - Here I am, D.P. Severin (diplomat) -- Frisky Cat, S.S. Uvarov - Old woman, S.P. Zhikharev - Thunderbolt, M. Orlov (future Decembrist) - Rhine, F. Vigel - Ivikov crane, D.I. Davydov -- Armenian, K.N. Batyushkov -- Achilles, A.F. Voeikov - Smoky stove, Nick. Ants - Adelstani etc. The nicknames of the Arzamas people continued the traditions of “nonsense” and “nonsense” of Karamzinism.

Meetings of Arzamas residents were held in Moscow, the meetings parodied the meetings of the “Conversations ...” (which imitated the meetings of the French Academy: mandatory speeches for admission to the society and had their own charter), began with the choice of a chairman who put on a red (Jacobin) cap and addressed the audience: “Citizens …”. The commendation of the chairman usually made fun of one of the archaists. Each new member of "Arzamas" went through a rite of passage (a parody of Masonic) and delivered a "eulogy" to his "deceased" predecessor from among the living members of the "Conversation". The protocols were written by Zhukovsky-Svetlana. At the end of the meeting, a roast goose was eaten - the emblem of "Arzamas".

“It was a society of young people, bound together by one living feeling of love for mother tongue and literature ... The persons who composed it were engaged in a strict analysis of literary works, the application to the language and literature of the domestic sources of ancient and foreign literature, the search for principles that serve as the basis for a solid, independent theory of language, etc. ” (S.S. Uvarov). “It was a school of mutual literary education, literary partnership” (P.A. Vyazemsky).

Such “Arzamas” was only until 1819 - before giving it a political direction and an attempt to create an Arzamas journal by new members of the society M.F. Orlov, Nick. Muravyov, N. Turgenev. All this only weakened “Arzamas”, which led to the organization in 1818-1819 of the Decembrist literary societies “Green Lamp” (A.S. Pushkin, A. Delvig, N.I. Gnedich, F.N. Glinka,) and “ Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” (V.K. Kuchelbeker, F.N. Glinka, A.A. Bestuzhev, O.M. Somov, K.F. Ryleev, D. Khvostov). The famous Moscow “Society of the Wise” (1823) had a different quality - D.V. Venevitinov, V.F. Odoevsky, S.P. Shevyrev, M.P. Pogodin, I.V. Kireevsky, which was closer to philosophical problems, but had its own reasoning about the task of literature.

History itself decided the outcome of the literary battle between "Conversations" and "Arzamas", Shishkovists and Karamzinists and, more broadly, archaists and innovators. But this battle introduced into Russian literature a complex synthesis of innovation and archaism.

CONCLUSION

Of the three paths represented by the names of Shishkov, Karamzin, and Pnin, literary development followed the path foreseen by Karamzin. The victory of the Karamzinists, however, did not completely destroy the influence of classicism, which colored the work of the so-called. "junior archaists" - Griboedov, Katenin, Kuchelbeker, Ryleev, etc. Ornate classicism was also quite strongly reflected in Pushkin's poetic activity (not to mention the adolescent "Memoirs in Tsarskoye Selo", see, for example, his later "Borodino Anniversary") . The high pathos of the classical ode found a characteristic imitator in the face of Tyutchev. A number of currents were so arr. to use the intensity of the pathos of classicism, the strict clarity of its compositional lines, the dryness of its language tools. But the use of the legacy of the XVIII century. never turned these writers into mere imitation. They could not and did not want to save orthodox classicism.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Lotman Yu.M. Poetry of the 1790-1810s // Poets of the 1790-1810s. - L., 1971

2. Bolotov A.T. T.1-3. - M.: "Terra", 1993

3. Turgenev A.I. Literary criticism of the 1800-1820s. - M., 1980., Ser. “Rus. lit. criticism".

4. Frizman L.G. Two centuries of Russian elegy. // Russian elegy of the 18th - early 20th centuries. - L.: Owls. writer, 1991., Ser. “B-ka poet. BS”

5. V.E. Vatsuro. Lyrics of Pushkin's time. "Elegiac School". - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1994.

6. Gasparov M.L. Essay on the history of Russian verse. - M., 1984.

7. Karamzin N.M. Works in two volumes. - T.2. - L., 1984

8. Batyushkov K.N. Poems. - M., 1948

9. Polyakov M.Ya. Questions of poetics and artistic semantics. 2nd ed. - M., 1986

10. Tynyanov Yu.N. Pushkin and his contemporaries. - M.: Nauka, 1969.

11. Shakhovskoy A.A. Comedy. Poems. - L., 1961

12. Gilelson M.I. From the Arzamas brotherhood to the Pushkin circle of writers. - L., 1974

13. Gilelson M.I. Young Pushkin and the Arzamas brotherhood. - L., 1974

14. Pushkin A.S. complete collection works in 10 volumes. Ed.4th. - T.VII. - L., 1978

· "Friendly Literary Society"

In 1801, the young poets Andrei and Alexander I. Turgenev, A.F. Voeikov, A.S. Kaisarov, Rodzyanka, V.A. Zhukovsky, A.F. Merzlyakov organized a “Friendly Literary Society”, which arose as an act of protest against Karamzin and his school. Shortly before the emergence of the society, a conversation took place between Andrei Turgenev, Zhukovsky and Merzlyakov; it was about the poverty of Russian literature and the blame fell on Karamzin.

In the diary of Andrei Turgenev, these accusations are stated as follows: “ Perhaps there will be more excellent writers in trifles, and ... Karamzin is to blame for this. He made an era in Russian literature ... But - let's be frank - he is more harmful than useful to our literature, and more harmful because he writes so well ... Let them write worse, but only write more original, more important, more courageous, and not so much study petty births” Thus, Karamzin was reproached not for being a daring innovator, but for the fact that his innovation turned Russian literature onto the wrong path of foreign borrowings.

Society members asked the question: “There is French, German, English literature, but is there Russian?” It was a question of romantic content, because it was the Romantics who were primarily interested in the problem of nationality. Their answer to their own question was categorical: there is no Russian literature (“Can we use this word? Members of the "Friendly Literary Society" intended to direct Russian literature in a different way: "Sometimes one person will appear and, so to speak, will carry away his contemporaries with him. We know this; we ourselves had Peter the Great, but such a person for Russian literature should now be the second Lomonosov, not Karamzin. Imbued with Russian originality, endowed with a creative gift, he must give a different turn to our literature; otherwise the tree will wither, covered with pleasant flowers, but without showing either broad leaves or juicy nutritious fruits ”

· Since 1802, Karamzin began to publish

magazine “Bulletin of Europe”

and thus laid the foundation for a systematic coverage of Russian and Western European reality from the standpoint of emerging romanticism.

The magazine was a new type of publication. The issue consisted of three sections - literature, criticism and politics; the published materials were selected in such a way that a single semantic whole was obtained. The general task of the journal is to present a broad program for the development of national-original literature. In the department of politics, the idea of ​​strengthening autocracy, statehood was carried out as a red thread, comparing Napoleon-Alexander I. The criticism department published articles about the place and role of literature in public life, about the reasons slowing down its success and the emergence of new authors, about what determines its development along the path of national identity. According to Karamzin, writers have enormous opportunities to influence society: “Authors help fellow citizens to think and speak better” (“Why is there so little authorial talent in Russia?”) Literature, Karamzin now claims, “should have an impact on morals and happiness,” every writer is obliged “to assist in the moral education of such a great and strong nation as the Russian one; develop ideas, point out new beauties in life, nourish the soul with moral pleasures and merge it in sweet feelings with the good of other people” (“Letter to the publisher”) In this moral education, the main role should belong to patriotic education. The stronger the love for the fatherland, the clearer the path of a citizen to his own happiness. The ideas of “romantic patriotism” are set forth by Karamzin in a kind of manifesto of the new Karamzin - the article “On cases and characters in Russian history that can be the subject of art” (1802)

In the department of literature, Karamzin published works that were closest to the program of the magazine, for example, “Rural Cemetery” by V.A. Russian").

Important quality Karamzin's "Bulletin of Europe" - it was not a publication of one author, but became a kind of center for communication between writers. The journal provided its pages to writers, if not of opposite trends and schools, then in any case, markedly different from each other. G.R.Derzhavin, I.I.Dmitriev, V.A.Zhukovsky, V.Izmailov and others collaborated in Vestnik Evropy. The journal united the best literary forces and synthesized a new quality of Russian literature.

Vestnik Evropy was the most famous, but not the only magazine. Writers of other views, or those who were published by Karamzin, published their works

· in the “Northern Herald” (1804-05) by I.I. Martynov,

· “Journal of Russian Literature” (1805) N.P. Brusilov,

· “Northern Mercury” (1805) and “Flower Garden” (1809-1810) by A.E. Izmailov and A.P. Benitsky;

· opposition to Vestnik Evropy was S.N. Glinka's journal Russkiy vestnik (1808-1824);

· the patriotic magazine “Son of the Fatherland” by N.I. Grech, which arose during the Patriotic War of 1812.

· “Free society of lovers of literature, sciences and arts”

In 1801, in St. Petersburg, as a counterbalance to another literary capital - Moscow - where the “Friendly Literary Society” appeared, the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts” was organized, which united those whose views did not coincide with either the Karamzinists or with their rivals from the Friendly Literary Society. “Free society of lovers of literature, sciences and arts” brought together writers (G.P. Kamenev, I.M. Born, V.V. Popugaev, I.P. Pnin, A.Kh. Vostokov, D.I. Yazykov, A .E.Izmailov), sculptors (I.I.Terebenev, I.I.Galberg), artists (A.I.Ivanov), priests, archaeologists, historians, physicians, officials. The society developed a special literary trend, which researchers proposed to call, for example, the term "Empire" (36). Empire (from the French empire - empire) is usually called the style of Western European art of late classicism, mainly in architecture and fine arts; The Empire style is characterized by a combination of solemn monumentality with pomp and richness of interior decoration, decoration, imitation of the artistic models of Rome during the Empire. The Empire style expressed the idea of ​​national pride and independence (for example, the Arc de Triomphe in Paris). Other researchers (37) believe that the terms "baroque" or "rococo" are more appropriate. The Baroque style (from the Italian barocco - whimsical) in architecture was embodied in the richness of the plastic decoration of facades and rooms, in ceremonial interiors with multi-color sculpture, modeling, carving, gilding, and picturesque shades; style expressed the idea of ​​\u200b\u200blimitless diversity and the eternal variability of the world. The Rococo style differed from the Baroque in great mannerism, whimsicality, grace, often pastoral and erotic motifs; the style expressed the idea of ​​a catastrophic state of the world and a disappearing order. The worldview of the participants in the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts” was characterized by a sense of national pride and independence, and a sense of the fragility and variability of the world, and a sense of a disintegrating order in the world - this contradictory mixture of ideas, difficult to unambiguously define, gave rise to a fairly recognizable literary style.

The creativity of the members of the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts” is characterized by an interest in the genres of classicism, stylization of late antiquity, and ornamentality. Poets use the genres of odes, epitaphs, inscriptions, miniatures, Horatian motifs of Epicurean pleasures in a mortal unstable world:

· “Moscow Society of Lovers of Russian Literature”

There was no strict stylistic consistency in the “Moscow Society of Lovers of Russian Literature”, which arose in 1811 (partly by analogy with the St. Petersburg “Free Society ...”). The authors participated different directions: V.A. Zhukovsky and K.N. Batyushkov, A.F. Voeikov, A.F. Merzlyakov, F.N. Glinka. The historical and literary significance of such (“mixed”) societies lies in the fact that they objectively continued the polarization of literary movements, with one society originating in Karamzinism being formed mainly in Moscow, and a polar opposite literary movement in St. Petersburg. The existence of two capitals of the literary world became a feature of Russian literature at the beginning of the 19th century, the poet's residence became a signal of his ideological and aesthetic orientation (“Moscow admirers” and “Petersburg zealots”).

· “Conversation of lovers of the Russian word”

The organizer and head of the famous literary society “Conversation of the Lovers of the Russian Word” (1811-1816) was A.S. Shishkov, the author of “Discourses on the Old and New Syllabus of the Russian Language” (1803), in which he criticized Karamzin’s theory of the new literary language and proposed my.

Shishkov criticized Karamzin not for the departure from classicism and movement towards romanticism, but for the wrong - unpatriotic - direction of the language reform: foreign people." The antithesis of “classic-romantic” in relation to Shishkov and Karamzin is clearly not suitable, if only because it is impossible to establish who is who: Shishkov, caring about the nationality of Russian literature, turns out to be more romantic than Karamzin. But Karamzin is not a classic either. The situation must be described in other terms.

The dispute between the “Shishkovists” and the “Karamzinists” was about the problem of a new style. Karamzin proposed to synthesize the existing bilingualism (Russian and French) into a single Europeanized Russian language, a pleasant and average language - common for written literature and for oral communication. Shishkov expressed concern about the loss of national identity in such a language and suggested the following. First, do not average the language, keep the distinction between bookish and colloquial: “In order to gain importance, a learned language always requires some difference from the common language. He sometimes shortens, sometimes copulates, sometimes changes, sometimes chooses a word.<…>Where it is necessary to speak loudly and majestically, there he offers thousands of chosen words, rich in reason, abstruse and very special from those with which we explain ourselves in simple conversations. the principle of richness of vocabulary, depth, sonority of the national language; Shishkov proposes to synthesize a high (according to Lomonosov's theory) style with its archaisms, a middle style with linguistic features of a folk song and partially “low vocabulary”, “in order to be able to place low thoughts and words in a high style, such as, for example: roar, ... drag for the hair, ... a daring head and the like, without humiliating the syllable with them and preserving all the importance of it” (40).

Thus, Shishkov's thought was directed against the smoothness and aestheticism of the Karamzinists, the salon elegance of album poems, and not against romantic trends. Both Karamzin and Shishkov take pre-romantic positions and argue only about the paths of the formation of romanticism.

This situation was most successfully described by Yu.N. Tynyanov, who proposed the terms “archaists” and “innovators”. Archaists are Shishkov, his supporters, participants in the “Conversation ...”, and there are older archaists (A.S. Shishkov, G.R. Derzhavin, I.A. Krylov, A.A. Shakhovskoy, S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov ) and younger, “young archaists” (P.A.Katenin, A.S.Griboyedov, V.K.Kyukhelbeker). The latter were distinguished even by greater radicalism; they attacked Karamzinists not only for the smoothness and pleasantness of the language in the French manner, but for disrespect for the people's faith and customs. So the well-known polemic between Katenin and Zhukovsky about the ballad genre developed as a folk faith and superstition. “Innovators” are not only Karamzinists, but those poets who were close and became a member of the literary society “Arzamas”, organized in 1816 in defiance of “Conversation ...”.

· "Arzamas"

The idea to organize their own literary society arose among the young supporters of Karamzin long before the appearance of Arzamas. In 1815, P.A. Vyazemsky, in a letter to A.I. Turgenev, said: “Why can fools be together? Look at the members of the “Conversations”: how horses are always in the same stable ... To be honest, I’m envious looking at them ... When will we live like brothers: soul to soul and hand to hand? The reason soon appeared.

The Society of Unknown Lovers of Literature, including V.A. Zhukovsky, K.N. Batyushkov, A.S. Pushkin and many others. etc. All participants were given comic nicknames taken from Zhukovsky's ballads, namely: V.A. Zhukovsky - Svetlana, P.A. Vyazemsky - Asmodeus, D.V. Dashkov - Chu, A.I. Turgenev - Eolian harp, N. Bludov - Cassandra, A. S. Pushkin - Cricket, V. L. Pushkin - Here I am, F. Vigel - Ivikov crane, D. P. Severin (diplomat) - Frisky Cat, S. S. Uvarov - Old woman, S.P. Zhikharev - Thunderbolt, M. Orlov (future Decembrist) - Rein, D.I. Davydov - Armenian, K.N. Batyushkov - Achilles, A.I. Pleshcheev - Black Crow, A.F. Voeikov - Smoky stove, Nick. Ants - Adelstan, N. Turgenev - Warwick, etc. The nicknames of the Arzamas people continued the traditions of “nonsense” and “nonsense” of Karamzinism.

“It was a society of young people, interconnected by one living feeling of love for their native language and literature ... The persons who made it up were engaged in a strict analysis of literary works, applying the sources of ancient and foreign literature to the language and literature of the domestic, searching for principles that serve as the basis of a solid, independent theory of language, etc.” (S.S. Uvarov). “It was a school of mutual literary education, literary partnership” (P.A. Vyazemsky).

“Arzamas” existed in this form until 1819, when the new members of the society M.F. Orlov, N. Turgenev, Nick. Ants tried to give it a political direction, to organize an Arzamas magazine. These trends led to the extinction of “Arzamas” and the emergence in 1818-1819 of the Decembrist literary societies “Green Lamp” (A.S. Pushkin, F.N. Glinka, A. Delvig, N.I. Russian literature” (D.Khvostov, F.N.Glinka, A.A.Bestuzhev, K.F.Ryleev, V.K.Kyukhelbeker, O.M.Somov) - but these are phenomena of a different order (literary branches of political societies) .

3. The connection of Russian art and Russian literature with the main socio-political events of the 19th century

The best Russian writers consciously embarked on the path of serving society, seeing in this the highest purpose of art. “In our mental movement,” N.G. Chernyshevsky said about Russian literature, “it plays a more significant role than French, German, English in the mental movement of their peoples, and it has more duties than any other other literature... A poet and a novelist are indispensable in our country by anyone...” The writers themselves were aware of this. Hence the deep sense of responsibility before the people, before Russia, which was characteristic of them: it was in our country that the type of writer was formed - a citizen, a fighter, a man of adamant, often hard-won convictions, high moral principles.

Reflecting on the role of literature in the destinies of mankind, M. Gorky argued that not a single literature of the West arose with such force and speed, in such a powerful, dazzling brilliance of talent, as Russian literature, no one in Europe created such large books recognized by the whole world , no one created such marvelous beauties under such indescribably difficult conditions as Russian writers.

A.P. Chekhov also clearly expressed the idea of ​​the lofty purpose of art, of the responsibility of the writer. For him, a true writer is an obligated person, contracted by the consciousness of his duty and conscience. When Russian literature received worldwide recognition, foreign readers were acutely aware of its originality and unsurpassed power. She conquered them with her bold intrusion into life, intense search for truth, its heroes, full of lofty goals, always dissatisfied with themselves. What struck me sense of responsibility for the future of their country and humanity, which never for a moment left either Andrei Bolkonsky, or Pierre, or Raskolnikov, or Prince Myshkin. Russian writers made high demands on a person, they did not agree that people put their interests and selfishness in the foreground.

Advanced Russian literature has always lived by the most important, burning problems of the age. Sick questions, damned questions, great questions - this is how those social, philosophical, moral problems that were raised by the best writers of the past were characterized for decades.

From Radishchev to Chekhov, Russian writers of the 19th century frankly spoke about the arbitrariness and impunity of some and the lack of rights of others, about social inequality, about the material and spiritual enslavement of man. Remember such works as “Dead Souls” by N.V. Gogol, "Crime and Punishment" F, M. Dostoevsky, "Tales" by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, “Who should live well in Russia” by N.A. Nekrasov, “Resurrection” by L.N. Tolstoy. The authors approached the solution of the most acute problems of our time from the standpoint of genuine humanism, from the standpoint of the interests of the people.

The fate of Russian writers was sometimes so tragic that the biographies of foreign writers look like a fairy tale of well-being against their background. Died in a duel A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov, A.S. Griboyedov died in terrible circumstances, Gogol died of hopelessness, K.F. civil execution (which commuted the death sentence) and exiled to hard labor

F.M. Dostoevsky, planted in the Peter and Paul Fortress by N.G. Chernyshevsky, excommunicated by L.N. Tolstoy. V.G. were subjected to constant persecution throughout their lives. Belinsky, N.A. Nekrasov and M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, D.I. Pisarev and N.A. Dobrolyubov. For many reasons, including political ones, I.S. Turgenev lived in France. At the end of the 19th century, in the case of the Narodnaya Volya, V.G. was sentenced to hard labor. Korolenko.

Most of the works of various genres went through such strict censorship, social and religious, that many books appeared either with a scandal, as was the case with "A Hero of Our Time", "The Government Inspector", "Dead Souls", "What Is To Be Done?", or were printed in a truncated form, or even saw the light decades later, as the play "Woe from Wit" by A.S. Griboyedov.

No matter what aspects of life the writers touched, from the pages of their creations it was always heard: who is to blame? what to do? These questions were raised in "Eugene Onegin" and in "A Hero of Our Time", in "Oblomov" and "Thunderstorm", in "Crime and Punishment", in Chekhov's stories and dramaturgy.

Revealing the role of the environment and historical conditions in the formation of a person, writers at the same time tried to understand whether a person can withstand the influence of the circumstances of life surrounding him. Is he free to choose? life path Or are circumstances to blame? Ultimately, is a person responsible for what happens in the world around him, or not? All these questions are extremely complex, and writers painfully searched for answers to them. Everyone remembers the words of Bazarov: “Every person must educate himself ... And as for time, why will I depend on it? Let it better depend on me.” However, not everyone agreed with Turgenev's hero, and therefore the question of "relationships with life and over time always took on a polemical character."

"Who is guilty? What to do?" - these questions excited the consciousness and prompted Russian and foreign readers to take active action. The writers themselves could find different solutions, sometimes even erroneous, but the search for these solutions spoke of their deep interest in the fate of the country and all of humanity.

The idea of ​​the welfare of the people constantly sounded in the works of Russian classics. From this point of view, they looked at everything around them, at the past and the future. The depiction of life phenomena, especially significant for the people, and their assessment from the point of view of their interests gave rise to that property of literature, which is called nationality. The writers themselves felt that they were flesh of the flesh of the people, and this gave their work a distinctly democratic orientation. “And my incorruptible voice was the echo of the Russian people,” said the young Pushkin. Lermontov's voice sounded "like a bell on a veche tower during the days of celebrations and troubles of the people." And Nekrasov, as if summing up his creative activity, said in his declining years: "I dedicated the lyre to my people."

The nationality of Russian classical literature is inextricably linked with its other characteristic feature - patriotism. Anxiety for the fate of their native country, the pain caused by the troubles that it was undergoing, the desire to look into the future and faith in it - all this was inherent in great writers, with all the difference in their ideological positions, their creative talents.

For leading Russian writers, love for the motherland is, above all, love for people's Russia, to those spiritual values ​​that the people created. Literature has long been inspired by oral folk art. Remember the tales of Pushkin and Shchedrin, "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka" by Gogol, "Who Lives Well in Russia" by Nekrasov. At the same time, true patriots have always hated the stranglers of advanced thought, the executioners of Freedom, Genius and Glory. With what crushing power Lermontov expressed these feelings in his poems "Farewell, unwashed Russia ..." and "Motherland"! How ironically and evilly Tolstoy speaks of anti-people Russia in War and Peace, and what love for the people is imbued with the pages of this epic dedicated to him! The best Russian writers considered it their highest patriotic duty to fight for the reorganization of life, for the good of the people, for human dignity.

All these ideological aspirations inevitably pushed Russian writers onto the path comprehensive knowledge of life . It was necessary to understand the inner meaning of what was happening, to understand the reasons for the complex and contradictory processes taking place in the world of social relations and in the human psyche. And of course, the more fully life was revealed to writers in the process of cognition, the more acutely they felt the need to reorganize it.

The urgent need to know life determined the main direction in the development of Russian literature of the 19th century - direction critical realism. The desire for truth determined the nature of Russian realism - its fearlessness in revealing the most complex phenomena of life, uncompromising in exposing social evil, insight in finding out its causes.

Various aspects of reality fell into the sphere of attention of realist writers (as Chernyshevsky said, everything of general interest in life): from the events of the historical life of peoples and states (“Poltava”, “War and Peace”) to the fate of a little man (“Overcoat”, “Poor people"); from processes of world-historical significance ("Patriotic War of 1812") to the most intimate emotional experiences. And everything was subjected to analysis, everything was the subject of intense reflection. It was not for nothing that Gorky noted that the whole vast world lay in the field of vision of the old writers, the world that they at all costs wanted to free from evil.

Closely connected with reality, the literature of critical realism captured all the changes that took place in the life of Russia, in human psychology. Changed over time appearance of the central character . The seal of what time lies on Chatsky, Onegin, Pechorin; it is obvious that for all their differences, Bazarov, Rakhmetov, Raskolnikov belong to approximately the same era; Turgenev historically accurately captured in his novels the type of Russian progressive figure at different stages of social development.

Moving from decade to decade, the themes that ran through all of Russian literature of the 19th century acquired new facets, new shades. So, in the era of the 20-30s, Pushkin spoke about the role of the people in history, about the love of freedom of the people (“the people are always secretly inclined to confusion”). On the verge of the 1940s and 1950s, Turgenev, in his Notes of a Hunter, came out with a passionate defense of the enslaved people, showed their moral superiority over the soul-owners.

In the conditions of the growing people's liberation movement of the 50-60s, the writers of revolutionary democracy (Nekrasov, Shchedrin) sought to show not only the strength of the people, but also their weakness. They set themselves the task of helping the people overcome the inertia and passivity engendered by centuries of slavery, and raise the people to the awareness of their fundamental interests. Nekrasov is indignant at the servile consciousness of a man from the people, Shchedrin's bitter laughter over a peasant who has twisted a rope for himself ("How one peasant fed two generals").

Based on the artistic achievements of Pushkin, Nekrasov and Tolstoy showed that the decisive force in the fate of the country is the people. Both "War and Peace" and "Who Lives Well in Russia" were born precisely from this view of the role of the masses in history.

One of the cross-cutting themes of Russian literature of the 19th century is, as you know, little man theme. A bold innovation in the literature of critical realism was the appearance among the heroes of Pushkin and Gogol of an unremarkable person, as if snatched from life itself - Samson Vyrin ("The Stationmaster"), and Akaky Akakievich ("The Overcoat"). Sympathy for this defenseless person who does not belong to the privileged classes is one of the clearest expressions of the humanism of the best writers of the past, their uncompromising attitude towards social injustice.

However, in the second half of the century, a small man, devoid of self-esteem, meekly bearing the burden of social adversity, a man humiliated and insulted (Dostoevsky) evokes in progressive writers not only compassion, but also condemnation ( A.P. Chekhov "Death of an official, Fat and thin"). For writers, the loss of a person's self-esteem was tantamount to moral death. Not only Chekhov, but also Ostrovsky and Dostoevsky were convinced that a person should not put up with the position of a worn rag.

The social shifts that took place in the second half of the 19th century gave rise to the need to cover Russia in artistic thought in its movement from the past to the present and future. From here the emergence of the broadest historical generalizations, deep historical concepts. Without this, neither "The Past and Thoughts", nor the poem "Who Lives Well in Russia", nor the novel "What Is to Be Done?", nor "War and Peace" could have been created. But the authors of these works owe much to the experience of their predecessors, such works as The Bronze Horseman and Dead Souls, which are full of reflections on the fate of Russia.

Whatever the Russian writers say, they always claimed

· faith in possibility of fair social relations,

· in the feasibility of their high public ideals which they sought to make available to readers.

· According to Nekrasov, literature should not deviate a single step from its goal - to elevate society to its ideal - the ideal of goodness, light, truth.

And such an angry writer as Saltykov-Shchedrin, crushing with his indignant laughter, it seems that everything he touched, called for assertion of a positive ideal.

Hence such a craving of Russian writers for image the best people of his time , such as Chatsky, Tatyana Larina, Insarov, Rakhmetov. The very concept of beauty in art, beauty in art, merged among Russian writers with the idea of ​​goodness, truth, justice, to the struggle for the triumph of which they called their creativity.