Literary societies and circles that arose in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. 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, the skillful use of tradition; they need old genres for parodies, former styles for their collision. 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 defined the whole set of motifs of the Russian romantic elegy: 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; poetic means for their expression.

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

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

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

Turgenev uses the poetics of the smallest semantic shifts, which was once proposed by 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.

· "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. General task magazine - a presentation of 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 on 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 that 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 at least markedly different from each other. G.R.Derzhavin, I.I.Dmitriev, V.A.Zhukovsky, V.Izmailov and others collaborated in Vestnik Evropy. The journal united the best literary forces and synthesized a new quality of Russian literature.

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

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

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

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

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

· the patriotic magazine “Son of the Fatherland” by N.I. Buckwheat that arose during Patriotic War 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” united writers (G.P. Kamenev, I.M. Born, V.V. Popugaev, I.P. Pnin, A.Kh. Vostokov, D.I. Yazykov, A .E.Izmailov), sculptors (I.I.Terebenev, I.I.Galberg), artists (A.I.Ivanov), priests, archaeologists, historians, physicians, officials. The society developed a special literary trend, which researchers proposed to call, for example, the term "Empire" (36). Empire (from the French empire - empire) is usually called the style of Western European art of late classicism, mainly in architecture and fine arts; The Empire style is characterized by a combination of solemn monumentality with pomp and richness of interior decoration, decoration, imitation of the artistic models of Rome during the Empire. Empire expressed the idea 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 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. 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 lovers of Russian literature”

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

· “Conversation of lovers of the Russian word”

The organizer and head of the famous literary society "Conversation of the Lovers of the Russian Word" (1811-1816) was A.S. Shishkov, the author of "Discourses on the old and new syllable of the Russian language" (1803), in which he criticized Karamzin's theory of the new literary language and proposed my.

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

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

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

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

· "Arzamas"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflecting on the role of literature in the destinies of mankind, M. Gorky argued that not a single 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, world-recognized books. , no one created such marvelous beauties under such indescribably difficult conditions as Russian writers.

A.P. Chekhov also clearly expressed the idea of ​​the high purpose of art, of the responsibility of the writer. For him, a true writer is an obligated person, contracted by the consciousness of his duty and conscience. When Russian literature received world recognition, foreign readers acutely felt 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 century. Painful questions, damned questions, great questions - this is how the social, philosophical, moral problems that were raised by the best writers of the past have been characterized for decades.

Beginning with Radishchev and ending with Chekhov, Russian writers of the 19th century 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. Recall such works as " Dead Souls» N.V. Gogol, "Crime and Punishment" F, M. Dostoevsky, "Tales" by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, “Who should live well in Russia” by N.A. Nekrasov, “Resurrection” by L.N. Tolstoy. The authors approached the solution of the most acute problems of our time from the standpoint of genuine humanism, from the standpoint of the interests of the people.

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

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

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

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

Revealing the role of the environment and historical conditions in the formation of a person, the writers at the same time tried to understand whether a person can withstand the influence of the life circumstances surrounding him. Is he free to choose? 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 the results of his creative activity, said in his declining years: "I dedicated the lyre to my people."

Russian nationality 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, for those spiritual values ​​that the people created. Literature has long been inspired by oral folk art. Remember the tales of Pushkin and Shchedrin, Gogol's Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka, Nekrasov's Who Should Live Well in Russia. However, true patriots always hated the stranglers of advanced thought, the executioners of Freedom, Genius and Glory. With what crushing force 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 XIX century - direction of critical realism. The desire for truth determined the character of Russian realism - its fearlessness in revealing the most complex phenomena of life, uncompromisingness in exposing social evil, insight in clarifying 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 man, as if snatched from life itself - Samson Vyrin (“ Stationmaster”), and Akaky Akakievich (“Overcoat”). Sympathy for this defenseless person, who does not belong to the privileged classes, is one of the clearest expressions of humanism. best writers past, their implacable attitude to social injustice.

However, in the second half of the century small man, devoid of self-esteem, meekly bearing the burden of social adversity, a humiliated and insulted person (Dostoevsky) evokes in leading 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 embrace artistic thought Russia in its movement from the past to the present and future. From here the emergence of the broadest historical generalizations, deep historical concepts. Without this, neither "The Past and Thoughts", nor the poem "Who Lives Well in Russia", nor the novel "What Is to Be Done?", nor "War and Peace" could have been created. But the authors of these works owe much to the experience of their predecessors, such works as The Bronze Horseman and Dead Souls, which are full of reflections on the fate of Russia.

Whatever the Russian writers say, they always claimed

· faith in possibility of fair social relations,

· in the feasibility of their lofty social ideals which they sought to make available to readers.

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

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

Hence such a craving of Russian writers for 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.

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

Already in the 1800s. total number of such publications reaches 60 and in the next decade has been steadily increasing. But by the early 1820s. is sharply reduced, which is explained by the clearly marked correction in the government's course, the onset of reaction, and the persecution of enlightenment.

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

Almanacs and printed editions

played an important social role in early XIX in. periodicals in which they found their continuation best traditions advanced Russian journalism of the XVIII century. (“Northern Messenger” (1804-1805) by I. I. Martynov and “Journal of Russian Literature” (1805) by N. P. Brusilov). The St. Petersburg publications (Northern Mercury (1805), Flower Garden (1809-1810) by A. E. Izmailov and A. P. Benittsky and others) were especially distinguished by their combative, offensive character, to which the journal championship is gradually passing.

If in the era of the 1800s - mid-1810s. Moscow magazines (Vestnik Evropy, 1802-1830) are the most popular, then in the late 1810s - the first half of the 1820s. progressive publications published in St. Petersburg (“Son of the Fatherland”, “Competitor of Enlightenment and Charity”, etc.) acquire special weight. In the 1820s advanced literary frontiers firmly won almanacs.

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

With a broad program of education and national-cultural transformation of the country came out at the very beginning of the new century "Bulletin of Europe", whose publisher in 1802-1803. was N. M. Karamzin. It was during these years that the magazine was formed as a periodical of a new type, combining the seriousness and variety of the published material (its pages covered modern political news, both Russian and foreign, printed and analyzed the most interesting works domestic literature) with liveliness and accessibility of his presentation. Karamzin (as later Zhukovsky, who edited Vestnik Evropy in 1808-1810) saw the main task of his publication in familiarizing broad sections of Russian society with the achievements European culture. According to Karamzin, the magazine was supposed to contribute to the further rapprochement between Russia and Europe, to be a "herald" of all the most outstanding things in life. European countries, to keep the Russian reader up to date with international political events and to educate his national self-awareness.

The spokesman for other tendencies, in many respects opposed to Europeanism and the breadth of the Karamzin journal, was the journal published since 1808. "Russian Messenger" S. N. Glinka, who defended the patriarchal foundations of national existence and fiercely fought against the French mania of the Russian nobility. While gravitating towards official patriotism, S. N. Glinka’s journal played, however, an important role in the era of anti-Napoleonic campaigns and especially in the Patriotic War of 1812. S. N. Glinka sought to draw the attention of the Russian public to national history, origins domestic art, zealously protecting everything truly “Russian” from the intrusion of a foreign, as he considered, an element alien to everything Russian. In the implementation of this narrowly understood principle, Glinka reached anecdotal predilections (for example, he did not accept poems in which mythological names appeared in his journal), which ultimately deprived his journal of serious artistic support. Having found itself in a purely protective position, after 1816 the Russkiy Vestnik completely lost any significance and was liquidated by the publisher himself in 1824.

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

It must be emphasized that despite the well-known diversity of content and not always sufficient clarity of their initial positions, journals and almanacs of the first quarter of the 19th century. concentrated around certain literary and social groupings. Becoming the arena of a sharp ideological struggle, they turn into original centers of circles, societies, and literary associations operating in these years. The connection of journals with literary organizations is indicated in the Essays on the History of Russian Journalism and Criticism, emphasizes their social orientation, helps to more accurately determine specific features each of them and outline the stratification within the contending directions.

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

Literary societies

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

Such were the "psychological motives" for the association of young authors in special circles and societies, which became the most characteristic form of organization of literary life for that time. They contributed to the aesthetic self-determination of various trends and directions in the literary process and their clearer differentiation.

Literary societies and circles that arose at the beginning of the 19th century make it possible to see deep, internal processes that often do not come to the surface of literary life, but nevertheless are 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 the craving of the younger generation for socially useful 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. These meetings were based on close friendly unity and a 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 literary activity. However, in their face, a new generation of writers declared itself, not satisfied with general direction contemporary literary development and who were looking for new forms of introducing literary work to the urgent needs of Russian reality at the beginning of the 19th century. The social situation that developed during these years required a more decisive 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 of forming the Decembrist ideology in Russia.6 Others remain faithful to the principles of Karamzinism (such 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. The meetings of the society are characterized by an informal, relaxed tone and an atmosphere of heated debate, anticipating the organizational forms of "Arzamas", the main core of which was 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 branches of 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; 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 the 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 determine " special person» "Free society of lovers of literature, sciences and arts" in the 1800s. In contrast to the "Friendly Literary Society", its members seek 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, though only its only issue), actively collaborated in other time-based publications of the early 19th century.
The intensive activity of the society attracted the progressive forces of the artistic and literary world of St. 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. public initiative), as well as a tense internal struggle, which ended in the victory of the right, "well-intentioned" wing of society (D. I. Yazykov, A. E. Izmailov, etc.). Some revival in its activity was 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.

“The society, strengthened and animated by new members, decided to publish a monthly literary magazine from 1812,” 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 did not please some of the 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 that last period around the society (nicknamed among writers Izmailovsky, after its president, or Mikhailovsky, after the place of its meetings), small writers are grouped, collaborating in the well-intentioned magazine 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 a spokesman for new trends literary process already characteristic of the poetry of the 1820s. The clarifications that are given in connection with last step the work of this society in the book of 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.

Further crystallization of ideological and aesthetic principles, which took place in the conditions of the delimitation of various social camps and social groups, becomes the basis for a number of literary societies that arose in the 1810s, which can rightfully be called the time of the highest flowering of this organizational form of literary life of the pre-Decembrist era.

The most traditional in its structure was one of the longest-standing literary associations - "Moscow Society of Lovers of Russian Literature". It lasted over 100 years. Created at Moscow University, this society included in its ranks its teachers, Moscow writers and simply lovers of literature. Detailed information about the organizational structure and activities of the society is contained in the memoirs of M. A. Dmitriev, who reports that it “was established in 1811. From the very beginning, Professor Anton Antonovich Prokopovich-Antonsky was its chairman. The society held monthly public meetings, on the eve of which a preparatory committee (of six members) met to decide "which plays to read in public, which ones to publish in the Proceedings of the Society, and which ones to reject." M. A. Dmitriev writes further: “Each meeting usually began with the reading of an ode or a psalm, and ended with a reading of a fable. The gap was devoted to other kinds of literature, in verse and prose. Between the latter there were articles of important and useful content. Among them were read: “Reasoning about verbs” by Professor Boldyrev; articles about the Russian language by A. Kh. Vostokov; discussions about Merzlyakov's literature; about the Church Slavonic language of Kachenovsky; an experiment on the order of words and paradoxes from Cicero eloquent Ivan Ivanovich Davydov. Here, for the first time, an excerpt from Gnedich's Iliad was read and printed: "The Discord of the Leaders"; the first translations of Zhukovsky from Gebel: "Oatmeal Kissel" and "Red Carbuncle"; poems by young Pushkin: "The Tomb of Anacreon". - The fable, at the end of the meeting, was usually consoled by Vasily Lvovich Pushkin.

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

by time greatest flourishing This literary association was in 1818, when, according to M. A. Dmitriev, prominent Petersburg poets (Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, F. N. Glinka, A. F. Voeikov and others) simultaneously participated in its work.

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

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

According to F. F. Vigel, in terms of its organizational structure, Beseda had more “the appearance of a state-owned place than of an academic class,” and in it “in the distribution of seats, there were more tables of ranks than of talents.”14 Meetings of the society, as says Vigel, they usually lasted “more than three hours ... Ladies and secular people who understood absolutely nothing, did not show, and perhaps did not feel bored: they were filled with the thought that they were accomplishing a great patriotic feat, and did this with exemplary self-sacrifice.”15 However, in the circle of “Conversations” they not only “flourished” and “yawned,” they not only appealed to the patriotic feelings of the Russian nobility. Here the first steps towards the study of monuments were taken. Old Russian writing, here they enthusiastically read The Tale of Igor's Campaign, were interested in folklore, and advocated rapprochement between Russia and the Slavic world. The literary and aesthetic production of the “conversators” was far from unambiguous. Even Shishkov not only defends the "three styles", but also recognizes the need to bring the "lofty", "Slavonic" style closer to the common language. In his poetic work, he pays tribute to the sentimental tradition ("Poems for Children"). Even more difficult is the question of the literary position of S. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, who combined his adherence to the epic of classicism with an interest in pre-romantic poetry (Jung and Ossian). In this regard, the observation of G. A. Gukovsky, who noted that in its literary production, "Conversation" was "a stubborn, albeit inept, student of romanticism," is fair. In the writings of D. Gorchakov, F. Lvov, N. Shaposhnikov, V. Olin and others, the researcher finds "elegies in the spirit of Zhukovsky, and a romantic ballad, and sentimental lyrics, and light poetry." Such experiments are, however, of an experimental nature, and the main activity of the poets-"conversators" is carried out on a different aesthetic basis associated with classicism, and indicates that the main genres in the system of classicism (ode, epic) are moving to the literary periphery and become the property of epigones.

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

Reason for creating "Arzamas" served as the premiere of the comedy by A. A. Shakhovsky (an active "talker") "A Lesson for Coquettes, or Lipetsk Waters", held at the Maly Theater in St. Petersburg in September 1815. Known for his attacks against Karamzin and his young supporters (the comedy "New Stern", heroes -comic poem "Plundered fur coats"), Shakhovskoy this time ridiculed the balladeer Zhukovsky, who was gaining wide popularity in literary and reader circles.

In Zhukovsky's entourage, the appearance of the "Lipetsk Waters" was perceived as a declaration of open war against the Karamzinists and caused the mobilization of all the "internal reserves" of this camp. To organize a rebuff to the "Conversation", it was decided to create their own literary society, using the motives of the pamphlet by D. N. Bludov "Vision in some kind of fence, published by the society learned people”, addressed to Shakhovsky and his followers. Under the guise of a fat traveler who spent the night at an inn in the city of Arzamas, Nizhny Novgorod Province, Bludov portrayed the author of Lipetsk Waters, who took up arms "against a meek young man" (Zhukovsky), "resplendent with talents and successes." At the same inn, the pamphleteer turned out to be an accidental witness to a meeting of unknown young people - lovers of literature. These imaginary Arzamas meetings gave Zhukovsky's friends the idea of ​​creating a literary society of "unknown lovers of literature", called Arzamas.

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

Joking Arzamas messages and protocols (written by the secretary of "Svetlana", i.e. Zhukovsky) and in particular the speeches of the Arzamas people were a living stimulus for the flourishing of the humorous genres of Russian literature.

Despite its external "frivolity", "Arzamas" was by no means a purely entertaining society. Its members waged a bold and resolute struggle against routine, against social and literary conservatism, against outdated aesthetic principles, against everything that hindered the establishment new literature. At Arzamas meetings sounded the best works A. Pushkin, Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, Vyazemsky, V. L. Pushkin and others. "Arzamas", according to the correct definition of P. A. Vyazemsky, was a school of "literary fellowship", mutual literary education. Society has become the center of advanced Russian literature, attracting progressive-minded youth.

The activities of "Arzamas" reflected profound internal changes both in Russian life itself and in the socio-literary situation after the Patriotic War of 1812. In the battles of Arzamas with the "dead" of the "Conversations", in mockery of the dead scholasticism of their writings, in sharp attacks Arzamas parodies and the striking sharpness of epigrams was something more than enmity with the literary trend that is fading into the past. Behind all this, new concepts of the individual were hidden, gradually freed from the power of narrow, class-feudal morality, from the ideological oppression of ideas developed in the era of absolutism. In "Arzamas" they argued not only about literature, but also about the historical past and future destinies of Russia. Everything that hindered social progress was ardently condemned.

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

The most important task of the Arzamas people was the struggle to unite the best literary forces. And here their allies turned out to be not only like-minded writers,20 but often writers of a different literary and aesthetic orientation, for example, Krylov and Derzhavin, who, as you know, were members of the Conversations of Lovers of the Russian Word.

In 1817, members of the secret Decembrist organizations M. F. Orlov, N. I. Turgenev, N. M. Muravyov joined Arzamas. They made an attempt to reform the Arzamas society, insisting on the adoption of "laws" and a charter, on the creation of their own printed organ (the Arzamas magazine). Dissatisfied with the general direction of the Arzamas activity, which is mainly related to the decision literary questions(although understood broadly enough), the Decembrists sought to turn Arzamas residents to the burning problems of the era, to make society a platform for acute political struggle. Created to solve other ideological and creative tasks, "Arzamas" in its internal structure did not meet the requirements and aspirations of the radical new members of society, which led to an internal split, and then the cessation of all its activities (1818).

Those tendencies of social and literary development, which were expressed in "Arzamas" M. Orlov and N. Turgenev, lead to the emergence of new organizational forms- literary associations of the Decembrist period. Founded in 1818-1819. "Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature" and " green lamp"were literary branches ("uprava") of secret societies.

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

The creation of the actual Decembrist associations - on a fundamentally new ideological and organizational basis - dates back to the second half of the 1810s, marked by the rapid maturation of Decembristism. Members of secret societies were charged with creating legal and illegal literary branches (“uprava”) with subsequent control of their work. The organization of the societies mentioned above is connected with the realization of this most important, from the socio-literary point of view, principle.

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

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

In 1823 in Moscow arose " Society of Wisdom”, which included such prominent subsequently literary figures as V. F. Odoevsky, D. V. Venevitinov, I. V. Kireevsky, S. P. Shevyrev, M. P. Pogodin and others. This society essentially revealed is an association of a new type, gravitating not so much towards socio-literary and political as towards philosophical and aesthetic problems, which acquired paramount importance already in the post-December era. However, on the eve of December 14, 1825, the philosophers of wisdom also became involved in the sphere of Decembrist influence. At the meetings of the society, the question of the need for "a change in the form of government" was also raised. After the defeat of the Decembrists, the philosophers stopped their meetings and destroyed the archives of the society.

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

The consolidation and demarcation of literary forces takes place during the years of the Nikolaev reaction already on a significantly different and predominantly socio-philosophical basis.

One of the first literary circles of the beginning of the century was the Friendly Literary Society, founded in Moscow by a group of friends, graduates of the Moscow University boarding school, young writers brothers Andrei and Alexander Turgenev, V.A. Zhukovsky and others.

Back in 1797, Andrei Turgenev created and headed a literary circle in the boarding school, which in 1801 became a literary society. Its members have been repeatedly published in the journal of the University Boarding House "Morning Dawn". Meetings of the participants usually took place in the house of the poet, translator and journalist A.F. Voeikov.

The members of the Friendly Literary Society set themselves the task of strengthening the national principle in literature and, although to some extent they supported Karamzin's innovation in the field of language, they considered it wrong to follow foreign models, which, in their opinion, Karamzin sinned. Subsequently, the positions of the members of the Friendly Literary Society and the Karamzinists drew closer. Among the literary circles of the 1930s, Stankevich's circle occupied a prominent place.

It was a literary and philosophical association that took shape in 1831 around the personality of Nikolai Vladimirovich Stankevich, a student and then a graduate of Moscow University. Stankevich wrote philosophical and poetic works, however, all the members of the circle later agreed that they were most influenced not so much by the works of their leader, but by his very personality, surprisingly charming and interesting. Stankevich possessed the ability to awaken the work of thought and at the same time appease and bring together the most irreconcilable opponents. His circle also included people who were later destined to follow completely different paths. The future Slavophiles K.S. met here. Aksakov and Yu.F. Samarin, future Westerners V.P. Botkin and T.N. Granovsky, V.G. Belinsky and M.A. Bakunin. Here friends studied philosophy, history, literature. The role of the Stankevich circle in spreading the ideas of Schelling and Hegel in Russia was enormous. In 1839, the seriously ill Stankevich went abroad for treatment, from where he never returned, and the circle broke up. The circle that arose in the early 1930s at Moscow University was also Society 11, which rallied around the young V.G. Belinsky and got its name from the number of the room that the future critic occupied in the university boarding school. The members of the circle were not limited to discussing literary novelties and theatrical premieres, they studied philosophical works, discussed European political events. The works of its members were often read at meetings of the society.

Belinsky introduced his friends here to his drama Dmitry Kalinin. This caused great dissatisfaction with the authorities, which led to his expulsion from the university.

The inability to freely express one's thoughts even in a friendly circle fettered the activities of literary circles and societies, therefore most of similar associations of the 1830s and 1840s proved to be short-lived.

Meetings of the Friendly Literary Society were held mainly in Voeikov's house near the Novodevichy Convent. At the meetings, speeches were read on various literary, social and moral topics: about the ways of Russian literature, about religion, fame, happiness.

They dreamed of a just reorganization of the world and considered literature to be the main means of influencing humanity. That is why they wanted to improve as writers in the first place.

The attitude of the members of the Friendly Society is the attitude of the rebels, and not only in relation to literature. It was for rebellion that they especially revered the German poet F. Schiller.

The work of the sensitive sentimentalist Karamzin provoked criticism from them. “He tempted us too softly and softly. He should have appeared a century later, then, when we already had more works in the most important genera, then let him weave his flowers into domestic oaks and laurels ”- Andrei Turgenev said in his “Speech on Russian Literature” at one of the meetings of the Friendly society.

The mirror of our vows is this ancient monastery,

Where in the dilapidated house we feasted so sweetly...

Where, having inflamed minds with wine and disputes

And love for humanity

They wanted to redeem the bliss of their neighbors with blood,

At the sound of joyful glasses, choirs, lyres,

They hurried to transform the world;

We careless youths

And the impossible seemed possible...

The friendly literary society did not last long, from the second half of 1801, its members begin to leave Moscow one by one, going either to study abroad or to St. Petersburg for service.