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

Back in 1797, Andrei Turgenev created and headed a literary circle at the boarding school, which in 1801 became a literary society. Its members were repeatedly published in the magazine of the University boarding house “Morning Dawn”. Meetings of participants usually took place in the house of the poet, translator and journalist A.F. Voeykova.

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

It was a literary and philosophical association that formed in 1831 around the personality of Nikolai Vladimirovich Stankevich, a student and then a graduate of Moscow University. Stankevich wrote philosophical and poetic works, however, all members of the circle later agreed that the greatest influence on them was not so much the works of their leader, but his very personality, surprisingly charming and interesting. Stankevich had the ability to awaken the work of thought and at the same time pacify and bring together the most irreconcilable opponents. His circle included people who were later destined to take completely different paths. Future Slavophiles K.S. met here. Aksakov and Yu.F. Samarin, future Westerners V.P. Botkin and T.N. Granovsky, V.G. Belinsky and M.A. Bakunin. Here friends studied philosophy, history, and literature. The role of Stankevich’s circle in the dissemination of the ideas of Schelling and Hegel in Russia was enormous. In 1839, the seriously ill Stankevich went abroad for treatment, from where he never returned, and the circle disintegrated. The circle that arose in the early 30s at Moscow University also became Society 11, which rallied around the young V.G. Belinsky and got its name from the number of the room that the future critic occupied in the university boarding house. The members of the circle did not limit themselves to discussing literary novelties and theatrical premieres, they studied philosophical works, discussed European political events. The works of its members were often read at the society's meetings.

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

The inability to freely express one’s thoughts even in a friendly circle hindered the activities of literary circles and societies, so most of such associations in the 1830s and 1840s turned out to be short-lived.

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

They dreamed of a just reorganization of the world and considered literature to be the main means of influencing humanity. That’s why they wanted, first of all, to improve themselves as writers.

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

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

This ancient monastery is the mirror of our vows,

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

Where, having inflamed the minds with wine and disputes

And love for humanity,

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

At the joyful sound of glasses, choirs, lyres,

They were in a hurry to transform the world;

To us, careless youths,

And the impossible seemed possible...

The friendly literary society did not last long, from the second half of 1801, its participants began to leave Moscow one after another, going either to study abroad or to St. Petersburg to serve.

An association of like-minded writers from students of the Moscow University boarding school took shape at the end of the 18th century. The initiator of the society was Andrei Ivanovich Turgenev. In 1797-1800, he headed the pre-romantic literary circle at the boarding school, which took shape in 1801 as the Friendly Literary Society.

The first meeting of the Friendly Literary Society took place on January 12, 1801. It included, in addition to A.I. Turgenev, brothers Andrei Sergeevich Kaisarov and Mikhail Sergeevich Kaisarov, Alexey Fedorovich Merzlyakov, Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, Semyon Emelyanovich Rodzyanko, Alexander Fedorovich Voeikov). Meetings of the Society began and took place for some time in Voeikov’s house on Devichye Pole.

In his speech “On the Main Laws of Society” A.F. Merzlyakov noted:

Our Society is an excellent preparation for our future life... I want to tell you that a person by himself does not mean anything... This is the birth of society! This is how one person, feeling the flame in his heart, gives his hand to another and, pointing into the distance, says: there is our goal! let's go, take and share that crown, which neither you nor I alone can take!... If you have noble ambition... then give up your pride, have trust in your friends!...
If not every one of us is gifted with a subtle taste for the elegant, if not everyone can judge a translation or a composition completely correctly, then at least we will not doubt the good heart of the one telling us about our errors; his love tells us: whether it is true or not, he wished us well... This spirit is the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega of all the laws of the assembly!

Almost two decades later, the same Merzlyakov recalled:

We severely criticized each other in writing and verbally, discussed famous writers,... the scientists argued a lot and noisily at the table and went home as good friends.

At one of the first meetings, Merzlyakov recited the hymn of the German romantic Schiller “To Joy”; members of the Society made translations of his works; A. I. Turgenev harshly criticized Karamzin’s work, Zhukovsky defended him...

Yu. M. Lotman believed that in the Society

at the moment of its inception, three leading trends in the literature of the pre-Pushkin period collided: the direction of dreamy romanticism associated with the name of Zhukovsky; direction presented by Merzlyakov, alien to the culture of the nobility and developing traditions democratic literature XVIII century, and, finally, the direction of Andrei Turgenev and Andrei Kaisarov... in whose activities the features that prepare the literary program of Decembrism clearly appear.

- Lotman Yu. M. Andrei Sergeevich Kaisarov and the literary and social struggle of his time. Vol. 63. - Tartu, 1958. - P. 25.

In the second half of 1801, members of the Society began to leave Moscow one after another, going either to study abroad or to St. Petersburg to serve, and as a result, by November the Society ceased to exist, but it left a noticeable mark on the history of Russian literature: it contained the foundations of Russian romanticism, of which V. A. Zhukovsky became a prominent representative.

Leaving for St. Petersburg, A. I. Turgenev wrote the poem “To the dilapidated basement house of A. F. Voeikov”:

This dilapidated house, this deaf garden is a refuge of friends united by Phoebus, Where in the joy of their hearts they swore before heaven, They swore with their souls, Sealing the vow with tears, To love the fatherland and be friends forever ()

In the same 1801, the Friendly Society of Lovers of Fine Art arose in St. Petersburg, later called

Karamzinism did not entirely coincide with the work of Karamzin himself. His innovation consisted of overcoming the old literary language, former artistic techniques, the innovation of the Karamzinists consisted in the continuation and 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, Rodzianka, organized the “Friendly Literary Society,” which appeared as an act of protest against Karamzin and his school. Karamzin was accused not of being a brave innovator, but of the fact that his innovation turned Russian literature onto the wrong path of foreign borrowings.

Participants in this society posed the question: “There is French, German, English literature, but is there Russian?” This was a question of romantic content, because it was the romantics who were primarily concerned with the issue of nationality. Their answer to their question was categorical and decisive: there is no Russian literature (“Can we use this word? Isn’t it just an empty name when things, in fact, do not exist”). They blamed Karamzin for this, who fascinated literature with the problem of personality, leading away from the problem of nationality. The participants of the “Friendly Literary Society” were going to direct Russian literature in a different way. members of the “Friendly Literary Society” decided to promote their direction of Russian literature through literary criticism, making room for the future national genius. Critical articles Andrey I. Turgenev, V.A. Zhukovsky and A.F. Merzlyakova – enough interesting material to understand the origins of Russian romanticism.

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

According to Yu.M. Lotman, “Elegy” (1802) by Andrei I. Turgenev belongs to the most significant phenomena of Russian poetry early XIX century. She defined the entire set of motives of Russian romantic elegy: autumn landscape, rural cemetery, ringing of the evening bell, reflections on early death and the fleeting nature of earthly happiness.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

· “Friendly Literary Society”

In 1801, young poets Andrei and Alexander I. Turgenev, A.F. Voeikov, A.S. Kaisarov, Rodzianka, V.A. Zhukovsky, A.F. Merzlyakov organized the “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 small things, and... Karamzin is to blame for this. He made an era in Russian literature... But - let's say frankly - he is more harmful than useful to our literature, and more harmful because he writes so well... Let them write worse, but if only they wrote more original, more important, more courageous, and did not engage so much petty childbirth" 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?” This 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? Isn’t it just an empty name when things don’t really exist?” They blamed Karamzin for this, who fascinated literature with the problem of personality, leading away from the problem nationalities. The participants of the “Friendly Literary Society” intended to direct Russian literature differently: “Sometimes one person will appear and, so to speak, will carry away his contemporaries with him. We ourselves know that there was Peter the Great, but such a person must now exist for Russian literature. the second Lomonosov, not Karamzin. Filled 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 wide leaves or juicy nutritious fruits.”

· Since 1802, Karamzin began to publish

magazine “Bulletin of Europe””

and thereby marked the beginning of a systematic coverage of Russian and Western European reality from the perspective 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 magazine is to present broad program development of nationally original literature. In the politics department, the idea of ​​strengthening autocracy, statehood, and the comparison between Napoleon and Alexander I was a common thread. 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 their fellow citizens think and speak better” (“Why is there so little authorial talent in Russia?”) Literature, Karamzin now claims, “should have an influence on morals and happiness,” every writer is obliged to “to help the 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”) In this moral education The main role should belong to patriotic education. How stronger love to the fatherland, the clearer the citizen’s path to his own happiness. The ideas of “romantic patriotism” were set out by Karamzin in a kind of manifesto of the new Karamzin - the article “On cases and characters in Russian history, which can be the subject of art” (1802)

In the literature department, Karamzin published works that were closest to the magazine’s program, for example, “Rural Cemetery” by V.A. Zhukovsky (by the way, it was Zhukovsky who in 1808 Karamzin handed over the publication of “Bulletin of Europe”, after which he himself began writing the 12-volume “History of the State” Russian").

Important quality Karamzin’s “Bulletin of Europe” - it was not a publication of one author, but became a kind of center of communication for writers. The magazine provided its pages to writers, if not of opposite directions and schools, then at least noticeably different from each other. G.R. Derzhavin, I.I. Dmitriev, V.A. Zhukovsky, V. Izmailov and others collaborated in “Bulletin of Europe”. The magazine united the best literary forces and synthesized the new quality of Russian literature.

“Bulletin of Europe” was the most famous, but not the only magazine. Writers of different views or those who were published by Karamzin published their works

· in the “Northern Bulletin” (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;

· S.N. Glinka’s journal “Russian Bulletin” (1808-1824) was in opposition to “Bulletin of Europe”;

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

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

In 1801, in St. Petersburg, as a counterweight to another literary capital - Moscow - where the “Friendly Literary Society” appeared, the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science 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”. “The Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and the 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, doctors, officials. Society developed a special literary direction, which researchers suggested calling, 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 artistic samples Rome during the Empire. Empire style expressed an idea national pride and independence (for example, Arc de Triomphe in Paris). Other researchers (37) believe that the definitions “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 premises, in ceremonial interiors with multi-color sculpture, modeling, carving, gilding, and picturesque lampshades; the style expressed the idea of ​​limitless diversity and eternal variability of the world. The Rococo style differed from Baroque in its greater mannerism, whimsicality, grace, and 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, Science and the Arts” was characterized by a feeling of national pride and independence, and a feeling of the fragility and variability of the world, and a feeling of disintegrating order in the world - this contradictory mixture of ideas, difficult to define unambiguously, gave rise to a fairly recognizable literary style.

The creativity of the participants of the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and Arts” is characterized by an interest in the genres of classicism, stylization of late antiquity, and ornamentation. 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...”). Authors of different directions took part in it: 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 is that they objectively continued the polarization of literary movements, with one society, originating in Karamzinism, being formed primarily in Moscow, and the 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 location became a signal of his ideological and aesthetic orientation (“Moscow admirers” and “St. Petersburg zealots”).

· “Conversation between lovers of the Russian word”

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

Shishkov criticized Karamzin not for a departure from classicism and a movement towards romanticism, but for the wrong - unpatriotic - direction of language reform: “Instead of depicting our thoughts according to the rules and concepts accepted since ancient times, which have grown for many centuries and rooted in our minds, we depict them according to the rules and concepts foreign people." The antithesis “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 of a romantic than Karamzin. But Karamzin is not a classic either. The situation must be described in other terms.

The dispute between the “Shishkovites” and the “Karamzinists” was about the problem of a new syllable. Karamzin proposed to synthesize the existing bilingualism (Russian and French) into a single Europeanized Russian language, a pleasant and average language - common to written literature and oral communication. Shishkov expressed concern about the loss of national identity in such a language and proposed the following. Firstly, do not homogenize the language, maintain the distinction between bookish and colloquial: “To acquire importance, a learned language always requires some difference from the common people. He sometimes abbreviates, sometimes he combines, sometimes he changes, sometimes he chooses a word.<…>Where it is necessary to speak loudly and majestically, there he offers thousands of selected words, rich in intelligence, abstruse and completely different from those with which we explain ourselves in simple conversations.” Secondly, book language should be created not according to the principle of ease, pleasantness, smoothness, but according to the principle of richness of vocabulary, depth of meaning, sonority of the national language; Shishkov proposes to synthesize the high (according to Lomonosov theory) style with its archaisms, medium style with linguistic features folk song and partly “low vocabulary”, “in order to be able to place low thoughts and words in a high syllable, such as, for example: roar, ... pull by the hair, ... bold head and the like, without humiliating the syllable with them and maintaining all the importance of it” ( 40).

Thus, Shishkov’s thought was directed against the smoothness and aestheticism of 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 ways of the formation of romanticism.

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

· “Arzamas”

The idea of ​​organizing their own literary society arose among 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 “Conversation”: like horses are always in the same stable... To be honest, I feel envious, looking at them... When will we live like brothers: soul in soul and hand in hand?” The reason soon appeared.

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 - Aeolian harp, D. N. Bludov - Cassandra, A. S. Pushkin - Cricket, V. L. Pushkin - Here I am, F. Wigel - Ivikov the Crane, D. P. Severin (diplomat) - Frisky Cat, S. S. Uvarov - Old Woman, S.P. Zhikharev - Thunderbolt, M. Orlov (future Decembrist) - Rhine, D.I. Davydov - Armenian, K.N. Batyushkov - Achilles, A.I. Pleshcheev - Black Corvid, A.F. Voeikov - Smoky stove, Nick. Muravyov - 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 connected by one living feeling of love for native language and literature... The persons who composed it were engaged in a strict analysis literary works, the application of sources of ancient and foreign literature to the language and literature of our country, 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).

“Arzamas” existed in this form until 1819, when new members of the society M.F. Orlov, N. Turgenev, Nik. Muravyov tried to give it a political direction and organize an Arzamas magazine. These trends led to the extinction of “Arzamas” and the emergence of Decembrist literary societies in 1818-1819. Green lamp” (A.S. Pushkin, F.N. Glinka, A. Delvig, N.I. Gnedich) and “Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” (D. Khvostov, F.N. Glinka, A.A. Bestuzhev, K F. Ryleev, V. K. Kuchelbecker, 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 took the path of serving society, seeing this as the highest purpose of art. “In our mental movement,” said N.G. Chernyshevsky about Russian literature, “it plays a more significant role than French, German, English in the mental movement of their peoples, and it bears more responsibilities than any other other literature... The poet and fiction writer are not replaceable by anyone...” The writers themselves realized 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 arose - a citizen, a fighter, a man of unshakable, often hard-won convictions, and high moral principles.

Reflecting on the role of literature in the destinies of mankind, M. Gorky argued that not a single Western literature arose with such strength 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 has created such wondrous beauties under such indescribably difficult conditions as Russian writers.

The idea of ​​the high purpose of art and the responsibility of the writer was clearly expressed by A.P. Chekhov. For him true writer- This is an obligated person, contracted by the consciousness of his duty and conscience. When Russian literature gained worldwide recognition, foreign readers acutely felt its originality and unsurpassed power. She conquered them with her a bold invasion of life, an intense search for truth, its heroes, filled with high goals, always dissatisfied with themselves. I was amazed sense of responsibility for the future of your country and humanity, which never left Andrei Bolkonsky, Pierre, Raskolnikov, or Prince Myshkin for a minute. Russian writers presented to a person high demands, they did not agree with people putting their own interests and selfishness first.

Advanced Russian literature has always lived with the most important, burning problems of the century. Painful questions, damned questions, great questions - this is how those social, philosophical, moral problems, which were raised by the best writers of the past.

Starting with Radishchev and ending with Chekhov, Russians writers XIX century they spoke openly 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 works such as “ Dead Souls» N.V. Gogol, “Crime and Punishment” F.M. Dostoevsky, “Fairy Tales” by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, “Who Lives Well in Rus'” by N.A. Nekrasov, “Resurrection” by L.N. Tolstoy. The authors approached the solution of the most pressing problems of our time from the position of true humanism, from the position of the interests of the people.

The fate of Russian writers was sometimes so tragic that biographies foreign writers against their background look like a fairy tale of prosperity. Died in a duel A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov, A.S. Griboyedov died in terrible circumstances, Gogol died of hopelessness, K.F. Ryleev was executed, V. Kuchelbecker was exiled to hard labor, most of A.I. Herzen lived his life in a foreign land, was subjected to civil execution (which replaced the death sentence) and exiled to hard labor

F.M. Dostoevsky, imprisoned Peter and Paul Fortress N.G. Chernyshevsky, excommunicated by L.N. Tolstoy. V.G. was subjected to constant persecution throughout his life. 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 Narodnaya Volya case, V.G. was sentenced to hard labor. Korolenko.

Most works of various genres went through such strict censorship, social and religious, that many books appeared either with scandal, as was the case with “A Hero of Our Time”, “The Inspector General”, “ Dead souls”, “What to do?”, or were published in a truncated form, or even saw the light of day decades later, like the play “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboedov.

No matter what aspects of life the writers touched, from the pages of their works one could always hear: who is to blame? what to do? These questions were heard in “Eugene Onegin” and in “Hero of Our Time”, in “Oblomov” and in “The Thunderstorm”, in “Crime and Punishment”, in Chekhov’s stories and drama.

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 could withstand the influence of the life circumstances surrounding him. Is he free to choose? life path Or is it all due to circumstances? 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 Bazarov’s words: “Every person must educate himself... And as for time, why will I depend on it? It’s better to let it 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 to blame? What to do?" – these questions excited the consciousness and encouraged Russian and foreign readers to take active action. The writers themselves could find different solutions, sometimes even erroneous ones, but the search for these solutions spoke of their deep interest in the fate of the country and all humanity.

The idea of ​​the welfare of the people was constantly heard in the works of Russian classics. From this angle 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 themselves to be flesh and blood of the people, and this gave their work a clearly expressed democratic orientation. “And my incorruptible voice was the echo of the Russian people,” said young Pushkin. Lermontov’s voice sounded “like a bell on a veche tower on days of celebration 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.”

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

For advanced Russian writers, love for the motherland is, first of all, love for people's Russia, to those spiritual values ​​that the people created. Literature has long found inspiration in oral folk art. Remember the fairy tales of Pushkin and Shchedrin, “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka” by Gogol, “Who Lives Well in Rus'” by Nekrasov. At the same time true patriots They have always hated the stranglers of progressive 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 about anti-people Russia in “War and Peace” and with what love for the people the pages of this epic dedicated to him are imbued! The best Russian writers considered their highest patriotic duty to be the struggle for the reconstruction 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 for its reconstruction.

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

Various aspects of reality fell into the sphere of attention of realist writers (as Chernyshevsky said, everything of general interest in life): from events historical life 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 analyzed, everything was the subject of intense thought. It was not for nothing that Gorky noted that in the field of vision of the old writers lay the entire vast world, the world that they wanted to free from evil at all costs.

Closely connected with reality, the literature of critical realism captured all the changes that took place in the life of Russia, in human psychology. Has changed over time appearance of the central character . The stamp of what time lies on Chatsky, Onegin, Pechorin; it is obvious that, with 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, themes that ran through all 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 40-50s, Turgenev in “Notes of a Hunter” came out with a passionate defense of the enslaved people, showing their moral superiority over the soul-owners.

In the conditions of the growing national liberation movement of the 50-60s, 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 generated by centuries of slavery, and raising the people to an awareness of their fundamental interests. Nekrasov is indignant at the slavish consciousness of a man from the people, Shchedrin’s bitter laughter at a man who twisted a rope for himself (“How one man fed two generals”).

Based on the artistic achievements of Pushkin, Nekrasov and Tolstoy showed that the decisive force in the destinies of the country is the people. Both “War and Peace” and “Who Lives Well in Rus'” 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 Akaki 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 irreconcilable attitude towards social injustice.

However, in the second half of the century little man, deprived of self-esteem, meekly bearing the burden of social adversity, a humiliated and insulted person (Dostoevsky) evokes among progressive writers not only compassion, but also condemnation ( A.P. Chekhov “The Death of an Official, Thick and Thin”). For writers, a person’s loss of 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-out rag.

The social changes 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 past to 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 Rus',” nor the novel “What to Do?” or “War and Peace” could have been created. But the authors of these works owe much to the experience of their predecessors, to such works as “ Bronze Horseman" and "Dead Souls", which are full of reflections on the fate of Russia.

Whatever Russian writers talk about, they always said

· faith in the possibility of fair social relations,

· V feasibility of their high social ideals , which they sought to make available to readers.

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

· And such a writer full of anger as Saltykov-Shchedrin, who crushed with his indignant laughter, it seems that everything he touched, called for affirmation of a positive ideal.

Hence the 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, the beautiful in art, merged among Russian writers with the idea of ​​goodness, truth, justice, to the struggle for the triumph of which they called with their creativity.

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

1. “FRIENDLY LITERARY SOCIETY”

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

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

Participants in this society posed the question: “There is French, German, English literature, but is there Russian?” This was a question of romantic content, because it was the romantics who were primarily concerned with the issue of nationality. Their answer to their question was categorical and decisive: there is no Russian literature (“Can we use this word? Isn’t it just an empty name when things, in fact, do not exist”). They blamed Karamzin for this, who fascinated literature with the problem of personality, leading away from the problem of nationality. The participants of the “Friendly Literary Society” were going to direct Russian literature in a different way. members of the “Friendly Literary Society” decided to promote their direction of Russian literature through literary criticism, making room for the future national genius. Critical articles by Andrei I. Turgenev, V.A. Zhukovsky and A.F. Merzlyakova is quite interesting material for understanding the origins of Russian romanticism.

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

According to Yu.M. Lotman, “Elegy” (1802) by Andrei I. Turgenev belongs to the most significant phenomena of Russian poetry of the early 19th century. She defined the entire set of motifs of Russian romantic elegy: the autumn landscape, the rural cemetery, the ringing of the evening bell, reflections on early death and the fleetingness of earthly happiness.”

Turgenev was the first to show “what expressive possibilities lie in the comparison of the autumn extinction of nature with the extinction of man and human happiness,” says L.G. Frizman. In principle, the images of elegy were not something completely unheard of in the poetry of those years; the poetic means for their expression were new.

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

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

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

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

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

2. “HERALD OF EUROPE”

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

“Bulletin of Europe” was a publication of a new type. 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 common task The magazine was a statement of a broad program for the formation of nationally distinctive literature. In the politics section, the central idea was to strengthen statehood, autocracy, and compare Napoleon - 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 successes, about what contributes to its development along the path of national identity. Karamzin believed that writers have enormous opportunities to influence society: “Authors help fellow citizens think and speak better” (“Why is there so little talent for writing in Russia?”). Now Karamzin says that literature “should have an influence on morals and happiness,” every writer is obliged “to help the 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”). The main importance in this moral education should be patriotic education. Karamzin outlined his ideas of “romantic patriotism” in the article “On incidents 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 that were closest to the magazine’s program, for example, “Rural Cemetery” by V.A. Zhukovsky, to whom in 1808 Karamzin handed over the publication of “Bulletin of Europe”, and began writing the 12-volume “History of the Russian State”.

“Bulletin of Europe” was not a publication of one author, it was a center for communication between writers. It was the result of a 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, noticeably different from each other (G.R. Derzhavin, V.A. Zhukovsky, I.I. Dmitriev, V. Izmailov, etc.).

“Bulletin of Europe” was the most popular magazine. But he wasn't the only one. Writers who had different views on this matter or the same ones who were published by Karamzin published their works in the “Journal of Russian Literature” (1805) 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. Benitzky. The magazine S.N. was in opposition to Vestnik Evropy. Glinka “Russian Messenger” (1808-1824). At this time, the magazine “Son of the Fatherland” by N.I. also gained great popularity. Buckwheat of a patriotic nature, published during the Patriotic War of 1812. Magazines not only united authors, but also contributed to the aesthetic self-determination of diverse attitudes and directions of the literary process.

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

Literary life in Russia by the 1810s gradually acquired clearer outlines, which was mainly facilitated by literary clubs and societies, most of which appeared after the famous “Friendly Literary Society”. Emerging and disintegrating, “flowing” into others, merging with magazines, publishing their own, literary societies contributed to the process of crystallization of the poetic principles and aesthetic views of awakening romanticism.

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

“The Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science 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. The society developed a special literary direction - called “Empire”. Empire style (from the French empire - empire) is 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 pomp and richness of interior decoration, decoration, imitation of artistic examples of Rome during the Empire. It expressed the idea of ​​national pride and independence (for example, the Arc de Triomphe in Paris). It is also believed that the definitions “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 premises, in ceremonial interiors with multi-color sculpture, modeling, carving, gilding, and picturesque lampshades; the style expressed the idea of ​​limitless diversity and eternal variability of the world. The Rococo style differed from Baroque in its greater mannerism, whimsicality, grace, and 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 the disintegrating order in the world, and the feeling of the fragility and variability of the world was 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, and stylization of late antiquity.

When D.N. joined the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and the Arts.” 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, so the aesthetic principles of society are almost impossible to systematize. But still, the society had an aesthetic basis; the term “neoclassicism” would best suit it. TO characteristic features Neoclassicism can be attributed to an interest in the literature of classicism, to antiquity, a preference for rigor and clarity of style, and somewhere imitative. Neoclassicism allowed the coexistence of multidirectional aesthetic systems by Karamzinist V.L. Pushkin, opponent of the Karamzinists A.F. Merzlyakova, “classic” N.I. Gnedich and others - which is what happened in the “Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and Arts”.

Enlightenment ideas were expressed in periodicals published by the society and associated with it - the almanac “Scroll of the Muses” (1802 - 1803), journal. “Periodic publication of the society of amateurs...” (1804 - only one issue was published), journal. “Northern Herald” (1804 - 1805), “Journal of Growth. Literature" (1805), "St. Petersburg Bulletin" (1812), etc. The magazines covered the same topics of serfdom, state law. devices and education.

The society existed until 1807; after internal disputes, the leadership passed to members of moderate views, and it withered away, losing 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 authors were members of the society 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 primarily in Moscow, and the polar opposite literary movement in St. Petersburg. The existence of two capitals of the literary world became a special distinctive quality of Russian literature of the early 19th century; the poet’s location showed his ideological and aesthetic orientation (“Moscow admirers” and “St. Petersburg zealots”).

5. “CONVERSATION OF LOVERS OF THE RUSSIAN WORD”

The famous literary society “Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word” was created in 1811 by A.S. Shishkov, the author of “Discourses on the old and new syllables of the Russian language” (1803), in which he criticized Karamzin’s theory of a new literary language and proposed his own. Shishkov criticized Karamzin for the unpatriotic direction of language reform: “Instead of depicting our thoughts according to the rules and concepts accepted since ancient times, which have grown for many centuries and taken root in our minds, we depict them according to the rules and concepts of a foreign people.” The opposition “classic-romanticist” clearly does not apply to 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 of a 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 “Shishkovites” and the “Karamzinists” was the problem of the new syllable. 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 homogenize the language, but to maintain the difference between written language and the language of oral communication: “A learned language, in order to acquire importance, always requires some difference from the common people. He sometimes abbreviates, sometimes he combines, sometimes he changes, sometimes he chooses a word.<…>Where it is necessary to speak loudly and majestically, there he offers thousands of selected words, rich in intelligence, abstruse and completely different from those with which we explain ourselves in simple conversations”; secondly, a book language should be created not according to the principle of ease, pleasantness, smoothness, but according to the principle of richness of vocabulary, depth of meaning, and sonority of the national language; According to Lomonosov’s theory, Shishkov proposes to synthesize the high style with its archaisms, the middle style with the linguistic features of folk songs and partly “low vocabulary”, “in order to be able to place low thoughts and words in a high syllable, such as, for example: roar, ... drag for hair, ... bold head and the like, without humiliating the syllable with them and maintaining 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 beliefs of both Karamzin and Shishkov are pre-romantic and their polemics are based only on the ways 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 “Conversation...”, and also divided them into subgroups: senior archaists (G.R. Derzhavin, A.A. Shakhovskoy, A.S. Shishkov, I.A. Krylov , S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov) and the younger, so-called “young archaists” (A.S. Griboyedov, P.A. Katenin, V.K. Kuchelbecker). The most radical were the Young Archaists, who accused the Karamzinists of the smoothness and pleasantness of their language in the French manner, and, most harshly, of disrespect for the people's faith and customs. And he called “innovators” not only the Karamzinists, but all the poets who were participants in the Arzamas literary society, organized in 1816.

6. “ARZAMAS”

Among the young Karamzinists, the idea of ​​​​creating their own literary society arose long before the appearance of “Arzamas”.

In 1816, a member of the “Conversations...” society A.A. Shakhovskoy (by the way, it was he who had previously ridiculed Karamzin in the comedy “New Stern”) in the image of the tearful and flirtatious poet Fialkin in his newly published comedy “A Lesson for Coquettes, or Lipetsk Waters,” ridiculed Zhukovsky. The result of “Lipetsk Waters” was “ terrible war on Parnassus." V.L. came to the defense of Zhukovsky, who did not participate in this “war” on principle, considering it in vain to fight “stupidity”. Pushkin, D.V. Dashkov, D.N. Bludov, P.A. Vyazemsky, etc. This kind of literary battle became the reason that 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 Some Fence, Published by a Society of Learned People,” where supposedly in the city of Arzamas the author of “Lipetsk Waters” spent the night at 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 many others etc. All participants were given comic nicknames taken from Zhukovsky’s ballads, namely: V.A. Zhukovsky - Svetlana, A.I. Pleshcheev -- Black Corvid, 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 - Gromoboy, M. Orlov (future Decembrist) - Rein, F. Wigel - Ivikov crane, D.I. Davydov - Armenian, K.N. Batyushkov - Achilles, A.F. Voeikov - Smoky stove, Nick. Muravyov - 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 society and had their own charter), began with the choice of a chairman, who put on a red (Jacobin) cap and addressed those gathered: “Citizens …”. Word of praise The chairman usually made fun of one of the archaists. Each new member of “Arzamas” went through an initiation rite (a parody of the Masonic) and delivered a “eulogy” to his “deceased” predecessor from among the living members of “Conversation”. The protocols were written by Zhukovsky-Svetlana. At the end of the meeting, they ate roasted goose - the emblem of “Arzamas”.

“It was a society of young people, connected among themselves by one living feeling of love for their native language and literature... The individuals who made it up were engaged in a strict analysis of literary works, applying sources of ancient and foreign literature to the language and literature of our country, searching for the 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” was like this only until 1819 - before it was given a political direction and the attempt to create an Arzamas magazine 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. Kuchelbecker, 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. Kireyevsky, which was closer to philosophical issues, but had her own thoughts about the task of literature.

History itself decided the outcome of the literary battle between “Conversations” and “Arzamas”, Shishkovites 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 went mainly along the path indicated by Karamzin. The victory of the “Karamzinists,” however, did not completely destroy the influence of classicism, which colored the work of the so-called. “younger archaists” - Griboyedov, Katenin, Kuchelbecker, Ryleev and others. Ornate classicism was quite strongly reflected in Pushkin’s poetic activity (not to mention his adolescent “Memoirs in Tsarskoe Selo”, see, for example, his later “Borodin Anniversary”) . The high pathos of the classical ode found a characteristic imitator in the person of Tyutchev. A whole series of currents were to be so arr. use the intensity of the pathos of classicism, the strict clarity of its compositional lines, the dryness of its linguistic means. But the use of the heritage of the 18th century. These writers never turned into simple imitation. They could not save orthodox classicism and did not want to.

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 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.: Sov. writer, 1991, ser. “B-poet. BS"

5. V.E. Watsuro. 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. Gillelson M.I. From the Arzamas brotherhood to the Pushkin circle of writers. - L., 1974

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

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