The beginning of the 19th century entered the history of Russian literature as the era of the emergence of writing as a socially significant profession. Instead of the faceless "writer" of the 18th century, professional writers first came to the fore in these years - people who live by literary work, think independently and influence public opinion.

Naturally, representatives of the new profession sought to unite in certain communities and circles, allowing them to support each other and move together in the chosen direction. And it is just as natural that the main feature by which the writers were divided into groups was their attitude towards the traditions of the past - the struggle against them or their defense.

Creative associations of writers - innovators actively fought with the conservatives for the attention of the reading public. So, in Moscow there was a "Friendly Literary Society", in St. Petersburg - " Free Society lovers of literature, sciences and arts. Representatives of these literary circles sought to renew Russian literature and bring it closer to European standards.

Opponents of the reforms also actively participated in literary life. One of the most important associations of the 1810s was the Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word, which brought together its main supporters.

Classicism against new trends - the ideas of Derzhavin's circle

In February 1811 a new literary society called "Conversation of lovers of the Russian word". Its participants were primarily writers of the older generation, who defended the poetic canons of the 18th century and disapproved of poetic innovation Zhukovsky School.

Society meetings took place in the house of G.R. Derzhavin. Among the members of the circle were G.R. Derzhavin himself, I.A. Krylov, S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, A.S. Shishkov and others.

Meetings of "Conversations" were held in a strictly academic, official spirit. The society had a strict charter, minutes of each meeting were kept. A magazine was published intended for the publication of the works of the authors of "Conversations" (a total of 19 issues of this publication were published). There were public readings of poems, fables and plays written by the authors of the Conversation. These literary evenings invariably caused a great public outcry, it was fashionable and prestigious to visit them.

"Conversation" played a significant role in the literary life of Russia, its ideas were actively discussed, resolutely accepted or just as sharply rejected by representatives of various literary movements; there were practically no indifferent people.

But after the death of the spiritual leader of the organization, G. R. Derzhavin, in 1816, the society stopped meeting. In addition to the loss of a patron, there were other reasons for the death of their union: readers, brought up on the romantic poetry of Chenier and Byron, could no longer be interested in odic poetry written according to the canons of the 18th century. New wine needed new skins, new content needed a new form. Classicism was irretrievably a thing of the past. Life dictated its own laws: romanticism came into full power.

Aesthetics of "Conversations" - principles for and against

Many literary historians evaluate Beseda as an openly retrograde organization that tried to hold back the development of Russian literature. A significant role in this was played by the work of poets from the circle, who ridiculed the representatives of the Conversation. In the works of Pushkin and his friends, "Conversation" appeared to readers as a collection of untalented old people, out of envy trying to slander and defame talented youth. The very name of the society, created by the great G.R. Derzhavin and I.A. Krylov, for a significant part of the readership became associated with militant graphomania, and the names of a number of its members (for example, Count Khvostov) became common nouns for mediocre poets.

But the situation with the aesthetic views of the authors of the Conversation was not at all so simple. Many literary figures of Derzhavin's circle often carried out very bold creative experiments. Krylov's fables were somewhat closer to Russian colloquial speech than the work of many young authors of Arzamas. Shakhovskoy was very talented as a comedian. N.I. Gnedich went down in history as a major specialist in antiquity and the author best translation Homer's "Iliads" into Russian.

The authors of the Conversation, like Don Quixote, sought to defend their ideals, in which they believed sincerely and selflessly. Their work was often very worthy in itself (although, of course, there were miscalculations and mistakes in it). But their service to the obsolete canons of the past looked ridiculous against the backdrop of the beginning flourishing. Therefore, the poets of the late Derzhavin galaxy in the minds of the Russian reader faded into the background in relation to V.A. Zhukovsky, K.N. Batyushkov, A.S. Pushkin.

But the strengths of the creativity of the authors of "Conversations" were not wasted. The skilful development of Russian literature and the heartfelt social pathos characteristic of Krylov, Gnedich and other representatives of society attracted the attention of poets of the Decembrist circle a decade later. The works of "Conversations" became a school both for Batyushkov, who denied their lessons, and for Griboedov, Katenin, and many other major writers of the 1820s, who followed them. The significant influence of the creativity of the best representatives of this society is also noticeable in early poetry and drama - primarily in civil lyrics and experiments in free verse.

Thus, the influence of "Conversations" as one of the starting points for the development of Russian poetry in the first quarter of the 19th century affected almost all writers of the era - both through the adoption of its creative canons, and through their negation or renewal.

Did you like it? Do not hide your joy from the world - share

and A.S. Shishkov. S. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, D. I. Khvostov, A. A. Shakhovskoy, I. S. Zakharov and others also belonged to him. They adhered to conservative views, being epigones of classicism, opposed the reform of the literary language, carried out by supporters of N.M. Karamzin. "Conversation ..." reflected those views on the development of the Russian literary language, which were held by the "senior archaists". Thus, the main opponents of "Conversations ..." were "Karamzinists", who later took shape in the Arzamas society, who ridiculed the activities of "Conversations".

The "Conversation" also included N.I. Gnedich and I.A. Krylov, who defended, in contrast to Karamzin and supporters of sentimentalism, national democratic traditions in the development of the Russian literary language, civil and democratic pathos in poetry. This determined the orientation towards the "Conversation" of the writers of the Decembrist direction, including A.S. Griboyedov, P.A. Katenin, V.F. Raevsky and others.

The first meeting took place in Derzhavin's house on March 14, 1811.

Disbanded after Derzhavin 's death in 1816 .

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what the "Conversation of Russian Word Lovers" is in other dictionaries:

Literary Society in St. Petersburg in 1811 16. Created mainly on the initiative of AS Shishkov, the author of "Discourses on the old and new style", which became the manifesto of his literary associates. The meetings were held in the house of G. R. Derzhavin, ... ... St. Petersburg (encyclopedia)

"Conversation of lovers of the Russian word"- "Conversation of lovers of the Russian word", a literary society in St. Petersburg in 1811-16. It was created mainly on the initiative of A. S. Shishkov, the author of “Discourses on the old and new style”, which became the manifesto of his literary associates. Gatherings… … Encyclopedic reference book "St. Petersburg"

Literary society in St. Petersburg in 1811 16 headed by G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov. Most of the members (S. A. Shirinsky Shikhmatov, A. S. Khvostov, D. I. Khvostov, A. A. Shakhovskoy and others) from the positions of defenders of classicism and ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

- "CONVERSATION OF LOVERS OF THE RUSSIAN WORD", a literary society in St. Petersburg in 1811 16 headed by G. R. Derzhavin (see Derzhavin Gavrila Romanovich) and A. S. Shishkov (see SHISHKOV Alexander Semenovich). The majority of members (S. A. Shirinsky Shikhmatov, A ... encyclopedic Dictionary

"Conversation of lovers of the Russian word"- CONVERSATION OF LOVERS OF THE RUSSIAN WORD (1811 16) lit. about in St. Petersburg. It was a continuation of Lit. Evenings, which since 1807 were arranged alternately in their homes by A. S. Shishkov, G. R. Derzhavin, M. N. Muravyov, I. S. Zakharov. By purchasing an official status, meetings ... ... Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary

"CONVERSATION OF LOVERS OF THE RUSSIAN WORD"- "CONVERSATION OF LOVERS OF THE RUSSIAN WORD", a literary society in St. Petersburg (1811 - 1816). Created mainly on the initiative of A. S. Shishkov. The meetings took place in the house of G. R. Derzhavin, who, through his participation, strengthened the authority of the society. Among… … Literary Encyclopedic Dictionary

- (“Conversation of lovers of the Russian word”), a literary society in St. Petersburg (1811-16), headed by G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov. Members of the "Conversations" (S. A. Shirinsky Shikhmatov, A. S. Khvostov, A. A. Shakhovskaya and others) were epigones ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

The literary society that existed in St. Petersburg in 1811–16. Members of the society opposed the use in Russian. literature of French words and constructions. A. S. Shishkov, who headed the "Conversation ...", believed that any foreign word"there is… … Literary Encyclopedia

The association of writers, from which the “Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word” later grew, took shape in St. Petersburg in the early 1800s. “Four of us, namely: Derzhavin, Muravyov, Khvostov and I, set up an evening for reading, and, on the appointed days, gathered in turn to each other. Some other lovers of the Russian language joined our society, and we spent time with benefit and pleasantness, ”says the founder of the society, A.S. Shishkov, in his memoirs. 1 The meetings Shishkov writes about took place regularly. They discussed political events, read and discussed the literary works of I. A. Krylov, G. R. Derzhavin, S. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, and others.

The writers who surrounded Shishkov were mainly opponents of H. M. Karamzin and his school and actively opposed sentimentalism, which occupied a dominant position in Russian literature at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. The theoretical banner of the circle was Shishkov's book, Discourse on the Old and New Syllabaries of the Russian Language, published in 1803.

Shishkov, arguing with Karamzin, proclaimed the Church Slavonic language, ancient spiritual books, and later folklore as the foundation on which modern Russian literature should be built.

The aggravated literary struggle, the desire to expand its influence on the public led to the creation of an official society, which, after long disputes, the founders assigned the name "Conversation of Russian Word Lovers".

G. R. Derzhavin provided a large

1 A. S. Shishkov, Notes, opinions and correspondence, vol. 1, Berlin - Prague, 1870, p. 93.

hall of his St. Petersburg house on the Fontanka and a rich library.

The Conversation opened with a solemn meeting on March 15, 1811. Then the meetings took place every month, causing a huge confluence of the public at that time. During the war of 1812, meetings of the society were not held, they resumed in 1813 and continued until 1816, when, due to the death of Derzhavin, the meetings of the Conversations finally ceased. Attempts by Shishkov and Khvostov in 1817-1818 to resume its activities were unsuccessful.

The composition of the "Conversations" and its literary position were not homogeneous. Along with epigones of classicism, like Khvostov, colorless writers like P. Yu. Lvov, F. P. Lvov, I. S. Zakharov, and others, it included such first-class writers as Krylov and Derzhavin. "Conversation" was not averse to romantic trends, which manifested itself in an interest in folklore, in depicting an exotic, often oriental world, in acutely dramatic situations in lyrics (G. R. Derzhavin, S. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, S. I. Viskovatov, T Belyaev and others).

The activity of "Conversations" had a noticeable influence on the formation of Russian romanticism and, in particular, Decembrist literature. one

1 See about this: Yu. N. Tynyanov, Archaists and Pushkin. - In the book: Yu. N. Tynyanov, Pushkin and his contemporaries, M., 1968; G. A. Gukovsky, Pushkin and Russian Romantics, Saratov, 1946.

Ticket number 11

After Paul I, Alexander I became the ruler of Russia. The change of laws begins.

March 31, 1801- Decree on the abolition of the ban on the import of books and music from abroad and "permission for printing houses to print."

Decree of February 9, 1802 d. “On the elimination of censorships established in cities and at ports; on permission to establish free printing houses and on instructions to governors to consider newly published books, all censorships were abolished, free importation of books from abroad into the country was allowed, and the right to establish free printing houses was restored.

Later, censorship returned again. On July 9, 1804, the Charter on Censorship was adopted. According to this Statute, censorship has the duty to consider all kinds of books and works intended for public use. The main object of this consideration is to deliver to society books and writings that contribute to the true enlightenment of the mind and the formation of morals, and to remove books and writings that are contrary to this intention.

Journals and other literature ordered from abroad were subject to registration.

1801-1825 Protective, pro-government trend in Russian journalism. Published by private individuals, in small editions.

"Russian messenger" 1802-1820 (general-sex and literary magazine in Moscow) published by S.N. Glinka. The task is to promote the excitement of the people's spirit after the unsuccessful war with the French and the signing of the Tilsit Peace, humiliating for Russia. The benefactor is Count Rostopchin. The idea of ​​the magazine is pro-Russian, opposition to freethinking, they spoke about the Russian national character (the roots of the theory of official nationality). 600 copies - 200 subscribers. The first magazine focused on the middle class (audience - merchants, literate provincials)

In the era of the Napoleonic invasion, the “Russian Messenger” by S. N. Glinka had some success. According to the publisher's own testimony in 1811, the magazine had about 750 subscribers, of which more than two hundred were in Moscow, and the remaining five hundred were distributed among provincial cities. In the advanced literary circles, the Russky Vestnik did not enjoy attention, but Vyazemsky nevertheless considered it necessary to emphasize that in the era of the French invasion of Russia, the magazine of S. N. Glinka acquired "the entire importance of the event, as a counteraction to Napoleonic France and as an appeal to like-mindedness and unanimity foreshadowed already in the air of the war of 1812.

In the books of the "Russian Messenger" for 1808-1811. we come across a number of poetic plays, reasoning, stories and anecdotes dedicated to the naive praise of the greatness of the Russian spirit. However, this general background of the journal, i.e. The naive exaltation of Russian originality and power, already from the first years of the publication of the Russkiy Vestnik, was needed by the publisher not by itself, but primarily in order to depict on it a negative attitude towards the West and, in particular, towards the French. Through almost all the poetic and prose plays of his magazine, one main motive runs through - hostility to French ideas and influences.

The circulation of the Russkiy Vestnik began to decline steadily, from 1821 it began to appear intermittently. Its publication continued until 1826. Publicism on the pages of the Russkiy Vestnik is supplanted by plots from Russian history. In 1816, Glinka began publishing the first parts of Russian History for the Benefits of Family Education in the Russkiy Vestnik, which, being written in a captivating and light style, had some success and went through three editions. "Russian History" to a large extent reflected the political views of Glinka, his "Russianness", nationalism and monarchism. History was perceived by Glinka from the point of view of didactics as a "school of folk morality", its study was intended to form public morality, patriotic feeling and national pride. the main objective the study of Russian history, according to Glinka, is the knowledge of the “national spirit”. ( Mordovchenko. Journalism early XIX century)

"Readings in the Conversation of lovers of the Russian word"

Literary Society "Conversation of Russian Word Lovers", founded in 1811 according to the idea of ​​G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov (editor and leader) with the aim of developing and maintaining a taste for the elegant word through public reading of exemplary works in verse and prose . Old writers, mostly members of the Russian Academy, have long established a custom among themselves to gather in the evenings and read their new compositions to each other; at the end of 1810, Shishkov, who stubbornly continued a fierce polemic on the question of the old and the new style (he believed that the real Russian language existed in the pre-Petrine era) and already felt that his opponents, young writers, were becoming more and more dangerous, conceived turn home readings into public ones, in order to win over new allies. Derzhavin was his active assistant in the implementation of this idea, who placed at the disposal of the new society a vast hall in his house, assumed all the expenses that the society might need, and donated a significant collection of books to its library. The meetings were to take place in autumn and winter, once a month; in addition, it was decided to establish a time-based publication in which the works of B. members and outsiders would be published. B. was supposed to consist of 24 full members and collaborators. To maintain order in the Readings, it was divided into four categories of 6 members each; discharges were to be collected in turn. Readings lasted no more than 2 - 2 ½ hours. Drawn up by Shishkov on these grounds, the charter of B. was through the Minister of Public Education, gr. Razumovsky, submitted for the highest approval and approved by the sovereign, and it was ordered to declare the royal favor to the Society "for this useful intention." The opening of B. and the first reading took place on March 14, 1811, in an extremely solemn atmosphere: almost all the ministers, members State Council, senators - in full dress uniform.

Visitors were admitted on pre-sent tickets; not only members, but also guests appeared in uniforms and orders, and ladies in ball gowns; on special occasions, there was also music with choirs, which Bortnyansky composed on purpose for the Conversation.

With the establishment of B. was associated with the idea of ​​publishing her works. This edition p.z. "Readings in B. for lovers of the Russian word" came out indefinitely in books from 5 to 9 sheets; in total, 19 such books were published during the period from 1811 to 1815 (inclusive). Most of the articles and poems that filled the "Readings" were distinguished by the paucity and colorlessness of the content and proved only the mediocrity of the authors and their childish attitude towards science and art; however, along with these children's exercises of high-ranking elders, sometimes wonderful works appeared: for example, in the "Readings" a letter from Uvarov to Gnedich about the translation of the Iliad in the size of the original was printed; Krylov's fables were also printed here, the reading of which in the meetings of B. always aroused the delight of the public. In general, it can be said that if B. had some significance in society, it was only thanks to Krylov and Derzhavin, and in part - Shishkov. Everything that was fresh and gifted in our literature of that time, not only kept aloof from B., but also adjoined the camp, directly hostile to it - to the well-known circle "Arzamas", in whose meetings they made fun of Beseda in every possible way. Zhukovsky, who came into comic delight from literary nonsense and constantly read the fables of gr. Khvostov, said that B. is an inexhaustible storehouse of exemplary works of this kind, and prophesied the appearance of "Conversations". As long as Derzhavin was alive, B. could still somehow exist; with his death, this stillborn society, no longer needed by anyone, fell apart of its own accord. At the same time, the last weak stronghold of the ancient classical legends of the Lomonosov period of our literature collapsed; a new trend that took possession of it and united all the outstanding literary forces under its banner came from Arzamas: the young man Pushkin appeared to replace the old man Derzhavin. "Conversation". served Russian educated society: it convinced with its own eyes all those who cherished the interests of their native literature that on the old, beaten path of Slavic-Russian pseudo-classicism it was no longer possible to expect anything strong and talented, that this path should be abandoned forever and that literature should set yourself completely different tasks. This negative merit is everything historical meaning B. lovers of the Russian word.

Also, members of the "Conversations" opposed freethinking, for power, autocracy.

"Readings in the conversation of lovers of the Russian word"- magazine, St. Petersburg. 1811-1816 Leader - A.S. Shishkov. Creates its own society "conversation lovers of the Russian word." The task is to return the pre-Petrine language. Protective program, an attempt to create your own dictionary. Reading came out irregularly - 19 books. The magazine published moral teachings, articles on the history of poetry. Editorial Board Krylov, Shakhovskaya, Derzhavins, Gorchakovs. Two sections: 1. Simply Literature, 2. Court on the Language of Literature. Most of the articles and poems published in the magazine are colorless. The exceptions were the fables of I. A. Krylov (“The Cat and the Cook”, 1813, part 8; “The Eagle and the Bee”, 1813, part 13, etc.), poems and articles by G. R. Derzhavin (“Discourse on lyric poetry or about an ode", 1811, book 2, the story of Teramen, 1811, book 3), as well as translations from the "Iliad" by E. I. Kostrov (1811, book 5) and N. I. Gnedich (1813 , part 14).

2. Publications of the Slavophiles ("Russian conversation", "Molva", "Sail", "Day")

Russian conversation- a magazine, published in Moscow in 1856-1860, 4 books each, from 1859 - 6 books a year. Ed.-ed. - A. I. Koshelev, co-editors - T. I. Filippov (until the beginning of 1857), then - P. I. Bartenev and M. A. Maksimovich. In 1858 (August) - 1859 ed. - I. S. Aksakov. "R. b." - the organ of the Slavophiles. The publication was undertaken on shares. Shareholders A. I. Koshelev, Yu. F. Samarin, A. S. Khomyakov and V. A. Cherkassky made up the "editor's board" and were the main employees of the journal.

Departments: belles-lettres, The science, Criticism, Review, Mixture, biographies. Being essentially the first periodical of the Slavophiles, R. b." propagated their ideology. The journal advocated the need to preserve the autocracy, convene a deliberative Zemsky Sobor and carry out a number of reforms (freedom of the press, abolition of the death penalty, etc.). On the peasant question "R. b." wrote a little, since the appendix "Rural improvement" was completely devoted to him. The magazine advocated the release of peasants with land for ransom and with the preservation of the peasant community.

In philosophical questions, R. b." stood on the positions of militant priestly idealism. The issue of spreading literacy among the people was reduced to the requirement to strengthen religious education in this way. For "R. b." characterized by the preaching of pan-Slavic ideas. K. S. Aksakov, I. D. Belyaev, N. P. Gilyarov-Platonov, A. F. Hilferding, I. V. Kireevsky actively collaborated in the journal. After the closing of "Moskvityanin" in "R. b." articles by V. N. Leshkov, M. A. Maksimovich, M. P. Pogodin, and S. P. Shevyrev were placed, provided with editorial notes.

Scientists and writers from the Slavic countries were also involved in the journal: Grabovsky, Daskalov, Klun, and others. Fiction “R. b." represented by the works of I. S. and K. S. Aksakov, S. T. Aksakov (“Family Chronicle”, 1856, No. 2; “Literary and Theatrical Memories), V. I. Dahl, I. S. Nikitin, A. K. Tolstoy, F. I. Tyutchev, A. S. Khomyakov and others. On the pages of “R. b." sometimes the works of Marko Vovchok (“Masha”, 1859, No. 3), A. N. Ostrovsky (“ Plum”, 1857, No. 1), M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrin (“Mrs. Padeykova”, 1859, No. 4), T. G. Shevchenko (“Evening”, “Dream”, 1859. No. 3). The magazine was not successful.

According to I. Aksakov, the magazine found its readers mainly among the clergy, while young people and the democratic intelligentsia were completely indifferent to it.

rural improvement- a magazine, an appendix to the "Russian conversation", was published in Moscow in 1858 (from March) - 1859 (to April), monthly. 14 issues have been published. Ed.-ed. - A. I. Koshelev.

Slavophile magazine devoted exclusively to training peasant reform. The main employees are AI Koshelev, Yu. F. Samarin, V. A. Cherkassky, members of the board of the editorial board of the Russkaya Beseda. They wrote for "S. b." more than 20 articles that determined its direction. The journal was conceived as an organ of landlord thought on the peasant question, and numerous articles by landowner correspondents accompanied by editorial notes were published on its pages.

In No. 9, 1858, Cherkassky's article "Some Features of the Future Rural Administration" was published, in which he proposed that the landowners be left with the right to corporal punishment of the peasants. This article caused outrage in the progressive press.

Like other publications devoted to the peasant question, S. b." encountered censorship difficulties. At the beginning of 1859, as a result of the order to subject articles on the peasant question, in addition to general censorship, to special censorship by the Main Committee, the timely publication of regular issues became extremely difficult and the publication of the journal ceased.

We tried to create our own dictionary. Issues were distributed mainly among the members of the circle.

Rumor. Literary newspaper - published in Moscow from April 12 to December 28, 1857, weekly. A total of 38 issues were published. Ed. official - S. M. Shpilevsky, actual - K. S. Aksakov. Departments: belles-lettres, criticism and bibliography, modern notes and mixture.

"M." - the organ of the Slavophiles. The newspaper, which did not have a political section, was not distinguished by topicality and was of an abstract and theoretical nature. Leading articles were devoted to explaining the main issues of the Slavophil doctrine: the peasant community (Nos. 2, 28), nationality (No. 5), historical paths of development of Russia (No. 6), nationality in science (No. 10) and art (No. 11), the Slavic question (No. 14), the industrial development of Russia, etc. The fiction department of the newspaper was very poor. It was filled with the works of Aksakov (he also owns all the unsigned editorials and a number of articles signed pseudo. Imrek), N. M. Pavlov, A. P. Chebyshev-Dmitriev, and others. In addition to those listed, S. T. Aksakov took part in the newspaper ( pseudonym employee of Molva, 1832), P. A. Bessonov, O. M. Bodyansky, N. I. Krylov, N. S. Tolstoy, A. S. Khomyakov, F. V. Chizhov, S. P. Shevyrev and others.

The reason for the termination of the newspaper was the article by K. Aksakov “Experience of synonyms. The Public and the People, published in No. 36. Having received a warning that if such articles were published in the newspaper, the newspaper would be banned, Aksakov refused to publish it.

Sail- a newspaper published in Moscow in January 1859, weekly. 2 issues were published, after which the newspaper was banned. Ed.-ed. - I. S. Aksakov.

Edition of the Slavophile direction. In addition to I. S. Aksakov, K. S. Aksakov, P. A. Kulish, M. A. Maksimovich, M. P. Pogodin, A. S. Khomyakov, and others collaborated in the newspaper.

Determining the political program of the newspaper, I. Aksakov in the editorial (No. 1) declared his loyalty to the throne and his deep disgust for "dangerous storms and unrest." The newspaper is characterized by the preaching of pan-Slavism, priesthood. "P." advocated the abolition of serfdom with the preservation of the peasant community, for the creation of a broad

Aksakov in the article defines the sections:
1) Bibliographic department - to give a brief, but if possible, a complete report on books and periodicals published in Russia.
2) Department of regional news, that is, letters and news from the provinces. Our provinces do not have a central body for expressing their needs and requirements: we offer our newspaper.
3) Slavic department - department of letters and news from the Slavic lands. For this purpose we have invited some Polish, Czech, Serbian, Croatian, Ruthenian, Bulgarian and so on writers to be our permanent correspondents.

Demand for publicity, skepticism about some of the government's actions, as well as harsh criticism from the right foreign policy tsarism (in M. P. Pogodin’s article “The Past Year in Russian History”, No. 2) caused the newspaper to stop.

Day- a newspaper published in Moscow in 1861 (from October 15) - 1865, weekly. Ed.-ed. - I. S. Aksakov. Slavophil organ. The newspaper had departments: Literary, Regional, Slavic, Critical and Mixture. The political department of I. Aksakov was not allowed.

Despite some opposition to the government, characteristic of the Slavophiles - the demand for the convocation of a Zemsky Sobor, freedom of the press, the abolition of the death penalty, etc., "D." connected with the reactionary press in assessing the main events of Russian life. Aksakov, together with Katkov, accused the Poles and "nihilists" of setting fire to the fires in St. Petersburg; during the days of student unrest in 1861, he urged students to return to their studies, and during the Polish uprising of 1863, he justified the policy of the tsarist government and even reproached Muravyov the Hangman for "inaction." The newspaper waged a systematic struggle against revolutionary democratic and national liberation ideas.

As the paper's reactionary character became more and more evident, its circle of readers narrowed. In 1862 "D." had 4,000 subscribers and its circulation exceeded 7,000 copies, by the end of 1865 its popularity had declined so sharply that Aksakov was forced to stop publishing.

Despite the reactionary nature of the newspaper, it was subjected to censorship repression. In June 1862, for refusing to name the author of the correspondence about the unrest in the Ostsee region (in No. 31), Aksakov was removed from editing, and the newspaper was suspended at No. 34.

From September 1, "D." it was allowed to resume under the editorship of Yu. F. Samarin, who was listed as the official editor until the end of the year. At this time, newspaper issues were published without the editor's signature.

Shareholder- a newspaper published in Moscow in 1860-1863, weekly. In 1860-1861 it was an addition to the monthly journal "Bulletin of Industry". In 1862 she went out on her own. In 1863 was an addition to the newspaper " Day". Ed. - F. V. Chizhov and I. K. Babst.

The aim of the newspaper is to protect Russian industry and trade from foreign competition. Departments: Editorial, Trade affairs, Balance and state of accounts of the State Bank, Bill and money rates, Trains railways , Latest share prices on the St. Petersburg stock exchange, ads. After the termination of Vestnik Promyshlennost, two more departments were added: Review of Russian Industry and Trade and industrial chronicle. Leading employees signed pseudonyms (Russian merchant, Traveler, etc.).

The solution of these problems in Russia took on a polemical-parodic character and was associated with the formation and activities of two literary associations - the "Conversation of the Lovers of the Russian Word" (1811-1816) and the "Arzamas Society of Unknown People" ("Arzamas"; 1815-1818).

In the early 1800s Karamzin wrote several articles (“Why are there so few authors’ talents in Russia”, 1802, etc.), where he argued that Russians are not able to state some psychological and philosophical subtleties in a conversation, they cannot accurately and clearly express their feelings, while in French the same experiences they convey easily. Thus, Karamzin recorded a characteristic contradiction in the linguistic everyday life of a nobleman of that time - the phenomenon of bilingualism. Russian educated people it was easier to speak and write French than Russian. Even a few years later, many writers, including Pushkin, admitted this. Some poets (for example, Vyazemsky) first wrote poems in French, and then translated them into Russian.

French in the early 19th century was a means of communication and diplomacy. Together with him, many concepts related to the French Revolution, European social thought, philosophy and literature entered Russian culture. These concepts have not yet been mastered by the Russian language. The reason, according to Karamzin, was that “we still had so few true writers that they did not have time to give us examples in many genera; did not have time to enrich the words with subtle ideas; they did not show how to express pleasantly some, even ordinary, thoughts. Meanwhile, it writers ("authors") "help fellow citizens to think and speak"(emphasis mine. - VC.). The underdevelopment of the Russian literary language hurt the national pride of Karamzin the patriot. He dreamed that the Russian language was as rich as French. Karamzin's appeal to French culture thus had nothing to do with gallomania.

What had to be done to bring the Russian language on a par with the great languages ​​of the world? The language of literature, answered Karamzin, should become the language of conversation, the language of a "good", that is, enlightened, educated, society. You need to speak as they write, and write as they speak. Here, as a model, one should take French with its precise usage and clear syntax. The French give another example: "... The French language is all in books (with all the colors and shadows, as in picturesque paintings), and the Russians still have to talk about many subjects, as a person with talent writes."

Karamzin and the Karamzinists believed that it was necessary to bring together the bookish language and the spoken language in order to erase the difference between the bookish and spoken language, in order to “destroy the bookish language” and “form” middle language” based on the “average” style of the literary language. Reliance on France, which is far ahead of Russia "in civil education", the assimilation of European concepts cannot be disastrous for the country. The point is not to make French, Germans, Dutch or English out of Russians, but to make Russians equal to the most enlightened peoples of Europe. At the same time, one indispensable condition must be observed - changes must come naturally, without violent breaking.

Karamzin's articles immediately met with a strong objection from Admiral A.S. Shishkov, who responded to them with the treatise "Discourse on the old and new syllable of the Russian language" (1803).

On all the main theses of Karamzin's articles, Shishkov furiously argues with him. If Karamzin believes that the assimilation of Western concepts is necessary for Russia, then Shishkov defends domestic culture from foreign influence and declares that Russia must keep itself intact from the ideological and cultural influence of France and the West as a whole. The task, according to Shishkov, is to protect national values ​​and shrines from the corrupting ideas of Western "foreignness." The nation that unleashed the Jacobin terror, destroyed the monarchy, rejected religion, is a nation of destroyers. There is no positive, creative beginning in it. As a result, its philosophy, literature and all culture have only a negative meaning and are capable of sowing only violence, robbery, unbelief.

French philosophy is nothing more than "the insane thinking of the Diderots, Janjacs, Voltaires and others who were called philosophers." There is so much blindness and delusion in it, as much as is not contained in "the grossest ignorance." The latest philosophers teach the peoples those "depraved morals", "the pernicious fruits of which, after so much shedding of blood, still nest in France to this day." Therefore, “it is necessary to go into reading French books with great caution, so that the purity of your morals in this sea full of danger is not stumbled on a stone ...”.

French literature is “unintelligible idle talk”, the French language is “poor, meager”, it contains many words created by a disorderly and bloody revolution - “decades”, “guillotines”. He is a barren soil, incapable of producing anything great. This foreign culture "forces its way" into Russian culture, distorting and destroying pure and original national foundations.

As a result of his reasoning, Shishkov came to the conclusion that Russia should not assimilate false European enlightenment, but cherish and protect its past. Only in this way can the country be rid of the pernicious French influence.

If Karamzin rushed forward, then Shishkov mentally moved back and dreamed of returning to the past, resurrecting the patriarchal customs, customs and language of antiquity. He was not satisfied with either the future or the present. It was a utopian hope for backward development, for regression, not for progress.

In order to turn the movement of Russian culture back, Shishkov turned to the Slavic language of church books, which was no longer spoken in everyday life. He stood up for bookish language and protested against its rapprochement with the spoken language and, most importantly, its dissolution in the spoken language. Racine's language, Shishkov objected to Karamzin, "is not the one everyone speaks, otherwise everyone would be Racine." However, if it is “not ashamed”, as Shishkov wrote, to speak the language of Lomonosov, then another thing is completely clear - neither the language of Racine nor the language of Lomonosov is expressed in everyday life.

Shishkov believed that the basis of a single literary language should not be colloquial, not the "middle" style, but above all the language of church books, the Slavic language in which these books are written. “The Slavic language,” he wrote, “is the root and foundation of the Russian language; he gives him wealth, intelligence and beauty. The soil Slavic language, unlike the soil of the language, French, is fruitful and life-giving, it has "wealth, abundance, strength." There was no secular literature in the Slavic language. It was the language of church culture. If in France there were already secular writers who corrupted morals with their writings, then “even before the time of Lomonosov and his contemporaries, we remained with our former spiritual songs, with sacred books, with reflections on the majesty of God, with speculations about Christian positions and about faith, teaching a person a meek and peaceful life ... ". French spiritual books cannot be compared with Russian ones: “... the French could not borrow as much from their spiritual books as we can from ours: the style in them is majestic, short, strong, rich; compare them with the French spiritual writings and you will immediately see this.

Shishkov admitted that after Peter I and Catherine II, the works of European thinkers and writers became available in Russia, new customs appeared (“they learned to dance minovets”), their own secular authors. But it was from then on that the deterioration of morals began. The nobility is to blame for the violation of harmony. The people (the entire non-noble part of the nation - commoners, peasantry, merchants) retained national customs and mores, because they were brought up only on Russian literacy, on Russian books, on their own customs. From this, Shishkov concluded that, in addition to the bookish language, folk eloquence should form the basis of a single literary language, i.e. those words, expressions and phrases that are found in folklore, in the language of commoners, peasants, merchants (colloquial and " Russianisms").

So, Karamzin and Shishkov came to the same idea about the need for a single literary language and understood its creation as a matter of national and state significance. However, Karamzin insisted on bringing the bookish language closer to the spoken language, while Shishkov did not even allow such a thought. Karamzin proposed to put the "medium" style as the basis of the literary language, Shishkov - high and colloquial styles. Both writers were sure that literature, created on the basis of the linguistic principles offered by each, would contribute to the unification of all classes of the people on a common national soil. At the same time, Karamzin and Shishkov opened the way for romanticism (the ideas of nationality and originality, characteristic of Shishkov, were put forward by the romantics), but Karamzin was inspired by the idea of ​​a gradual and natural movement forward, and Shishkov conceived the movement forward as an artificial and unnatural return back.

In order to educate future young writers in their spirit, A.S. Shishkov decided to create a literary society in which the wise in life and literary experience venerable elders would give advice to budding budding authors. Thus was born the "Conversation of lovers of the Russian word." Its core was made up of G.R. Derzhavin (the solemnity and significance of the meetings was emphasized by the fact that they took place in his house), A.S. Shishkov, M.N. Muravyov, I.A. Krylov, P.I. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov.

The official opening of the "Conversations" took place on February 21, 1811, but the meetings began much earlier. Its full members and collaborators were divided into four "official categories", headed by the chairman (A.S. Shishkov, G.R. Derzhavin, A.S. Khvostov, I.S. Zakharov). In addition to them, N.I. Gnedich, P.A. Katenin, A.S. Griboedov, V.K. Kuchelbecker and other famous writers. "Besedchiki", or "Shishkovists", published their journal "Readings in Conversation lovers of the Russian word" (1811-1816).

According to G.A. Gukovsky, "Conversation" was "a stubborn, albeit inept, student of romanticism." The national-romantic idea proclaimed by Shishkov, with its hostility to the philosophical 18th century, the desire to revive national character on the basis of ecclesiasticism, it will sprout in the works of Katenin, Griboedov, and the Decembrist poets.

Even before the opening of the Conversation, Shishkov was joined by some writers who did not share the principles of sentimentalism and romanticism that arose on the basis of translations and transcriptions from European languages ​​(for example, Zhukovsky's ballads). The most consistent and talented among them was the poet and playwright Prince A.A. Shakhovskaya. In 1805 he performed the play "New Stern", directed against the Karamzinists. Then, in 1808, he published several satires in his journal Dramatic Herald, in which he reproached modern lyricists for the pettiness of topics, for excessive tearfulness, and for injecting artificial sensitivity. Shakhovskoy was right in his criticism. He was also right when he resolutely took up arms against “kozebyatiny” (on behalf of the mediocre German playwright August Kotzebue, whom Karamzin admired by some inexplicable misunderstanding, extolling his psychologism) - sentimental melodramatic plays that flooded the Russian stage. Soon Shishkov also published a new work (“Translation of two articles from La Harpe with translator's notes”; 1809), where he developed the ideas of the famous treatise.

The cup of patience of Karamzin's supporters overflowed, and they decided to respond. Karamzin himself did not take part in the controversy.

It would seem that a common concern for the creation of a single national literary language and a common striving for romanticism should have led to the unification of the efforts of all enlightened strata. However, it happened differently - the society split and there was a deep demarcation.

Shishkov was criticized in 1810 on the pages of the Tsvetnik magazine by D.V. Dashkov, who questioned Shishkov's statement about the identity of the Church Slavonic and Russian languages. He argued that Church Slavonicisms are only one of the stylistic "auxiliary" means. According to Dashkov, Shishkov is an amateur philologist and his theory is far-fetched.

In the same issue, a message by V.L. Pushkin “To V.A. Zhukovsky," in which, feeling offended by Shishkov, he rejected accusations of anti-patriotism:

I love the Fatherland, I know the Russian language,
But I don't compare Tredyakovsky with Racine.

Even further V.L. Pushkin went to The Dangerous Neighbor (1811), which was admired by the Karamzinists. Describing the prostitutes who admired Shakhovsky's "New Stern", the author of the poem addressed the playwright with the words: "Direct talent will find defenders everywhere." This phrase has become catchy.

The offended Shakhovskoy wrote the comedy "Plundered Fur Coats", in which he ridiculed the small talent of V.L. Pushkin and his insignificant contribution to Russian literature. On September 23, 1815, the premiere of Shakhovsky's comedy A Lesson for Coquettes, or Lipetsk Waters took place. The play featured the tearfully sentimental balladeer Fialkin, whose verses parodied Zhukovsky's ballad Achilles (the comedy contained allusions to the ballad Svetlana).

Thus began a merry and principled polemic between the Karamzinists and the Shishkovists. Shishkov defended the idea of ​​national originality of literature. The Karamzinists argued that the national idea does not contradict the orientation towards European culture and European enlightenment, which is the only source of the formation of taste. Asserting the variability and mobility of literary forms, they accused their opponents of the literary Old Believers, of adherence to outdated normativity.

The content and style of the controversy took shape after D.N. Bludov wrote a satire in prose "Vision in some kind of fence." The plot of Bludov's satire was as follows. “The Society of Friends of Literature, Forgotten by Fortune” and living in Arzamas far from both capitals (a mocking allusion to famous writers from “Conversations”, who in fact have all sunk into oblivion, i.e. died as writers), meet in a tavern and spend evenings in friendly disputes. One day they accidentally observe the revelations of a stranger (it is easy to recognize A.A. Shakhovsky in him by his external features). Using the ancient style and form of biblical allegory, the stranger tells of a prophetic vision. He dreamed that a certain elder (A.S. Shishkov was guessed in him) entrusted him with the mission of writing a libel on rivals who were more gifted than the elder. In this way, the elder seems to restore his lowly fallen reputation, quench the envy that gnaws at him and forget about his own creative inferiority.

Bludov's satire largely outlined both the genre and the ironic devices of the Arzamas writings. She gave birth to a circle (it was decided to revive the former Arzamas as "New Arzamas"), which arose in 1815 and was called the "Arzamas Society of Unknown People" or - briefly - "Arzamas". It included V.A. Zhukovsky, P.A. Vyazemsky, D.V. Dashkov, A.I. and N.I. Turgenev, M.F. Orlov, K.N. Batyushkov, A.F. Voeikov, V.L. Pushkin, D.N. Bludov, S.S. Uvarov. A.S. was also listed as Arzamas. Pushkin, who openly joined the society after graduating from the Lyceum.

Arzamas emerged as a society focused primarily on polemics with Beseda and Russian Academy. He parodied in his structure their organizational forms. In contrast to the official metropolitan "Conversation", where large and experienced officials met, the Arzamas residents deliberately emphasized the provincialism of the "society of unknown people." By a special decree, it was allowed to "recognize any place as Arzamas" - "a hall, a hut, a chariot, a sleigh."

Arzamas parodists wittily played on the well-known tradition of the French Academy, when a newly elected member delivered a laudatory speech in honor of a deceased predecessor. Entering the "Arzamas" chose from the "Conversations" "living dead", and in his honor sounded "eulogy", saturated with irony. The language of the Arzamas speeches, replete with literary quotations and reminiscences, was designed for a European-educated interlocutor capable of capturing subtext and feeling irony. It was the language of the initiates.

The Arzamas protocols are dominated by a playful parodic beginning. Zhukovsky, the permanent secretary of the society, was unanimously recognized as the king of buffoonery. And since, according to him, "it was born from attacks on the Ballads," the participants were given nicknames taken from Zhukovsky's ballads. The “balladnik” himself bore the Arzamas name Svetlana, Vyazemsky - Asmodeus, Batyushkov - Achilles (alluding to his frail figure, friends joked: “Ah, hil”), Bludov - Cassandra, Uvarov - Old Woman, Orlov - Rhine, Voeikov - Ivikov crane, young Pushkin - Cricket, and his uncle Vasily Lvovich happened to be four - Here, Here I am, Here I am again, Votrushka.

A peculiar emblem of the society was the majestic Arzamas goose (Arzamas was famous for its huge and tasty geese), and the name goose became an honorary one for each member. However, contemporaries also had other associations. In the book "Emblems and Symbols", published for the first time by decree of Peter I in 1705 and reprinted many times, there was an emblem under No. with the feelings of the Arzamas, proclaiming "irreconcilable hatred of Conversation".

So, the people of Arzamas began to jokingly repel the attacks of "Conversations" and themselves recklessly and fearlessly attacked their opponents. The content of the disputes was serious, but the form in which the people of Arzamas clothed them was parodic and playful.

For the people of Arzamas, Beseda is a society of the past; in addition to Krylov and a few other writers, there are inert elders headed by Grandfather Sedym, i.e. Shishkov. Almost all of them are mediocre, they have no literary talents, and therefore their ambitions are ridiculous and their claims to lead literature are groundless. As writers they are dead. Such are their writings, whose place is in the river of oblivion Lethe, which flows in the underworld of the dead. They write "conversators" in a dead language, using words that have long disappeared from speech use (Arzamas people mocked the expression "semo and ovamo").

Shishkov and his brethren, in the opinion of Arzamas, are worthy not so much of merciless indignation as of good-natured joking, since their works are empty, empty of content, and they themselves, better than any criticism, expose their own inconsistency.

The main method of cheerful mockery is "Arzamas nonsense" - an outdated high style, infinitely poeticizing the crazy content and linguistic madness of the works of "conversators". Such were the views of Shishkov for the people of Arzamas.

The heavy, majestic darkness of the writings and speeches of Shishkov's supporters was countered by the Arzamas people with Karamzin's light, elegant, and even somewhat dandy style. Leaving the world "Conversation" is replaced by "New Arzamas". The people of Arzamas create their own cosmic world, create Arzamas mythology that has never been seen before.

The whole history of "Arzamas" falls into two periods - old and new. It is easy to see here direct analogies with the Old and New Testaments, with the idea Orthodox Church. “Old Arzamas” is a “Friendly Literary Society”, in which ideas have already arisen, brilliantly developed by “New Arzamas”, to which the grace of the former Arzamas has passed. Indeed, many members of the "Friendly Literary Society" became members of "Arzamas" in 1815. Taking over the baton, "New Arzamas" was baptized, that is, cleansed of old vices, and transformed. The Lipetsk Waters (a hint at Shakhovsky's comedy) became Epiphany waters for Novy Arzamas. In these cleansing waters, the remnants of the "dirt" of the "conversations" disappeared, and a renewed and beautiful "Arzamas" was born. Associated with baptism is the adoption of new names. From now on, the people of Arzamas acquired a new religion, learned and believed in their unearthly god - the god of Taste.

In full agreement with Karamzin's ideas, artistic taste is interpreted as a personal ability. It cannot be grasped by the mind. Taste cannot be taught - it is not acquired by labor. A person receives taste as a heavenly gift, as grace descended from heaven and visited him. Taste is mysteriously connected with goodness and is subject not to knowledge, but to faith. From this it is clear that, creating a polysemy of ideas, the Arzamas people combine ecclesiastical and aesthetic ideas. The church idea is transferred to the everyday plane, and the aesthetic idea is "sacralized" (consecrated by religion, becomes sacred). In other words, Arzamas combine travesty(the ironic use of "high" genre and "high" style to convey deliberately "low" content) and burlesque(deliberately crude and daring stylistically "low" presentation of the "high" topic).

In game space world Arzamas residents Taste is a god that denies rules, norms, a god that requires clarity of thought, psychological relevance and accuracy of words and expressions, their lightness, grace and euphony. The God of Taste acts secretly, settling as a spirit in every Arzamas citizen. At the same time, his secret presence takes on flesh - the Arzamas goose. In order for the people of Arzamas to be saved from the demonic forces of the "talkers", the god of Taste invites them to taste their own flesh. After tasting the divine flesh, they mysteriously escape the Conversation spell and escape. Goose flesh is delicious and miraculous. It not only preserves and protects the people of Arzamas from all misfortunes, but also contains a divine creative gift: the compositions of the people of Arzamas turn out to be filled with true taste and act as “pleasing to God”, that is, approved by the god of Taste. The cult of the god Taste is supported by the church.

"Arzamas" - the focus of aesthetic faith - is a temple, the church of the god Taste, similar to the Orthodox Church - the guardian of religion. Literary Orthodoxy, like any true religion, has an adversary in the form of the literary forces of darkness and evil. They focused on "The Conversation".

Since the "talkers" themselves rejected the god of Taste, they are exposed as "schismatics", "pagans", "Mohammedans", "Jews", and their unclean temple - "Conversation" - is called either a "temple" (paganism), or a "synagogue" (Judaism), since the main enemies of Orthodoxy were paganism, Islam, Judaism. Often "Conversation" is declared a place of witchcraft, ritual ominous prayers. Then it appears as a false church, "anti-church", and "conversators" - "sorcerers", "sorcerers", "sorcerers". Finally, the "talkers" find themselves in the retinue of Satan, the Devil, and then they turn into devils, witches, and the "Conversation" itself becomes their gathering place - hell. Thus, the people of Arzamas have their own poetic temple - "Arzamas", their own god - Taste and their own "piitic hell" - "Conversation".

In 1816, "Conversation" ceased to exist. "Arzamas" lasted until 1818 and also disappeared from the literary arena. Attempts to revive the "Conversation" undertaken by A.S. Khvostov, as well as attempts to give the Arzamas meetings a serious form, were not successful. However, the Arzamas brotherhood and Arzamas eloquence did not go unnoticed. In a transformed form, they entered the literary life and literature.

Both views on a single literary language had advantages and disadvantages. Karamzin, correctly emphasizing the importance of the “middle” style of the spoken language of an educated society and focusing on it, initially did not take into account the stylistic role of “high” and “low” styles (subsequently, while working on the “History of the Russian State”, he paid tribute to the “high” style, which was credited to him by Shishkov). Shishkov, rightly drawing attention to the "high" and "low" styles, rejected the "middle" style, the spoken language. A unified Russian literary language could not be created if the writers followed the path of only Karamzin or only Shishkov. All three styles had to participate in its creation. And so it happened.

Based on the colloquial literary language and the "middle" style, enriched with "high" and "low" styles, the efforts of all writers of the early 19th century. formed a single literary language. This was not the beginning of the unification of the nation, as Karamzin and Shishkov had hoped. On the contrary, the gulf between the nobility and the non-noble classes deepened more and more. It became the subject of reflection for all Russian writers and thinkers, from Pushkin to Berdyaev. However, the creative beginning in the very fact of creating a single literary language was fully reflected in literature. It is thanks to this circumstance that Russian literature in an extremely short time has become on the same level with the leading European literatures. At the origins of her triumphal procession is a cheerful polemic between the Arzamas residents and the Shishkovists, filled with quite serious and significant content.

In the creation of a single literary language, the main merit, no doubt, belongs to Pushkin.

Pushkin, a lyceum student, professed the ideology of Arzamas. He devoted himself entirely to the literary battle with the Conversation destroyers Russian word. From "Arzamas" he forever inherited the spirit of literary mischief, the element of "light and cheerful", focus on controversy. Pushkin's mood was reflected in the epigram "The gloomy trio are singers" (1815). However, already in the 1820s. Pushkin is dissatisfied with the literary "sectarianism" (Yu.N. Tynyanov), the one-sidedness of both Karamzin and Shishkov. In 1823, he wrote to Vyazemsky: “I would like to leave some biblical obscenity to the Russian language. I do not like to see traces of European affectation and French sophistication in our primitive language. Roughness and simplicity more suited him. I preach from inner conviction, but out of habit I write differently. These words mean that the "middle" syllable remains the basis of Pushkin's poetic language, but the poet is already clearly aware of its limitations. He recognizes the relative correctness of Shishkov (“Shishkov’s claims are ridiculous in many respects; but in many respects he was right”), he wants to “learn” from Katenin, a supporter of the “high” and “colloquial” styles. Works such as Boris Godunov testify that Pushkin took into account once warring points of view.

The controversy about the Russian literary language contributed to the fact that literature abandoned genre thinking, turned to thinking and playing with styles, which Pushkin especially masterfully took advantage of in Eugene Onegin. Lermontov in his poems, Gogol in his early stories. It opened up space both for the development of the romantic trend in its psychological and civil (social) currents, and for the formation of the realistic foundations of Russian literature in the works of Krylov, Griboyedov, Pushkin, Lermontov and Gogol.

1. Genre typology of the Russian romantic story.

2. Genre typology of the Russian romantic story

3. It is traditionally customary to take the thematic classification as the basis for the genre typology of small romantic prose in Russian literary criticism. Theme (historical, fantasy, secular, everyday, art and artist) in this case is considered as a leading feature only when taking into account the general romantic nature of the stories. She, in turn, is closely connected with the lyrical epic genres of romantic literature - a thought, a ballad, a poem. This is quite natural, if we remember that the literary process of the 1830s was characterized by the dominance of poetic genres. Prose under these conditions, with the underdevelopment of its own genre system, was forced to focus on poetry. Many writers of short stories transferred their own poetic experience into prose.
The historical story of the Decembrists, for example, was obviously influenced by the genre of Ryleev's thought. The principles of historicism developed by Ryleev were undoubtedly taken into account in the historical stories of A. Bestuzhev. These include:
a historical figure endowed with features of exclusivity, whose inner world is extremely close to the author's;
historical allusions in the description of the mores of the past, which is intended to “hint” the reader at the present;
lyricization of the author's narration, convergence of the confessional manner of speech of the author and the protagonist;
methods of psychologism (portrait, landscape), which came into the historical story from the arsenal of elegiac romanticism, etc.
The first steps of the Russian science fiction story, of course, could not have taken place without Russian poetry by that time behind the richest experience of a romantic ballad. It was in it that the aesthetics of the “wonderful” and the compositional and stylistic forms of its expression were developed, which were “borrowed” by the fantastic story of A. Pogorelsky and V. Odoevsky. These include:
feeling by the protagonist of life on its departure from everything ordinary;
strange forms of behavior of the protagonist, designed to emphasize the irrationality of his inner world;
the hero's encounter face to face with the other world, prepared by the whole course of his "earthly" life;
an extremely contradictory experience of this contact with another world, with otherness, during which the hero’s inner freedom enters into an insoluble, as a rule, conflict with the conditions of external lack of freedom surrounding him (environment, code of generally accepted decency, pressure from relatives, etc.);
the death of a hero who is unable to resolve (primarily within himself) the conflict between “finite” and “infinite”, “flesh” and “spirit”.
In the fantasy story genre, again, a rather strong influence of the lyrical style on the form of the author's narration is noticeable, starting with the vocabulary and ending with the emotional-associative methods of organizing the plot.
The secular story as a genre would hardly have taken place if, by the time the first experiments of this kind appeared, there were no poems by Baratynsky “Eda” and “Ball”, which transferred the structure of the conflict to the soil of secular life. romantic poem. In accordance with this tradition, the main plot-forming conflict of secular stories by A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, V. Odoevsky, M. Lermontov, N. Pavlov is love: the free feeling of the main characters collides with the inert public opinion of the “light”. The very elements of the plot of a secular story are closely tied to the most characteristic forms secular life. The plot of the conflict often takes place at a ball, a masquerade, or during a theatrical tour (the depiction of “mass” scenes of secular life is typical for the moralistic setting of the stories). The development of the action is often associated with the motive of secular rumor, gossip, gossip, in general with the heightened attention of the authors of the stories and to anomalous forms. social psychology. The climax and denouement of the conflict occur, as a rule, during the duel, which brings it to the fore in the structure of the conflict. This is the point at which a private, love conflict is transformed into a public conflict and, therefore, loses its local nature. As a result, the secular story introduced into its “turn” and thoroughly developed many new social types, which were previously presented mainly in the genre of “light” secular comedy. Among them are the roles of the main characters-lovers and the deceived husband; the role of secular slanderers and envious people; the role of dueling heroes and breters. The authors of secular stories were able to significantly deepen the psychological analysis of these comedy types, turn the “role” into a rather complex and contradictory type of social psychology. This is especially true for the development of female types: heroines as victims of secular rumors; a heroine who openly defies secular conventions; heroines as legislators of secular opinion; fatal beauty, deftly weaving secular intrigues, etc.
The everyday story receives much less development in Russian prose of the early 19th century than other genres. This is due to the fact that it is associated primarily with everyday life, with the depiction of everyday life, which is characteristic of fair and semi-fair stories, for moralistic prose, and also for fables. But since life can be different, for example, secular, then a household story is usually understood as one in which the narrative concerns the lower classes of society - peasants, soldiers, raznochinets, philistines, merchants, etc. In other cases, the image of life is studied as its functions in romantic prose. However, the everyday story has a number of structural features, which include:
collision of a “simple” person from the lower strata of society with a person (or environment) of a higher one social status: opposition of the patriarchal world to the civilized one;
at the same time, the patriarchal world is assessed positively, and the civilized world - negatively;
the hero, as a rule, suffers a personal breakdown in the family, in his pursuit of knowledge, in art.
The style of the everyday story is often didactic.
A special variety are romantic stories “about a genius”, about artists, musicians, writers, etc. Their features:
in the center is an artist endowed with talent (“genius”);
his talent is akin to madness or borders on madness;
therefore, for ordinary people, an artist is always an exceptional personality and certainly “strange”;
often the author sees in him the ideal of a personality, although the fates of “mad geniuses” can develop in different ways.
The plots and motives of romantic stories were not closed and were included in different genres. Structural and stylistic features of the stories were mixed, creating a diverse picture of Russian romantic prose.
The romantic story actively reworked plot and compositional elements dating back to different literary genres. But she creatively reworked them, filling them with new content, creating a gallery of images, heroes and characters, more differentiated in the historical, philosophical, social sense. That is why the theme in each new version of the story can be considered a genre-forming feature. She “immersed” traditional genre components into new material reality, as a result of which they entered into new systemic connections and relationships with each other, giving rise to a new quality of meaning.

3. Historical story (V.T. Narezhny, N.A. Polevoy, O. Somov, Decembrists).