Interesting question, but it needs to be reformulated slightly. Precisely imitation (as servile plagiarism stylistic devices, copying plots, stealing images) among the works of Russian classical authors there was very little for Western writers. But the influence was much greater. Therefore, the question is better formulated: “Can we consider that development Russian literature was due to the influence of Western literature?"
Let’s limit the question to the framework of classical Russian literature, without delving into the twentieth century, because beyond this line modernism begins, and there the influence of a completely different kind. Personally, I believe that it cannot be considered that way. The influence of Western literature on Russian classical writers was on an impressive scale, that’s for sure. However, it would be wrong to completely link the development of Russian literature with Western influence. The formulation of the question assumes that if this influence had not occurred, then the very development of Russian literature would have stopped, and we would not now have that classical literature, which we love so much. Nevertheless, if this influence had not existed, then development would have continued as usual, but many of the works familiar to us would have been written in a different style or would not have been written at all. Perhaps they would be replaced by completely different things, written in a different style. There are no writers who have never been influenced by other authors. To get interested literary creativity and start writing, you must first start reading and get carried away with reading. Therefore, if there were no influence of Western literature, there would be an influence, for example, of Eastern literature. In addition, many of the Russian classical writers began their work by drawing inspiration from the works of their predecessors, other Russian writers. And the main motive of Russian classical literature has always been the reflection of Russian reality, mainly in the style of realism. That is, the books of Russian classics always had, as it is now fashionable to say, the “setting” of Russian life. The Russian philologist and philosopher Ernest Radlov spoke well on this topic: “the influence of Western writers on Russian classics affected the manner of interpreting well-known plots, the choice of topics and a certain attitude towards them, and not on the content itself, which was entirely borrowed from Russian life and conditions Russian life."
So, which Western writers most influenced the development of Russian literature?
1. Charles Dickens. This English gentleman greatly influenced the literary manners of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Goncharov, Turgenev. In the words of Tolstoy: “Sift the world’s prose, and what remains is Dickens.” IN late creativity Tolstoy, especially in the novel “Resurrection,” often flashes sentimental images seasoned with high Christian morality, reflecting class inequality and social injustice; this is a direct influence of Dickens. The second titan of Russian classics, Dostoevsky, reflecting on Dickens, said: “In the Russian language, we understand Dickens, I am sure, almost the same as the English, even, perhaps, with all the shades; even, perhaps, we love him no less than his compatriots.” Unlike Tolstoy, who more admired Dickens's novels such as " Great Expectations" and "The Pickwick Papers", Dostoevsky was most influenced (as, by the way, also by Franz Kafka with his "The Trial") by a novel written in the best traditions of English romanticism, called " Bleak House" It is in this novel that there are those very descriptions of the fractures of the human psyche that will later saturate Dostoevsky’s novels. Just look at the scene in Bleak House, where one of the main characters pays a visit to the house of the English poor to enlighten them Christian teaching. Opening the doors, she discovers a woman beaten by her alcoholic husband, who, sitting in front of the fireplace, rocks and cradles her infant child. The conversation with my husband takes place in a humorous manner, in the spirit of “We didn’t invite Christ here,” until main character does not come closer to the woman and notices that the child is dead, and the woman herself has lost her mind. Why not Dostoevsky?
2. Another English gentleman, but no longer the prim Dickens, but the poet, rebel, pessimist, misanthrope, mystic and occultist, Lord George Byron. His poetry greatly influenced the work of Pushkin and Lermontov. It is even possible to argue that if it were not for Byron, the world would not have seen “Eugene Onegin” and “A Hero of Our Time.” Pushkin, by his own admission, “went crazy about Byron” and brought the image of Onegin closer to the Byronic heroes Beppo and Don Juan. “We have the same soul, the same torments” - this is what Lermontov said about Byron, and did not hide the fact that in Pechorin he tried to create one of the domestic versions of Byron’s hermit, and in Grushnitsky - a parody of a typical Byronic hero. Pushkin was also greatly influenced by the English novelist Walter Scott, who encouraged him to interpret the genre in his own way. historical novel” and refer to various events in Russian history.
3. The Germans Goethe, Schiller and Hoffmann. Their works filled the shelves of almost all Russian writers. Before experiencing the influence of English romanticism, many Russian writers were influenced by German romanticism. Faust is one of the main images of world literature in principle, and without him, who knows what we would have missed in the history of literature. The theme of a contract with the devil partially appears in the works of many Russian classics.
4. The French Balzac, Hugo, Flaubert and Stendhal. They were read by Turgenev, Chernyshevsky, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky. Turgenev wrote in a letter to his friend K.S. Serbinovich: “Balzac has a lot of intelligence and imagination, but also strangeness: he looks into the most intimate, barely noticeable to others, cracks of the human heart.” Dostoevsky’s friend, the writer Grigorovich, said in his memoirs: “When I began to live with Dostoevsky, he had just finished translating Balzac’s novel Eugene Grande.” Balzac was our favorite writer, we both admired him equally, considering him immeasurably higher than all French writers.” As you can see, Dostoevsky translated Balzac's books by hand, and translation leads to an even stronger influence than reading. It was Balzac who introduced stylistic realism into fashion, which became very popular among Russian classics. Balzac proceeded from the need to depict “men, women and things,” understanding by “things” the material embodiment of people’s thinking. Goncharov and Turgenev later proceeded from the same principles in their work. But Tolstoy gave more preference to Stendhal. P. A. Sergeenko, Lev Nikolaevich’s secretary, said that Tolstoy’s first essay was written by him at the age of sixteen. “It was a philosophical treatise in imitation of Stendhal,” Tolstoy said. It turns out that the first literary impulse of the great Russian classic was achieved only thanks to the influence of the Frenchman Stendhal. And it is enough to remember how much the works of Russian classics were saturated with French expressions, which they picked up from the books of French novelists, to appreciate the scale of their influence. In addition to Stendhal, Tolstoy spoke very highly of Victor Hugo, and considered the novel “Les Miserables” best work that era, and borrowed from it many motifs for his “Resurrection”. Studying the image of Anna Karenina, you involuntarily notice the similarity of her image with Madame Bovary from the novel by Gustave Flaubert.
If desired, the list of culprits of Western influence can be continued. To summarize the answer to the question, we can say that the influence of Western literature on the development of Russian literature was colossal, but this does not mean that it occurred only due to this influence. Most of Russian creativity was still original. Each of our great classics had their own insatiable drive, their own motivation, their own passion, thanks to which they began to write their novels. They began to write not because they decided to imitate their favorite Western authors (this was just a charge of inspiration), but because they could not do otherwise. They could not help but write; creativity was their main need, which inevitably sought satisfaction. If you remove the influence of Western literature, then many things that made up Russian literature either changed or disappeared altogether. But in return they would receive other styles, motifs, images and plots. Russian literature would not stop in its development.
CHAPTER 3
A. S. PUSHKIN: RUSSIAN “WORLDNESS”
(on the issue of perception of European literature)
Above, several examples of Pushkin’s dialogue with a “foreign” word were considered, which becomes “our own”, be it the mastery of the works of Shakespeare or Moliere, which happened with the literature of the whole world, or Cornwall, forgotten even in his homeland. However, these are only partial manifestations of a more general phenomenon that arose in Russian literature precisely with the arrival of Pushkin, which can be designated as Russian “universality.” Its origins lie in Russian classicism XVIII century, which, following European classicism, was focused on imitation of ancient authors, but was even more dependent on models, since it also adopted the experience of the European classicists themselves. Of course, some semblance of double imitation is also found in Western literature, but there the imitation of new models, oriented towards ancient models, acted primarily as epigonism and had little to do with great writers. In Russia, the greatest writers bore the double burden of imitation, thereby reflecting the student period of new Russian literature. Pushkin, already in “Ruslan and Lyudmila” surpassing his immediate teacher V.A. Zhukovsky (“To the victorious student from the defeated teacher” - the great poet greeted the young Pushkin, who through his translations introduced the Russian reader to Homer and Pindar, La Fontaine and Pope, Thomson and Gray, Goethe and Schiller, Burger and Uhland, Southey and Byron, with fifty other writers different countries and eras, and these translations formed the bulk of his work), overcame imitation, apprenticeship, and entered into dialogue with the geniuses of world literature on equal terms. And this dialogue covered such a wide range of phenomena of world literature that it was then that the phenomenon of Russian “universality”, the responsiveness of the poetic (in the broad sense) soul to a word - written or oral, sounded for everyone or only for a select few, arose and took hold in Russian literature. in a temple, a secular salon or in a field, a hut, on a square or in the recesses of the heart - in different countries, in many languages, in different eras. Such an immense field of dialogue is created by a literary thesaurus specific to Russian writers (and readers) starting from Pushkin’s time (an area of the general cultural thesaurus associated with literature). No less significant is the way in which information entering the thesaurus from outside literary information processed to become part of it. Pushkin also determined the main direction here.
It clearly appears in Pushkin’s dialogue with Shakespeare. Having deeply studied this problem, N.V. Zakharov in his monograph “Shakespeare in the creative evolution of Pushkin” resorted to the term middle XIX century "Shakespeareanism". But today in science the term “Shakespeareanization” is much more often used to designate what seems to be the same phenomenon. However, the researcher appears to be completely correct in his choice of word. Shakespeareization means not only admiration for the genius of the English playwright, but also the gradual expansion of his influence artistic system on world culture. This is one of the principles-processes. Principles-processes are categories that convey an idea of the formation, formation, development of the principles of literature, the strengthening of a certain trend. Their names are built on a similar linguistic basis, emphasizing the moment of formation or growth of a certain distinctive quality of an artistic text against the background of a literary paradigm (the dominant system of relationships and accents in literary discourses): “psychologization”, “historicization”, “heroization”, “documentaryization”, etc. . d. Shakespeareanization clearly manifested itself in Western European culture already in XVIII century, primarily in the pre-romantic (and in XIX century - romantic) literature. It was also characteristic of Russian literature, including Pushkin. However, the scale of approval of this principle-process in Russia cannot be compared with the grandiose Shakespeareanization of Western culture. Shakespeareization involves the introduction of images, plots, and artistic forms of Shakespeare's heritage into the general cultural heritage. In Pushkin it is present in “Boris Godunov”, and in “Angelo”, and in numerous reminiscences.
But this is not the main thing that Pushkin took from Shakespeare. He, as it were, rose above visible particulars in order to reach the invisible but tangible realm of the “philosophy” of the work of the great English playwright, moved from “tactics” to “strategy” of Shakespeare’s artistic thinking and directed the entire dialogue of Russian literature with Shakespeare in this direction. This is logical to define by the concept of “Shakespeareanism”. From this point of view, the work of L. N. Tolstoy, the author of the pogrom article “On Shakespeare,” turns out to be one of the highest incarnations of Shakespeareanism, and there is no contradiction here: Tolstoy’s images, plots, and artistic forms of Shakespeare’s works (the sphere of Shakespeareanization) are subject to criticism, but not the scale of the worldview, not the strategy of Shakespearean artistic thinking (the sphere of Shakespeareanism).
Hundreds of works are devoted to the characteristics of Pushkin’s literary thesaurus (although such a term, of course, was not used). It is almost impossible to consider this problem in full, and even its most general outlines, presented in a recently published experiment special dictionary edited by the major Pushkin scholar V.D. Rak, they demanded a very solid volume.
We will limit ourselves to a selection of several names of writers, philosophers, orators, representatives of salon culture - creators of words, representatives of European literature and culture of different periods, contemplators and figures acceptable and not acceptable to Pushkin, writers of different directions, brilliant, major, insignificant, sometimes forgotten , with whom he entered into dialogue in a variety of forms, which will make it possible to clearly imagine the nature of this dialogue, which gave rise to such a characteristic property of Russian literature as Russian “universality”.
From the Middle Ages to the beginning XVIIIcentury
Villon ) Francois (1431 or 1432 - after 1463) - French poet , largest representative Pre-Renaissance, in which talent was combined with a riotous lifestyle. In one of Pushkin’s first poems “The Monk” (1813) there is an appeal to I. S. Barkov: “And you are a poet, cursed by Apollo, // Who stained the walls of taverns, // Falling into the mud with Villon under Helikon, // Can’t you can you help me, Barkov? This is a free translation of Boileau’s words about the libertine poet Saint-Amant, a characterization that is hardly too negative from Pushkin, who is close to libertineism.
Margeret ) Jacques (Jacob) (1560 - after 1612) - French military man, served in Henry's troops IV , then in Germany, Poland. In Russia he was captain of a German company under Boris Godunov, later he went into service with False Dmitry I . In 1606 he returned to France, in 1607 he published the book “The current state of the Russian state and the Grand Duchy of Muscovy, with what happened the most memorable and tragic from 1590 to September 1606.” This book, which provided material for some episodes of “Boris Godunov,” was in Pushkin’s library; it was also quoted by Karamzin in “History of the Russian State.” Margeret was introduced as a character in “Boris Godunov” (he is called the “overseas frog” there). The rude French expressions put into the mouth of this character by the author aroused censorship objections.
Molière , present surname Poquelin, Poquelin ) Jean-Baptiste (1622–1673) - the largest French playwright, actor, director. In the comedies “The School for Husbands” (1661) and “The School for Wives” (1662), he began to develop the genre of classicist high comedy. The pinnacles of his dramaturgy were the comedies “Tartuffe” (1664 - 1669), “Don Juan” (1665), “The Misanthrope” (1666), “The Miser” (1668), and “The Tradesman in the Nobility” (1670). Many of the names of the characters created by Moliere have become household names (Tartuffe to denote a hypocrite, Don Juan - a frivolous lover, Harpagon - a stingy one, Jourdain - a commoner who imagines himself an aristocrat). In the image of Alceste (“Misanthrope”) he anticipated the “natural man” of the Enlightenment.
In Russia, Moliere was played during his lifetime in the court theater of Alexei Mikhailovich. “The Reluctant Doctor” was translated by Princess Sophia, Peter’s elder sister I . F. G. Volkov and A. P. Sumarokov, who created the first permanent Russian theater, relied on Moliere’s comedies in shaping the tastes of the theater public.
Pushkin became acquainted with the work of Moliere even before the Lyceum. P.V. Annenkov, with reference to the testimony of Pushkin’s sister Olga Sergeevna, wrote: “Sergei Lvovich encouraged a disposition to read in children and read selected works with them. They say that he was especially skillful in conveying Moliere, whom he knew almost by heart... The first attempts at authorship, which generally appear early in children addicted to reading, were found in Pushkin, of course, in French and echoed the influence of the famous comic writer of France.” In “The Town” (1814), Pushkin, listing his favorite writers, calls Moliere a “giant.” The most significant facts of Pushkin's appeal to the works of Moliere are his work on the “small tragedies” “The Miserly Knight” and “The Stone Guest” (1830). They contain almost direct borrowings of individual phrases, images, and scenes. Wed. Cleanthe’s remark in Molière’s “The Miser”: “This is what our fathers bring us to with their damned stinginess” and Albert’s phrase in “The Stingy Knight”: “This is what stinginess brings me to // My own father.” A large fragment of “The Stone Guest”, where Don Juan invites the statue of the commander, is very close to a similar scene in Moliere’s “Don Juan”. However, Pushkin’s interpretation of Moliere’s plots is fundamentally different: comedy turns into tragedy. Later in " Table - Talk “Pushkin revealed the essence of this confrontation, comparing Shakespeare’s close to him and Moliere’s alien approaches to depicting a person in literature: “The faces created by Shakespeare are not, like Moliere’s, types of such and such passion, such and such vice; but living beings, filled with many passions, many vices; circumstances develop before the viewer their diverse and multifaceted characters. At Moliere's stingy stingy- and nothing more; in Shakespeare, Shylock is stingy, shrewd, vindictive, child-loving, and witty. In Moliere, the hypocrite drags after the wife of his benefactor, the hypocrite; accepts the estate for safekeeping, hypocrite; asks for a glass of water, a hypocrite. In Shakespeare, the hypocrite pronounces the judgment with vain severity, but fairly; he justifies his cruelty with a thoughtful judgment statesman; he seduces innocence with strong, fascinating sophisms, an unfunny mixture of piety and red tape.”
Rousseau ) Jean Baptiste (1670 or 1671 - 1741) - French poet, who came from the lower classes. In 1712 he was permanently expelled from France for slandering his literary competitors. He became famous for his collections of “Odes” and “Psalms”, the creation of the cantata genre (“Cantata of Circe”, etc.), and epigrams. It was Rousseau’s epigrams that attracted the greatest attention of Pushkin, who repeatedly mentioned his name in his works (starting with the poem “To a Poet Friend,” 1814: “Poets are praised by everyone, fed only by magazines; // The wheel of Fortune rolls past them; // Born naked and naked steps into Rousseau's coffin..."). Pushkin freely translated one of them, entitled “Epigram (imitation of French)” (1814) (“I was so captivated by your wife...”). In general, for romantic poets, Rousseau became the embodiment of epigone classicism.
Age of Enlightenment and Rococo
Locke ) John (1632–1704) - English philosopher. In his “Essay on the Human Mind” (1690), he argued that at the basis of all human knowledge lies experience. Locke developed the theory of natural law and social contract, having a huge influence on the socio-political thought of the Enlightenment. Pushkin in drafts VII The chapter of “Eugene Onegin” names Locke in the ranks of enlighteners and ancient writers whose works Onegin read, judging by the books found by Tatiana in his house.
Hume ) David (1711–1776) - an English philosopher who formulated the basic principles of agnosticism in his Treatise on Human Nature (1748), denied the objective nature of causality. Hume is mentioned in the drafts of Eugene Onegin in the list of authors that Onegin read (probably his History of England from the Conquest of Julius Caesar to the Revolution of 1688).
Saint-Pierre ) Charles Irene Castel, abbot de (1658–1743) - French thinker, member of the French Academy (expelled for disrespectful comments about Louis XIV ), author of the “Project for Perpetual Peace” (1713), briefly retold and commented on by J.-J. Rousseau (1760). Pushkin became acquainted with the “Project” (as presented by Rousseau) during the period of southern exile and led discussions on the issue of eternal peace in Orlov’s house in Chisinau, the nature of which is evidenced by Pushkin’s note “ Il est impossi ble..." (XII , 189–190, cond. name "On Eternal Peace", 1821).
Grécourt ) Jean Baptiste Joseph Villard de (1683–1743) - French poet, abbot, representative of free-thinking poetry in the spirit of Rococo, replete with frivolity and light in style. For the poem “Philotanus” (1720) he was condemned by the church and deprived of the right to preach. Grécourt's poems were published only posthumously (1747). Pushkin became acquainted with Grecourt's poetry early on. In “The Town” (1815) he noted: “Raised by Cupid, // Vergier, the Guys with Grekur // took refuge in a corner. // (More than once they go out // And take sleep away from their eyes // in the winter evening" ( I, 98).
Gresset ) Jean Baptiste Louis (Greset, 1709–1777) - French poet, member of the French Academy (1748). Representative of “light poetry” in the spirit of Rococo. Author of poetic short stories ridiculing monks. For the short story “Ver-Ver” (1734) about the cheerful adventures of a parrot raised in a nunnery, he was expelled from the Jesuit order. Pushkin called Gresse “a charming singer” ( I , 154), repeatedly mentioned and quoted his works - “Ver-Ver”; poetic message “Abode” (1735); comedy “The Evil Man” (1747) - “a comedy that I considered untranslatable” ( XIII, 41).
Crebillon Sr. ( Crébillon ) Prosper Joliot (1674–1762) - French playwright, father of Crebillon the Younger, member of the French Academy (1731). His tragedies, in which the sublime gives way to the terrible, anticipating the transition from classicism to pre-romanticism (Atreus and Thyestes, 1707; Radamist and Zenobia, 1711), were staged in St. Petersburg during Pushkin’s lifetime. It is believed that in Pushkin’s letters to Katenin (1822) and Kuchelbecker (1825) there are ironic hints at the ending of the tragedy “Atreus and Thyestes”.
Crebillon Jr. ( Crébillon ) Claude-Prosper Joliot de (1707–1777) - French novelist who wrote works in which, in the spirit of Rococo, the decline of the morals of the aristocracy was outlined ("Deceptions of the Heart and Mind", 1736; "Sofa", 1742; etc.). Mentioned by Pushkin (as “Cribilion”, VIII, 150, 743).
Bouffler-Rouvrel ( Boufflers - Rouvrel ) Marie-Charlotte, Countess de (d. 1787) - court lady of the court of the Polish king Stanislaus in Lunéville, one of the brightest representatives of the Rococo salon style, sparkling with wit, adhering to epicurean views and not too strict morality. Pushkin mentions it in the article “On Mr. Lemonte’s preface to the translation of I. A. Krylov’s fables” (1825), speaking about the French classicists: “What brought a cold gloss of politeness and wit to all the works of the 18th century? Society M - es du Deffand, Boufflers, d'Espinay , very nice and educated women. But Milton and Dante did not write for a supportive smile fair sex».
Voltaire ) (real name Marie François Arouet - Arouet ) (1694–1778) - French writer and philosopher, one of the leaders of the Enlightenment. Starting with lyrics of light, epicurean content, he became famous as a poet (the epic poem “Henriad”, finished 1728; the heroic-comic poem “The Virgin of Orleans”, 1735), playwright (wrote 54 dramatic works, including the tragedy "Oedipus", 1718; “Brutus”, 1730), prose writer (philosophical stories “Candide, or Optimism”, 1759; “The Simple-minded”, 1767), author of philosophical, historical, and journalistic works that made him the ruler of the thoughts of several generations of Europeans. The collected works of Voltaire, published in 1784–1789, took up 70 volumes.
Pushkin fell in love with the works of Voltaire as a child, before entering the Lyceum, which he later recalled in poetry ( III , 472). The study of passages from Voltaire was part of the Lyceum program in French rhetoric. Voltaire is Pushkin's first poetic mentor. The appeal to the “Fernay old man” opens Pushkin’s earliest (unfinished) poem “The Monk” (1813): “Voltaire! Sultan of French Parnassus...// But just give me your golden lyre, // With it I will be known to the whole world.” The same motives are heard in the unfinished poem “Bova” (1814). In Voltaire's descriptions, Pushkin obviously relies on the popular XVIII century, the poetic genre “portrait of Voltaire” (a later such example is in the message “To the Nobleman,” where Voltaire is depicted as “a gray-haired cynic, // Leader of Minds and Fashion, crafty and brave”). Initially, Voltaire for Pushkin is, first of all, a “singer of love”, the author of “The Virgin of Orleans”, which the young poet imitates. In the poem “Town” (1815) and the poetic passage “Dream” (1816) a mention of “Candide” appears. In “The Town,” Voltaire is characterized in contrast: “...Fernay’s evil screamer, // The first poet among poets, // You are here, gray-haired naughty!” During his lyceum years, Pushkin translated three poems by Voltaire, including the famous stanzas “To Madame du Châtelet.” In “Ruslan and Lyudmila,” “Gavriliad” and other works of the early 1820s, one can clearly feel the influence of Voltaire’s style, energetic, intellectually rich, based on the play of the mind, combining irony and very conventional exoticism. Pushkin sees himself as a successor to the traditions of Voltaire. His contemporaries perceive him the same way. In 1818, Katenin first called Pushkin “ le jeune Monsieur Arouet "("young Mr. Arouet", i.e. Voltaire), then such a comparison becomes common (for example, in M.F. Orlov, P.L. Yakovlev, V.I. Tumansky, N.M. Yazykov).
In later years the situation changes somewhat. Pushkin leaves most mentions of Voltaire only in drafts or letters. So, they disappear from Eugene Onegin. Attempts to translate "The Virgin of Orleans" and "What Ladies Like" have been abandoned. Pushkin distances himself from his idol of youth, notes his misconceptions regarding the enlightenment of Catherine’s reign II : “It was forgivable for the Ferney philosopher to extol the virtues of Tartuffe in a skirt and a crown, he did not know, he could not know the truth” ( XI , 17). Interest in Voltaire's brilliant style is increasingly being replaced by interest in his historical and philosophical works. Thus, while working on “Poltava” (1828), Pushkin widely used materials from “The History of Karl XII " and "History of the Russian Empire under Peter the Great" by Voltaire. The researchers noted that the very way of covering historical events by comparing the leaders - Peter as a creator and Charles as a destroyer - was formed under the influence of Voltaire.
While working on an essay on the French Revolution (1831), Pushkin, in order to outline the distant prehistory of revolutionary events, carefully studied 16 of the 138 chapters of Voltaire’s major work “Essay on Morals.” Pushkin used a number of Voltaire’s historical works in his work on “The History of Pugachev” and the unfinished “History of Peter”. Having secured the personal permission of Emperor Nicholas I , Pushkin was the first Russian cultural figure to gain access to Voltaire’s library, purchased by Catherine II and located in the Hermitage. Here he found a lot of unpublished materials about the era of Peter.
In his unfinished article of 1834, “On the insignificance of Russian literature,” Pushkin highly appreciates Voltaire as a philosopher and at the same time sharply criticizes his drama and poetry: “For 60 years he filled the theater with tragedies, in which, without caring either about the credibility of the characters or the legality of the means, , he forced his faces to express, appropriately and inappropriately, the rules of his philosophy. He filled Paris with charming trifles in which philosophy spoke in a generally understandable and humorous language, differing only in rhyme and meter from prose, and this lightness seemed the height of poetry" ( XI , 271). V.G. Belinsky, analyzing Pushkin’s poetry, revealed the unity of its mood, which he defined as bright sadness. This conclusion sheds light on Pushkin’s cooling towards Voltaire the poet: as soon as Pushkin overcame the influence of Voltaire’s poetic style and found his own, different intonation, he began to look skeptically at Voltaire’s poetic legacy, even at his beloved “The Virgin of Orleans,” which he now condemned for "cynicism".
It is significant that one of latest performances Pushkin's publication in print was the publication of his article “Voltaire” (Journal of Sovremennik, vol. 3, 1836), written in connection with the publication of Voltaire’s correspondence with President de Brosse. Having wonderfully outlined the content and characterized the style of correspondence, Pushkin, after quoting a short poem by Voltaire that ended up in the published papers, notes: “We admit rococo our belated taste: in these seven verses we find more syllable, more life, more thought than in a dozen long French poems written in the current taste, where thought is replaced by distorted expression, Voltaire’s clear language by the pompous language of Ronsard, his liveliness by intolerable monotony, and wit by vulgar cynicism or sluggish melancholy.” Referring to Voltaire's hardships in life, Pushkin expresses perhaps the most serious reproach to the philosopher: “Voltaire, throughout his long life, never knew how to maintain his own dignity.” And it is this example that allows him to come to the final conclusion of the article, which contains a remarkably deep generalization: “What can we conclude from this? That genius has its weaknesses, which console mediocrity, but sadden noble hearts, reminding them of the imperfection of humanity; that the real place of a writer is his academic office and that, finally, independence and self-respect alone can raise us above the trifles of life and above the storms of fate.”
D'Alembert ) Jean Le Ron (1717–1783) - French philosopher, writer and mathematician, one of the editors of the Encyclopedia (together with Diderot, from 1751), which united the forces of the Enlightenment. Member of the French Academy (1754, from 1772 - its permanent secretary). Pushkin repeatedly mentions D’Alembert and quotes, slightly changing, his aphorism: “Inspiration is needed in poetry, as in geometry” ( XI, 41).
Rousseau ) Jean-Jacques (1712–1778) - French writer and philosopher who had a huge influence on European and Russian culture. Born in Geneva, in the family of a watchmaker, he experienced all the hardships of the fate of a commoner trying to realize his talent in a feudal society. Rousseau found support for his ideas in Paris, among educators. By order of Diderot, he writes articles for the music section of the Encyclopedia. In his treatise “Discourse on the Sciences and Arts” (1750), Rousseau first outlined the idea that civilization is harmful to moral life humanity. He prefers the natural state of savages, merged with nature, to the position of civilized peoples, who, thanks to the sciences and arts, become just “happy slaves.” Rousseau’s treatises “Discourse on the origin and foundations of inequality between people” (1754), “On the social contract” (1762), in which the complex of ideas of Rousseauism are finally formalized, are devoted to the defense of a fair social order and the development of the idea of “natural man”. Rousseau is the largest representative of French sentimentalism, the author of the novel “Julia, or New Heloise” (1761) - the most popular work in France XVIII century. Rousseau's innovative pedagogical ideas, which constituted a whole stage in world pedagogy, were outlined by him in the novel-treatise “Emile, or On Education” (1762). Rousseau stands at the origins of one of the most influential branches of European pre-romanticism. With his monodrama Pygmalion (1762, 1770), he laid the foundations of the melodrama genre. Persecuted by the authorities, condemned by the church, Rousseau embodied the story of his life in “Confession” (1765–1770, published posthumously, 1782, 1789). Leaders of the Great French Revolution They considered Rousseau their harbinger. The Romantics created a real cult of Rousseau. In Russia, Rousseau was quite famous back in XVIII century, his works influenced Radishchev, Karamzin, Chaadaev and other figures of Russian culture at the turn of the century XVIII – XIX centuries.
For Pushkin, Rousseau is “the apostle of our rights.” He shared the Rousseauist idea happy life in the lap of nature, far from civilization, an idea of the deep feelings of the common man, the cult of friendship, a passionate defense of freedom and equality.
Pushkin became acquainted with the work of Rousseau early. Already in the poem “To my sister” (1814), he asks the addressee a question: “What do you do with your heart // In the evening? // Are you reading Jean Jacques…”, which, by the way, emphasizes the fact that Rousseau’s works entered the reading circle of young people of those years. Obviously, already at the Lyceum, Pushkin became acquainted with the novel “Julia, or the New Heloise” and, perhaps, with some other works, so far superficially. In the early 1820s, he again turned to Rousseau (“Discourse on the Sciences and Arts”, “Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality”, “Emile, or On Education”, “Confession”), in particular, he re-read the project in his presentation of the Perpetual Peace of Abbot Saint-Pierre (1821) and began working on a manuscript about the idea of perpetual peace. Citing Rousseau’s words that the path to this world will be opened by “cruel and terrible means for humanity,” Pushkin noted: “It is obvious that these terrible means that he spoke about are revolutions. Here they are" ( XII , 189, 480). Pushkin rereads Rousseau at the end of his southern exile, working on the poem “The Gypsies” and the first chapter of “Eugene Onegin.”
By 1823, Pushkin had matured a critical attitude towards a number of positions of Rousseauism, which was reflected in the poem “The Gypsies,” which expressed disappointment in the Rousseauian thought of happiness in the lap of nature, far from civilization. The differences with the philosopher on issues of education are very noticeable. If Rousseau idealizes this process, then Pushkin is interested in its real side, primarily in relation to the peculiarities of education in the conditions of Russian reality. In the article “On Public Education” (1826), Pushkin does not name Rousseau, but speaks out against the Rousseauist idea of home education: “There is no need to hesitate: private education must be suppressed at all costs” ( XI , 44), for: “In Russia, home education is the most insufficient, the most immoral...” ( XI , 44). These statements shed light on the ironic portrayal of education according to Rousseau in Eugene Onegin: “ Monsieur l'Abbé , poor Frenchman, // So that the child would not be exhausted, // Taught him everything jokingly, // Didn’t bother him with strict morals, // Scolded him a little for pranks // And took him for a walk in the Summer Garden.” Revealing the irony of Rousseauist education explains here such details as the nationality of the teacher (in the draft version it is even clearer: “Monsieur the Swiss is very smart” - VI , 215), his name (cf. Abbot Saint-Pierre), teaching method, forms of punishment (cf. “method of natural consequences” by Rousseau), walks in the Summer Garden (education in the lap of nature according to Rousseau). Irony, although not evil, is also present in the presentation of an episode from Rousseau’s “Confession” (Pushkin quoted this passage in French in his notes to the novel): “Rousseau (I note in passing) // Couldn’t understand how important Makeup // Dared brush your nails in front of him, // An eloquent madman. // Defender of liberty and rights // In this case, completely wrong.” “An eloquent madman” is an expression that belongs not to Pushkin, but to Voltaire (in the epilogue “ Civil War in Geneva"). Rousseau's struggle with fashion stemmed from his idea of the original virtue of man, which is destroyed by the achievements of civilization. Pushkin, speaking as a defender of fashion, thereby objects both to the Rousseauian interpretation of civilization and, to an even greater extent, to the Rousseauian view of man. Stanza XLVI The first chapter of the novel (“Whoever lived and thought cannot // In his soul not despise people...”) is devoted to criticism of Rousseau’s idealism in understanding the essence of man.
The dispute with Rousseau is also present in Pushkin’s interpretation of the plot of Cleopatra, which he first addressed in 1824. As Yu.M. Lotman showed, the impetus for the development of this plot was the reading of the 3rd book of “Emil”, where it is mentioned with reference to Aurelius Victor.
However, “Eugene Onegin” shows what an important role the ideas and images of Rousseau played in the minds of Russian people in the early XIX century. Onegin and Lensky argue and reflect on the subjects to which Rousseau dedicated his treatises (“Tribes of past treaties, // Fruits of science, good and evil...”). Tatyana, who lives by reading novels, in love “with the deceptions of both Richardson and Rousseau,” imagines herself Julia, and among the heroes with whom she associates Onegin is “Julia’s lover Volmar.” Certain expressions in the letters of Tatiana and Onegin directly go back to “Julia, or the New Heloise” (by the way, in Pushkin’s story “The Snowstorm” there is a direct indication that the characters quite consciously use the letters of this novel as an example of a declaration of love). The plot of “Eugene Onegin” - the final explanation of the characters (“But I was given to another; // I will be faithful to him forever”) - also goes back to the turning point of Rousseau’s novel. Pushkin, polemicizing with the ideas of Rousseau, does not lose touch with the images he created.
Helvetius ) Jean-Claude-Adrian (1715–1772) - French philosopher-educator, one of Diderot's colleagues in the publication of the Encyclopedia, author of the treatises "On the Mind" (1758), "On Man" (1773), which were popular in Russia . In the drafts of Eugene Onegin, Helvetius is named among the philosophers whom Onegin read. In the article “Alexander Radishchev” (1836), Pushkin calls Helvetius’ philosophy “vulgar and sterile” and explains: “Now it would be incomprehensible to us how the cold and dry Helvetius could become the favorite of young people, ardent and sensitive, if we, Unfortunately, they did not know how tempting new thoughts and rules, rejected by law and legends, are for developing minds.”
Grimm ) Friedrich Melchior, baron (1723–1807) - German publicist, diplomat. Having settled in Paris in 1748, he became close to educators and others famous people. In 1753–1792 published a handwritten newspaper “Literary, Philosophical and Critical Correspondence” about news in 15–16 copies cultural life France (some issues written by Diderot), whose subscribers were the crowned heads of Poland, Sweden, and Russia. Was in St. Petersburg twice, corresponded with Ekaterina II , carried out her diplomatic assignments (and then Paul I ). Sainte-Beuve emphasized the value of this publication as a historical source and noted the subtle, insightful mind of its author. On the contrary, the enlighteners said almost nothing about him, with the exception of Rousseau, who in his Confessions wrote with contempt that he was “caught cleaning his nails with a special brush.” It was in this connection that Pushkin’s ironic lines appeared in “Eugene Onegin”: “Rousseau (I’ll note in passing) // Couldn’t understand how important Make-up was // Dared to brush his nails in front of him (...) You can be a practical person // And think about the beauty of nails..."
Beaumarchais ) Pierre-Augustin Caron de (1732–1799) - French writer. He became famous as the creator of the comedies The Barber of Seville (1775) and The Marriage of Figaro (1784), which affirmed dignity common man. Pushkin in the poems “To Natalya” (1813) and “The Page or the Fifteenth Year” (1830) mentions the heroes of the first of them - Rosina, her guardian and young Cherubino. Beaumarchais is the author of the comedy-ballet in the oriental style “Tarar” (1787), based on the text of which Salieri wrote the opera of the same name. In Pushkin’s little tragedy “Mozart and Salieri” (1830) it is spoken of by Mozart: “Yes, Beaumarchais was your friend. // You composed “Tarara” for him, // A glorious thing. There is one motive, // I keep repeating it when I’m happy.” Beaumarchais lived a turbulent life, having been a watchmaker, a prisoner of the Bastille, and a teacher of Louis' daughters XV , without losing presence of mind in the most difficult situations. Salieri in “Mozart and Salieri” speaks about this: “Beaumarchais // Said to me: listen, brother Salieri, // As dark thoughts come to you, // Uncork a bottle of champagne // Or re-read “The Marriage of Figaro.” Pushkin’s assessment of Beaumarchais was given in his poem “To the Nobleman” (1830), where the “prickly Beaumarchais” is named along with encyclopedists and other celebrities XVIII centuries: “Their opinions, talk, passions // Forgotten for others. Look: around you // Everything new is boiling, destroying the old.”
Chamfort ) Nicolas Sebastien Rock (1741–1794) - French writer, member of the French Academy (1781). The notes and aphorisms collected after his death were included in the 4th volume of his works (1795) entitled “Maxims and Thoughts. Characters and anecdotes." Pushkin knew this book well. In “Eugene Onegin” Chamfort is named among the writers whom Onegin reads (chap. VIII, stanza XXXV ). Probably, the line “But the days of the past are anecdotes...” is connected with Chamfort’s aphorism: “Only free peoples have a history worthy of attention. The history of peoples enslaved by despotism is just a collection of anecdotes.” Pushkin attributed the “solid Chamfort” to the “democratic writers” who prepared the French Revolution.
Orators and writers of the era of the French Revolution
Lebrun ) Pons Denis Ekuchar, nicknamed Lebrun-Pindar (1729–1807) - French classicist poet, follower of Malherbe and J.-B. Rousseau, author of odes (“Ode to Buffon”, “Ode to Voltaire”, “Republican Odes to the French People”, “National Ode”, etc.), elegies, epigrams. Supporter of the Great French Revolution. He was well known in Russia (starting with Radishchev) and translated (Batyushkov, Vyazemsky, etc.). Pushkin highly valued Lebrun, the “sublime Gaul” ( II , 45), quoted his poems ( XII, 279; XIV, 147).
Marat ) Jean Paul (1743–1793) - French revolutionary, one of the leaders of the Jacobins, an outstanding orator. Since 1789 he published the newspaper “Friend of the People”. He was killed by Charlotte Corday. His brother de Boudry was one of Pushkin's teachers at the Lyceum. Pushkin, like the Decembrists, had a negative attitude towards Marat, seeing in him the embodiment of the elements of revolutionary terror. In the poem “The Dagger” (1821), he calls him “the fiend of rebellion,” “the executioner”: “The apostle of death, to tired Hades // He appointed victims with his finger, // But the highest court sent him // You and the maiden Eumenides.” The same is in the elegy “Andrei Chenier” (1825): “You sang to the Marat priests // The dagger and the Eumenides maiden!”
Mirabeau ) Honoré-Gabriel-Victor Riqueti, Count (1749–1791) - figure in the French Revolution. In 1789, he was elected as a deputy from the Third Estate to the Estates General and became the de facto leader of the revolutionaries. He became famous as a speaker who denounced absolutism. Expressing the interests of the big bourgeoisie, he took more and more conservative positions, and from 1790 he was a secret agent of the royal court. Pushkin considered Mirabeau as the leader of the first stage of the revolution (there is his drawing depicting Mirabeau, next to Robespierre and Napoleon). In his mind, Mirabeau is a “fiery tribune”; his name and works (in particular, memoirs) are mentioned in poetry, prose, and correspondence of Pushkin. In the article “On the insignificance of Russian literature” (1834), Pushkin noted: “The old society is ripe for great destruction. Everything is still calm, but already the voice of the young Mirabeau, like a distant storm, thunders dully from the depths of the dungeons through which he wanders...” But since for Pushkin’s circle Mirabeau was also a symbol of secret betrayal, Pushkin’s enthusiastic tone refers only to the young Mirabeau.
Rivarol Antoine (1753–1801) - French writer and publicist. From a monarchical position he opposed the French Revolution and emigrated. He became famous for his aphorisms, which were appreciated by Pushkin and Vyazemsky. Thus, in the plan for “Scenes from the Times of Knights,” Faust is shown as the inventor of printing, and Pushkin notes in parentheses: “Découvert de l"imprimerie, autre artillerie” (“The invention of printing is a kind of artillery,” and this is a modified aphorism of Rivarol about ideological reasons French Revolution: “L"imprimerie est artillerie de la pensée" (“Printing is the artillery of thought”).
Robespierre ) Maximilien (1758–1794) - French politician, orator, leader of the Jacobins during the Great French Revolution. Having become the de facto head of the revolutionary government in 1793, he fought counter-revolution and opposition revolutionary forces using terror methods. Was guillotined by the Thermidorians. If Pushkin had a clearly negative attitude towards Marat, who for him embodied the “rebellion”, then the attitude towards the “incorruptible” Robespierre was different. It is no coincidence that Pushkin wrote: “Peter I simultaneously Robespierre and Napoleon. (Revolution Incarnate).” There is an assumption (albeit disputed by B.V. Tomashevsky) that Pushkin gave Robespierre, drawn by him on the back of a sheet with III and IV stanzas of the fifth chapter of “Eugene Onegin”, their own features.
Chenier ) André Marie (1762–1794) - French poet and publicist. He welcomed the Great French Revolution (ode “The Oath in the Ballroom”), but condemned the terror, entered the liberal-monarchist Club of Feuillants, in 1791–1792. published anti-Jacobin articles, was imprisoned in Saint-Lazare prison in 1793 and executed two days before the collapse of the Jacobin dictatorship. His poetry, close to pre-romanticism in general trends, combines classical harmony of form with the romantic spirit of personal freedom. Published only in 1819, Chenier’s “Works,” which included odes, iambs, idylls, and elegies, brought the poet pan-European fame. Chenier occupied a special place in Russian literature: more than 70 poets turned to his work, including Lermontov, Fet, Bryusov, Tsvetaeva, Mandelstam. Decisive role Pushkin played a role in the development of Chenier in Russia. His brother L. S. Pushkin noted: “Andre Chenier, a Frenchman by name, but, of course, not by talent, became his poetic idol. He is the first in Russia and, it seems, even in Europe he appreciated it adequately.” Pushkin made 5 translations from Chenier (“Listen, O Helios, ringing with a silver bow,” 1823; “You wither and are silent; sadness consumes you...”, 1824; “O gods of peaceful fields, oaks and mountains...”, 1824; “Near places where golden Venice reigns...", 1827; "From A. Chenier ("The Veil, soaked in caustic blood")", 1825, final edition 1835). Pushkin wrote several imitations of Chenier: “Nereid” (1820, imitation of the 6th fragment of the idylls), “Muse” (1821, imitation of the 3rd fragment of the idylls), “As I was before, so am I now...” (final edition - 1828, independent poem based on 1 fragment of elegies, elegy XL ), “Let's go, I'm ready; Where would you go, friends..." (1829, based on fragment 5 of the elegies). Most bright image Chenier himself appears in Pushkin’s poem “Andrei Chenier” (1825). Contrasted with another idol of Pushkin - Byron with his glory (“Meanwhile, how the amazed world // looks at Byron’s urn ...”), Chenier appears as an unknown genius (“To the singer of love, oak forests and peace // I carry funeral flowers. // The unknown sounds lyre"). Pushkin associates himself with Chenier (as in the letters of these years), 44 lines of the poem are prohibited by censorship, which sees in them hints of Russian reality, Pushkin is forced to explain himself about the spread of illegal copies of these lines, the matter ends with the establishment of secret supervision over the poet in 1828 . Chenier is one of the sources of the image of the “mysterious singer” (“Conversation between a bookseller and a poet,” 1824; “The Poet,” 1827; “Arion,” 1827). Chenier's lyrics largely determined the prominent place of the elegy genre in Russian romantic poetry. However, Pushkin emphasized: “No one respects me more, no one loves this poet, - but he is a true Greek, a classic of the classics. (...) ... there is not a drop of romanticism in him yet" ( XIII , 380 - 381), " French critics have their own concept of romanticism. (...)...Andrei Chenier, a poet imbued with antiquity, whose even shortcomings stem from the desire to give forms of Greek versification in French, became one of their romantic poets" ( XII , 179). The greatest influence of Chenier is noted in the anthological lyrics of Pushkin (noted by I. S. Turgenev). Poets are also brought together by their similar spiritual evolution in a number of ways.
EndXVIIIcenturies andXIXcentury
La Harpe ) Jean François de (1739–1803) - French literary theorist and playwright, member of the French Academy (1776). As a playwright, he was a follower of Voltaire (the tragedies “The Earl of Warwick”, 1763; “Timoleon”, 1764; “Coriolanus”, 1784; “Philocletus”, 1781; etc.). He opposed the revolution and condemned the Enlightenment theories that prepared it. The most famous work, thoroughly studied by Pushkin, is “The Lyceum, or the Course of Ancient and Modern Literature” (16 volumes, 1799–1805), which is based on lectures given by La Harpe at Saint-Honoré (1768 - 1798). In the Lycée, La Harpe defended the dogmatically understood rules of classicism. In his youth, Pushkin considered Laharpe an indisputable authority (cf. in “Gorodok”, 1815: “... the formidable Aristarchus // Appears bravely // In sixteen volumes. // Although it’s scary for the poet // Lagarpe to see the taste, // But often, I admit, / / I spend time on it”). However, Pushkin later mentioned him as an example of a dogmatist in literature. In a letter to N.N. Raevsky the son (second half of July 1825), criticizing the principle of verisimilitude, he noted: “For example, in Laharpe, Philocletus, after listening to Pyrrhus’s tirade, says in the purest French: “Alas! I hear the sweet sounds of Hellenic speech” and so on.” (the same - in the drafts of the preface to "Boris Godunov", 1829; this line from "Philocletus" became - with minor changes - the first line of the epigram on Gnedich's translation of Homer's "Iliad": "I hear the silent sound of the divine Hellenic speech" - III , 256). Pushkin also mentions La Harpe as proof of the unpoeticism of the French: “Everyone knows that the French are the most anti-poetic people. Best Writers them, the most glorious representatives of this witty and positive people, Montaigne, Voltaire, Mon tesquieu , La Harpe and Rousseau himself, proved how alien and incomprehensible the sense of grace was to them” (“Beginning of an article on V. Hugo”, 1832). But Pushkin pays tribute to La Harpe as one of the founders of literary criticism, which did not receive proper development in Russia: “If the public can be content with what is called criticism in our country, then this only proves that we still have no need either for the Schlegels or even for Laharpakh" ("Works and translations in verse by Pavel Katenin", 1833).
Genlis ) Stéphanie Felicite du Cres de Saint-Aubin, Countess (1746–1830) - French writer, author of books for children written for the children of the Duke of Orleans (she was a teacher, including the future king Louis-Philippe) and pedagogical works in which developed the ideas of Rousseau (“Educational Theatre”, 1780; “Adele and Theodore”, 1782; etc.). Taught Napoleon good manners", during the years of the Restoration she wrote sentimental novels ("Duchess de La Vallière", 1804; "Madame de Maintenon", 1806; etc.), which were immediately translated in Russia, where Zhanlis's work was very popular. No less famous in Pushkin’s time were her “Critical and Systematic Dictionary of Court Etiquette” (1818) and “Unpublished Memoirs of XVIII century and about the French Revolution from 1756 to the present day" (1825). In Pushkin, her name appears for the first time in the poem “To My Sister” (1814): “Are you reading Jean-Jacques, // Is Zhanlisa in front of you?” Subsequently, Pushkin repeatedly mentions Zhanlis ( I, 343; II, 193; VIII, 565; etc.).
Arnault ) Antoine Vincent (1766 - 1834) - French playwright, poet and fabulist, member of the French Academy (1829, permanent secretary from 1833). In 1816, for his commitment to the revolution and Napoleon, he was expelled from France, returned to his homeland in 1819. Author of tragedies (“Marius at Minturn,” 1791; “Lucretia,” 1792; “Blanche and Moncassin, or the Venetians,” 1798; and etc.), who developed the ideas of the French Revolution and Napoleonism. He became famous for the elegy “Leaf” (1815), translated into all European languages (in Russia - translations by V. A. Zhukovsky, V. L. Pushkin, D. V. Davydov, etc.). Pushkin wrote in the article “French Academy”: “The fate of this a little poem wonderful. Before his death, Kosciuszko repeated it on the shores of Lake Geneva; Alexander Ispilanti translated it into Greek...” Arno, having learned about the translation of “The Leaf” made by D.V. Davydov, wrote a quatrain, the beginning of which Pushkin used in a message to Davydov (“To you, the singer, to you, the hero!”, 1836). Pushkin translated Arno's poem "Solitude" (1819). In this article, dedicated to Scribe’s replacement of the academic chair after Arno’s death, Pushkin sums up his attitude towards the poet: “Arno composed several tragedies, which at one time were a great success, but are now completely forgotten. (...) Two or three fables, witty and graceful, give the deceased more right to the title of poet than all his dramatic creations.”
Béranger ) Pierre Jean (1780–1857) - French poet, an outstanding representative of the song and poetic genre, which he equated with the “high” genres of poetry. Pushkin (as opposed to Vyazemsky, Batyushkov, Belinsky) did not highly value Beranger. In 1818, Vyazemsky asked Pushkin to translate two songs by Beranger, but he did not respond to this request. He undoubtedly knew the freedom-loving, satirical poems of Beranger, in particular, the song “Good God” (mentioned in a letter to Vyazemsky in July 1825). Giving an ironic portrait of Count Nulin, Pushkin laughs at secular people coming to Russia from abroad “With a supply of tailcoats and vests, // With bons-mots French court, // With Bérenger’s last song.” Pushkin’s poem “My Genealogy” (1830) was inspired not only by Byron, but also by Beranger’s song “The Commoner,” from which Pushkin took the epigraph to the poem. Pushkin also has sharply negative reviews of Beranger. An article about Hugo (1832) begun by Pushkin says about the French: “Their first lyrical poet is now revered as the obnoxious Beranger, a composer of strained and mannered songs that have nothing passionate or inspired, and in gaiety and wit are far behind the charming pranks of Kolet” ( VII , 264). At the end of his life, Pushkin valued the song “King Iveto” more than other works by Beranger, but not for its freedom-loving motives. In the article “French Academy” (1836) it was noted: “... I confess, it would hardly have occurred to anyone that this song was a satire on Napoleon. It's very sweet (and almost the best of all the songs of the vaunted Béranger ), but, of course, there is no shadow of opposition in it.” Nevertheless, Pushkin encouraged the young D. Lensky to continue translating Beranger, which indicates the ambiguity of his assessment of the French songwriter.
Fourier ) François Marie Charles (1772–1837) - French utopian socialist, in his “Treatise on the Household and Agricultural Association” (vols. 1–2, 1822, in the posthumous edition the name “Theory of World Unity”) outlined detailed plan organizations of the society of the future. Pushkin was familiar with Fourier's ideas.
Vidocq ) François Eugene (1775–1857) - French adventurer, first a criminal, then (from 1809) a policeman who rose to the post of chief of the Parisian secret police. In 1828, Vidocq's Memoirs (obviously a hoax) were published. Pushkin published a review of them, full of sarcasm (“Vidocq is ambitious! He becomes furious when reading unfavorable reviews from journalists about his style (...), accuses them of immorality and freethinking...” - XI , 129). Pushkin scholars rightly believe that this is a portrait of Bulgarin, whom Pushkin shortly before in an epigram called “Vidocq-Baggarin”.
Lamennais ) Felicite Robert de (1782–1854) - French writer and philosopher, abbot, one of the founders of Christian socialism. Starting with a critique of the French Revolution and materialism XVIII century, the establishment of the idea of a Christian monarchy, at the end of the 1820s he switched to the position of liberalism. In “Words of a Believer” (1834), he announced a break with the official church. Pushkin repeatedly mentions Lamennais, including in connection with Chaadaev (“Chedaev and the Brothers” - XIV, 205).
Scribe ) Augustin-Eugene (1791–1861) - French playwright, member of the French Academy (1834), became famous as a master of “a well-made play”, wrote over 350 plays (vaudeville, melodrama, historical plays, opera librettos), among them “Charlatanism” (1825), “A Reasonable Marriage” (1826), “The Lisbon Luter” (1831), “Partnership, or the Ladder of Glory” (1837), “A Glass of Water, or Cause and Effect” (1840), “Adrienne Lecouvreur” (1849 ), libretto of Meyerbeer’s operas “Robert the Devil” (1831), “The Huguenots” (1836), etc. Pushkin in a letter to M.P. Pogodin dated July 11, 1832, has the expression “we, the cold northern spectators of Scribe’s vaudevilles” , from which follows his not very flattering assessment of Scribe’s dramaturgy. The censorship ban on the performance of Scribe's historical comedy "Bertrand and Raton" in St. Petersburg was noted by Pushkin in his diary (entry in February 1835). In the article “The French Academy” (1836), Pushkin cites almost completely (with the exception of the ending, which he gave in a retelling) Scribe’s speech upon joining the Academy on January 28, 1836 and Vilmain’s response speech with detailed description Scribe's contribution to French culture. Pushkin calls the speech “brilliant”, Scribe - “that Janin in his feuilleton ridiculed both Scribe and Villemain: “In this witty speaker,” but slyly mentions the fact that all three representatives of French wit were on stage.”
Mérimé P Rosper (1803–1870) - French writer, entered literature as a representative of the romantic movement (“Theater of Clara Gasul”, 1825; “Gyuzla”, 1827; drama “Jacquerie”, 1828, novel “Chronicle of the Reign of Charles IX", 1829 ), became famous as a writer-psychologist, one of the creators of realistic short stories (collection “Mosaic”, 1833; short stories “Double Fault”, 1833; “Colomba”, 1840; “Arsena Guillot”, 1844; “Carmen”, 1845; etc. .). Member of the French Academy (1844). Pushkin told his friends: “I would like to talk with Merimee” (according to “Notes” by A. ABOUT. Smirnova, possibly unreliable). Through S. A. Sobolevsky, a friend of Merimee, Pushkin became acquainted with the collection “Gyuzla”. In “Songs of the Western Slavs” Pushkin included 11 translations from “Gyuzly”, including the poem “Horse” - the most famous of them. These are fairly free translations. INin the preface to the publication of the cycle (1835), Pushkin mentionshoaxes of Mérimée, who appeared in Güzle as an unknown collector and publisher of South Slavic folklore: “This unknown collector was none other than Mérimée, a sharp and original writer, author of the Clara Gazül Theater, Chronicles of the Times of Charles IX , Double Fault and other works extremely remarkable in the deep and pitiful decline of the present French literature." Mérimée introduced French readers to Pushkin’s work, and he translated “ Queen of Spades", "Shot", "Gypsies", "Hussar", "Budrys and his sons", "Anchar", "Prophet", "Oprichnik", fragments from "Eugene Onegin" and "Boris Godunov". In the article “Literature and slavery in Russia. Notes of the Russian hunter Iv. Turgenev" (1854) Mérimée wrote: "Only in Pushkin do I find this true breadth and simplicity, amazing precision of taste, which allows me to find among thousands of details exactly the one that can amaze the reader. At the beginning of the poem “Gypsies,” five or six lines are enough for him to show us a gypsy camp and a group lit by a fire with a tamed bear. Every word of it brief description illuminates an idea and leaves a lasting impression.” Mérimée dedicated a long article to the poet, “Alexander Pushkin” (1868), in which he places Pushkin above all European writers.
Karr ) Alphonse Jean (1808–1890) - French writer, publicist, published in 1839–1849. magazine "Wasps" (" Les Guê pes "), which was very popular in Russia. In 1832 he published the novel “Under the Linden Trees” (“ Sous les tilleurs "). In the same year, Pushkin, in a letter to E. M. Khitrovo, exclaimed (letter in French): “Aren’t you ashamed to speak so disparagingly about Carré. You can feel his talent in his novel ( son roman a du g é nie ), and it's worth the pretentiousness ( marivaudage ) your Balzac."
It is quite obvious that the Russian “universality”, so noticeable already in Pushkin (where we demonstrated it with just a few examples of the poet’s relationships with European literature), is strikingly different from the seemingly similar approach presented in the so-called “professorial literature” - a peculiar phenomenon of the literary life of the West. Let us explain this still rarely encountered term. Since the writer's fee is unstable, many writers create their works in their spare time, working, as a rule, as teachers at universities and engaging in scientific activities (usually in the field of philology, philosophy, psychology, history). Such is the fate of Murdoch and Merle, Golding and Tolkien, Eco and Ackroyd, and many other famous writers. The teaching profession leaves an indelible imprint on their work; their works reveal broad erudition and knowledge of the schemes for constructing literary works. They constantly resort to open and hidden citations of classics, demonstrate linguistic knowledge, and fill their works with reminiscences designed for equally educated readers. A huge array of literary and cultural knowledge has pushed aside the direct perception of the surrounding life in “professorial literature.” Even fantasy acquired a literary sound, which was most clearly manifested by the creator of fantasy, Tolkien, and then by his followers.
Pushkin, on the contrary, is not at all a professional philologist, as later L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky, A.P. Chekhov and A.M. Gorky, V.V. Mayakovsky and M.A. Sholokhov, I.A. . Bunin and M. A. Bulgakov, many other outstanding representatives of Russian “universality”. Their dialogue with world literature (and above all with European literature) is determined not by the level of intertextuality, but by the level (let us allow ourselves a neologism) of interconceptuality and psychological and intellectual responsiveness to someone else’s feelings and thoughts, perceived in the process of their “Russification” (in other words: integration into Russian cultural thesaurus) already as “ours”.
The leading artistic movement in literature Western Europe At the beginning of the 19th century, romanticism replaced classicism and educational realism. Russian literature responds to this phenomenon in a unique way.
It borrows a lot from Western European romanticism, but at the same time solves the problems of its own national self-determination. Compared to Western European romanticism, Russian romanticism has its own specifics, its own national-historical roots. What is the similarity of Russian romanticism with Western European and what are its national differences?
The end of the 18th century in the history of Christian Europe was marked by a deep social cataclysm that blew up the entire public order and questioned faith in human reason and world harmony. The bloody upheavals of the Great French Revolution of 1789-1793, the era of the Napoleonic Wars that followed them, the bourgeois system established as a result of the revolution with its selfishness and commercialism, with the “war of all against all” - all this forced the intellectual layer of European society to doubt the truth of the Enlightenment teachings XVIII century, who promised humanity the triumph of freedom, equality and fraternity on a reasonable basis.
In Melodore’s letter to Philletus, published in 1794, the Russian writer N.M. Karamzin noted: “We considered the end of our century to be the end of the main disasters of mankind and thought that it would entail an important, general combination of theory with practice, speculation with activity, that people, morally confident in the elegance of the laws of pure reason, will begin to fulfill them in all accuracy and, under the shade of peace, in the shelter of peace and tranquility, will enjoy the true blessings of life. O Philalethes! Where is this comforting system now?.. It has collapsed at its foundation! ...The Age of Enlightenment! I don’t recognize you - in the blood, in the flames, but I recognize you, among the murders and destruction, I don’t recognize you! ...Let your philosophy perish!” And the poor, deprived of a fatherland, and the poor, deprived of shelter, and the poor, deprived of a father, or a son, or a friend, repeat: “Let him perish!” AND kind heart, torn apart by the spectacle of cruel disasters, repeats in his grief: “Let him perish! »
The collapse of faith in reason led European humanity to “cosmic pessimism,” hopelessness and despair, and doubt about the value of modern civilization. Starting from the imperfect earthly world order, the romantics turned to eternal and unconditional ideals. A deep discord arose between these ideals and reality, which led to the so-called romantic dual world.
In contrast to the abstract mind of the 18th century enlighteners, who preferred to extract the general, typical from everything and disdained the “particular”, “personal”, the romantics proclaimed the idea of the sovereignty and self-worth of each individual person with the richness of his spiritual needs, the depth of his inner world. They focused their main attention not on the circumstances surrounding the person, but on his experiences and feelings. The Romantics revealed to their readers a complexity and richness previously unknown to them. human soul, its inconsistency and inexhaustibility. They had a passion for depicting strong and vivid feelings, fiery passions or, on the contrary, the secret movements of the human soul with its intuition and subconscious depths.
At the same time, romanticism discovered the individual uniqueness of not only an individual, but also an individual nation at one time or another in history. If classicism, with its belief in the universal role of reason, extracted universal human categories from life, dissolving in general everything private and individual, then romanticism turned to depicting the national uniqueness of world cultures, and also assumed that this uniqueness is subject to irreversible historical changes.
For example, classicism perceived antiquity as eta-chop. Kik is a role model. Romanticism saw in the intimate culture of Greece or Rome an individually unique and historically transitory stage in the development of Greek or Italian national culture. Antiquity here received a completely different interpretation: such features as the pagan spirit, joy, hedonism hostile to sacrifice, the fullness of individual existence, and a proud sense of human dignity were emphasized. In search of the national identity of romance great attention devoted to oral folk art, folk culture, and folk language.
In Russia, romantic trends also arose under the influence of the events of the Great French Revolution, strengthened during the years of liberal politics at the beginning of the reign of Alexander I, who came to the Russian throne after a palace conspiracy and the murder of his father, Emperor Paul I, on the night of March 11, 1801. These trends were fueled by the rise national identity during Patriotic War 1812.
The reaction that came after the victorious war, the refusal of the government of Alexander I from the liberal promises of the beginning of his reign led society to deep disappointment, which became even more aggravated after the collapse of the Decembrist movement and in its own way fueled the romantic attitude.
These are the historical background of Russian romanticism, which was characterized by common features that brought it closer to Western European romanticism. Russian romantics are also characterized by a heightened sense of personality, aspiration to “the inner world of a person’s soul, the innermost life of his heart” (V.G. Belinsky), increased subjectivity and emotionality of the author’s style, interest in Russian history and national character.
At the same time, Russian romanticism had its own national characteristics. First of all, unlike Western European romanticism, he retained historical optimism - hope for the possibility of overcoming the contradictions between the ideal and reality. In Byron's romanticism, for example, Russian poets were attracted by the pathos of love of freedom, rebellion against an imperfect world order, but Byronic skepticism, “cosmic pessimism,” and the mood of “world sorrow” remained alien to them. Russian romantics also did not accept the cult of a smug, proud and selfishly minded human personality, contrasting it with the ideal image of a patriotic citizen or a humane person, endowed with a sense of Christian love, sacrifice and compassion.
The romantic individualism of the Western European hero did not find support on Russian soil, but was met with severe condemnation.
These features of our romanticism were associated with the fact that Russian reality at the beginning of the 19th century concealed hidden possibilities for radical renewal: the peasant question was on the agenda, the preconditions for great changes that took place in the 60s of the 19th century were maturing. Significant role The thousand-year-old Orthodox Christian culture with its desire for general agreement and a conciliar solution to all issues, with its rejection of individualism, with its condemnation of selfishness and vanity, also played a role in the national self-determination of Russian romanticism. Therefore, in Russian romanticism, unlike Western European romanticism, there was no decisive break with the culture of classicism and the Enlightenment.
Let's return to Philalethes' response letter to Melodor Karamzin. Philalethes seems to agree with his friend: “...We overly magnified the eighteenth century and expected too much from it. The incidents have proven what terrible delusions the minds of our contemporaries are still susceptible to!” But, unlike Melodorus, Philalethes does not become despondent. He believes that these errors lie not in the nature of the mind, but in mental pride: “Woe to that philosophy that wants to solve everything! Lost in a labyrinth of inexplicable difficulties, it can drive us to despair...”
The portal offers readers a series of conversations about Russian literature and culture with Professor Alexander Nikolaevich Uzhankov, theorist and historian of literature and culture Ancient Rus', teacher, vice-rector of the Literary Institute. Maxim Gorky.
– Alexander Nikolaevich, you talked about the importance for the formation of consciousness young man classic works of Russian literature. Are there any classical works world literature that would help a person understand his place in life, strengthen himself morally and spiritually?
- Well, I'm not such a big expert in foreign literature, I want to say right away. I focused my attention more on Russian literature. Most likely, precisely because I realized for myself that Russian literature is more moral than European literature. Of course, in the university course, at the philology department, we studied literature from antiquity to the present day. We were very well acquainted with the monuments of antiquity and the Middle Ages - there was an in-depth study and so on, but the soul did not accept very much. Yes, there is more rational there, we have more spirituality. That's two different types cultures, and we must pay attention to this.
The Russian person is no longer concerned material well-being, A spiritual world, that is, the salvation of the soul
The Western European type of culture is a eudaimonic type. Eudaimonia is the construction of earthly happiness, earthly well-being. Hence, in fact, the apotheosis of this is, as it were, American films with their happy ending - a happy ending, that is, he and she find each other, they receive a million, or some kind of inheritance, and finally, they acquire a 5-story house somewhere in Cote d'Azur and so on - so they lived happily. That is the finale of all human stories- live well, strive for well-being. To some extent, Protestant culture, in fact, and religion prepare for this. Russian culture, based on Orthodoxy, is soteriological. Soteriology is the doctrine of the end of the world and the salvation of the soul. This means that a Russian person is more concerned not with material well-being, but with the spiritual world (like the writer, the ancient Russian writer), that is, the salvation of the soul. This is the basis of ancient Russian literature, and, in general, in the 19th century, as we said, works also contribute to the spiritual or moral development of the individual. This is the first one. Second: let’s say, if we take, again, Western European culture, it tends, let’s say, more towards the Christmas type of culture. The main holiday in the West is the coming of Christ into the world. That is, he focuses again on the earthly. If we look Orthodox culture, Russian culture - we also love Christmas very much, but we have an Easter type of culture. Easter is more important to us. Why? Because this is just the resurrection in future life. And here it is, this direction: if the Savior has risen, then we also have hope for salvation. Again, this is hope for spiritual transformation and preparation for this future - the future century, imperishable life, as Hilarion said - this is what will happen after Last Judgment. Therefore, the main thing is not what is here, but the main thing is what will be there. And a person must approach this (why all the Russian saints were so prepared for this), this is clearly shown in the lives of the Russian saints. So when we talk about literary works, - here, I showed the difference. That is, I am, of course, speaking in general, we can already talk about some different works, but we will see that, say, their approach will be the one that I have outlined. Russian literature is more important, much more important, than European literature. It is no coincidence that the 19th century of Russian literature in the world context is considered the “golden age”, because no literature in the world has given as much as Russian literature in the 19th century. But if they still knew and understood Old Russian, then, of course, the attitude would be completely different.
No literature in the world has given as much as Russian literature in the 19th century.
– It turns out that both understanding and perception of deep and hidden thoughts in Russian classics depend on worldview. At the same time, the wealth and breadth of outlook and artistic perception depend on the works we read. That is, some kind of vicious circle. Can you name a specific, small number of works that a young person who wants to acquire initial depth of perception and expand his horizons could start with? For example, it seems to me that Dostoevsky’s works are too deep in this regard; they are for adults who have experienced and thought about their lives a lot, life experience other people. But for a young man...
– Well, to some extent, your question already contains the answer, the answer lies. Look, we have a difference from the Western European model of education, when the work of a writer or even one work is studied, in isolation from the work of other writers and other works, and the result is a truly one-sided perception of this work. We have always built the history of Russian literature. That is, chronologically, I don’t want to say, from simpler to more complex, no, not at all, but, let’s say, Dostoevsky came out of Pushkin, but to a greater extent even from Lermontov. This duality is also in the heroes, in the splitting of heroes, and here, undoubtedly, we need to pay attention to the heroes of Lermontov and the heroes of Dostoevsky. A very important point is that Dostoevsky knew both of them well, he knew Gogol too, you see, his work is based on the work of his predecessors. To some extent, it may be polemical towards them, this needs to be understood. Two contemporaries lived - Tolstoy and. They didn’t know each other personally, but they were well acquainted with each other’s work, and to some extent, their works were a polemic with both the worldview and the way of life of one and the other, do you understand?
Now, if we tear apart, examine, as if through a magnifying glass, or under a microscope, only one thing, then, of course, we will not see the world, so we certainly need to consider it in context. This is the first, but very important rule. Secondly, in the work of the writer himself, more simple themes to more complex ones - this is a must. Start with the “basics” - where the writer started, yes, what he paid attention to, and what he came to. Even in Dostoevsky, so to speak, we look - there is “Poor People”, we look - there is “Crime and Punishment” or “The Brothers Karamazov”. Why is this pinnacle achieved, and how? What does he refuse, and what does he pay more attention to?
“The Captain's Daughter” is Pushkin’s literary and spiritual testament. Because there is that mercy that we so lack in life
Pushkin has the same plot in two works. Now, if I say this: a young man, about 18 years old, goes by mail to his destination, and when he arrives there, some young lady falls in love with him, and then there will be a duel... What is this? Some will say that this is “Eugene Onegin”, and others will say that it is “The Captain’s Daughter”. Why does he use the same plot twice, especially since the original plan for “The Captain's Daughter” was completely different? Because there were real events there, which he learned about when he traveled to the Orenburg province to collect materials about the Pugachev uprising. This means that it was very important for Pushkin to argue even with himself, because “Eugene Onegin” did not completely satisfy him. Although complex work, a wonderful work, everyone admires it, but Pushkin does not. Well, really, he exclaimed after writing it, when he read it, but then he thought about it and said no. Now, if we take the consciousness of Pushkin, try to look into this consciousness, the consciousness of an Orthodox man, can he justify himself before God with this work? Because “every gift from above is,” right? So, does he have the gift of writing and composing from God? Did he serve God with his talent in Eugene Onegin? No. Why? Because everyone there is passionate. And "The Captain's Daughter"? – And this is completely different. It is no coincidence that literary scholars say, this is Pushkin’s literary testament, this is the spiritual testament of a secular man. This means that he has already risen to this level of perception. Why? Because there is that mercy that we so lack in life. “Be merciful, like your Father in heaven.” “By the way you judge, you will be judged.” Do you understand? And look, in this work everyone loves each other. There is simply love spilled throughout the entire work. There is only one person who does not love anyone - this is Shvabrin. Why? But he’s a murderer and doesn’t believe in God—that’s all. "God is love." This is what Pushkin came to. A simple work, one hundred pages. Pushkin once wrote such things in a month. And this, meanwhile, has been writing for almost three years. Why? Because it was important to him. But then that’s all, everything doesn’t matter: this work has been written, Pushkin’s spiritual testament. Do you understand?
When they removed essays from school and replaced them with the Unified State Exam, children stopped thinking, and not only figuratively
Now from the school curriculum " Captain's daughter"throw away. "Eugene Onegin" remains, but "The Captain's Daughter" is discarded. What does this mean? Is this the half-educated Pushkin? Why did he write then? He wrote, in general, for us. Why? Because he wanted to direct us along a certain path, to give us spiritual development, do you understand? School, unfortunately, emasculates all this. When they removed essays from school and replaced them with Unified State Examinations and exams, children stopped thinking, and not only figuratively. To connect their thoughts, that is, to explain what they read, to recreate these images verbally - this is now given to them with great, great difficulty. I'm not even talking about those ridiculous questions that are asked in the Unified State Exam. Now, thank God, composition is returning to school, now they will write it, because the clip consciousness is developing in children, they cannot compose full-fledged and coherent texts now.
This is one problem, the second problem is that we are having a film adaptation. What is screen adaptation? A film adaptation is, in essence, the same reading of a work, but only by one person, the director. Why do I always tell my students: before watching this film, be sure to read the work, so that you form your own images, your attitude towards this work, so that you try to reveal the idea of this work, and then watch what they show you. This is a different reading, you compare yours with another. And then, perhaps, determine what the meaning of this work is. Maybe you can get a hint there, no doubt, but maybe vice versa. I remember the Soviet-era adaptation of Anna Karenina. There are wonderful actors there, but, let’s say, when I watched Karenin, he was played in such a way (albeit by a very talented actor), that he evoked some kind of certain, if not disgust, then, in any case, antipathy, to put it mildly. This is some kind of shuffling old man. I ask the students: how old is Karenin? What is forty-two years, old man? You see, this is already beginning to be perceived in a completely different way.
Or I ask students a question: how old was Tatyana Larina when she wrote a letter to Onegin? Because when we watch an opera or a film, we see such portly women, especially in the opera. And the answer is that Tatyana is only fourteen years old, so how does Eugene Onegin (and he is twenty-eight) look at her? Dismissively and condescendingly, for which she is grateful to him, as she herself speaks about at the end of the novel. You see, these are the very details that we don’t pay attention to, because no one, not a single audience has yet told me how old the characters are. The question is, what are you reading? It is no coincidence that the author writes out this age, and draws attention to it several times. The point is that work of art, it is insidious. Why? Because it gives flow to our imagination. We build our own images, we think out many things for the writer, and, naturally, we develop certain ideas. And when you draw the attention of the same directors to this, they are surprised: how did I not notice this? Because I read it that way, because my personal perception... This is good, yes, but then you need to say that this is my perception. It wasn’t Pushkin who wrote it that way (or Lermontov, or Dostoevsky, or Tolstoy), it’s the way I see them. Well, that's great.
– Alexander Nikolaevich, you once touched upon the topic of the complexity and danger of contact, even within theatrical productions, contact with evil spirits, when a person tries to get into character evil spirits, pretend to be her or become close to her. And these words were confirmed by the words of one of the priests who is giving us a course of lectures on the practice of pastoral ministry. He is personally familiar with examples from the lives of actors whose lives were shattered after participating in such scenes, participating in works where they assumed the role of evil spirits. Relatives died, something completely out of place and inexplicable happened from the point of view of a non-believer. Some - he said so directly - after such events in their lives, they considered it a great joy and help to be baptized. That is, people came to understand that faith and God are necessary in life, but through such difficulties. The question arises: how would you explain to yourself and to young people the danger of such advances? It would seem that this is an ordinary theatrical production, because man himself does not define himself as having departed from God and having come to Satan. At the same time, there is an unconditional influence of such roles and such experiments in a person’s life.
– You can build the history of the Russian theater, or the theater, probably, in Russia - this way, perhaps, it will be more correctly said. In the 17th century, in the second half of the 17th century, it appears. Initially, only foreigners were actors. Why? Because in Rus' theater has always been perceived as anti-church. understood this perfectly. Red Square is a temple under open air, and where the Historical Museum is now, Peter I planned to create a theatrical temple in which some actions were to take place. Well, instead of Peter, now they are also organizing events, essentially on Red Square, essentially in an open-air church, as it was perceived in the 17th and even at the beginning of the 18th century.
Flirting with spiritual forces is not just a game, a transformation, it is the perception in your soul of who the actor is going to play
So, what is theater? This is acting, as they said in Ancient Rus'. The author behind the guise, that is, behind the mask, hides his own face and begins to play with passions. A person in his life must get away from passions, and in the theater he must even play other people’s passions, being, perhaps, completely moral person. Naturally, passions can captivate both the actor himself, who plays the actor, and those who sit in the audience. It was no coincidence that Alexei Mikhailovich immediately went to the bathhouse after the theater to wash away, outwardly, so to speak, these sins that seemed to cover his whole body. Why? Because he saw the passions that were raging on stage and, naturally, somehow joined them. Maybe without your own will, although - one wonders - why were you sitting, what were you watching, and so on. Not only he, but the entire retinue went to wash away these sins. You see, the form is correct, right? Maybe they didn’t understand the content. Why? Because I’ve already joined anyway. Then Russian troupes appeared, but, what is important (in imitation, of course, European ones) - the actors were who - free people or serfs? All our theaters were mainly serfs. Do you understand why? Because the landowner there, or the owner, forced them to play. If a nobleman was going to play in the theater, then he took a pseudonym so as not to discredit his surname, the honor of his noble class and noble family. He or she played on stage under a pseudonym (in general, there were such things in the 19th century, we see examples of this). As for when a person is not just playing reincarnation, but already begins flirting with spiritual forces - everything is more complicated, much more complicated. Why? Because this is not just a game, a reincarnation, but this is the perception in one’s soul of who he is going to play - Gogol perfectly showed this in the example of an unnamed artist who painted a portrait. Why? Because the artist reflects what he absorbs into his soul - it must be digested inside, he must get used to it, and then, so to speak, it spills out on the canvas. It’s the same with an actor - he must first absorb it into himself, and then throw it out on stage, because he, too, after all, an artist, will certainly let everything pass through himself. And when all this happens, when a person absorbs it, what is the danger? The fact is that he may not get rid of it. What was needed for the nameless artist? Lose your wife, lose your children, go to a monastery and atone for your sin through long fasting, prayers, and hermitage. All for just one portrait of a moneylender, right? And then he was able to transform internally, and then he was able to paint a fresco of the Nativity of Christ. The same is true for an actor who plays: again, is he flirting, is he acting, or is he really taking it into his own hands? I just also know, I am personally acquainted with some of the actors who themselves told me, and since she told me publicly, I can probably say about Natalya Varley - a Komsomol member, an athlete, a beautiful girl who played - her student role - a lady in "Vie". She says: “Even then I had no idea what I would face in my life.” She was indeed baptized later, and now she is a deeply religious person, a churchgoer, she says: “Now, if they had told me then what would happen to me, to my destiny in the future, I would never have agreed to this role.” So there really can be a lot of such examples. This is a taboo topic, a person should not transgress it.