Ticket number 11

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

March 31, 1801– Decree lifting the ban on the import of books and music from abroad and “permission to printing houses to print.”

By decree of February 9, 1802 g. “On the destruction of censorship established in cities and ports; on permission to establish free printing houses and on instructions to governors to review newly published books,” all censorship was destroyed, the free import of books into the country from abroad was allowed, and the right to establish free printing houses was restored.

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

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

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

"Russian Messenger" 1802-1820 (general and literary magazine in Moscow) published by S.N. Glinka. The task is to help excite the national spirit after the unsuccessful war with the French and the signing of the Tilsit Peace, which was humiliating for Russia. The benefactor is Count Rastopchin. The idea of ​​the magazine is pro-Russian, opposition to freethinking, they talked about the Russian national character (the roots of the theory of official nationality). 600 copies – 200 subscribers. The first magazine aimed at the middle stratum (audience - merchants, literate provincials)

During the era of the Napoleonic invasion, S. N. Glinka’s “Russian Messenger” had some success. According to the publisher's own testimony in 1811, the magazine had about 750 subscribers, of which over two hundred were from Moscow, and the remaining five hundred were distributed among provincial cities. In advanced literary circles, “Russian Messenger” did not receive attention, but Vyazemsky still considered it necessary to emphasize that during the era of the French invasion of Russia, S. N. Glinka’s journal acquired “all the importance of the event, as a counteraction to Napoleonic France and as an appeal to unanimity and unanimity the war of 1812 already foreshadowed in the air.”

In the books of the “Russian Bulletin” for 1808-1811. we encounter a number of poetic plays, discussions, stories and anecdotes dedicated to naive praise of the greatness of the Russian spirit. However, this general background of the magazine, i.e. The naive exaltation of Russian originality and power, from the first years of publication of the Russian Messenger, was needed by the publisher not for its own sake, but primarily in order to depict on it a negative attitude towards the West and in particular towards the French. One main motive runs through almost all the poetic and prose plays of his magazine - hostility to French ideas and influences.

The circulation of the Russian Messenger began to decline steadily, and from 1821 it began to be published intermittently. Its publication continued until 1826. Journalism on the pages of the “Russian Messenger” is being replaced by stories from Russian history. In 1816, Glinka began publishing in the Russian Messenger the first parts of “Russian History for the Benefit of Family Education,” which, written in a fascinating and easy style, had some success and went through three editions. “Russian History” largely reflected Glinka’s political views, his “Russianness,” nationalism and monarchism. History was perceived by Glinka from a didactic point of view as a “school of folk morality”; its study was intended to form public morality, patriotic feeling and national pride. The main goal of studying Russian history, according to Glinka, is to understand the “national spirit.” ( Mordovchenko. Journalism of the early 19th century)

“Readings in the Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word”

Literary society “Conversation of lovers of the Russian word”, founded in 1811 according to the ideas of G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov (editor and director) with the goal of developing and maintaining a taste for the elegant word through public reading of exemplary works in poetry and prose . Old writers, mainly members of the Russian Academy, have long established the custom of meeting among themselves in the evenings and reading their new works to each other; at the end of 1810, Shishkov, who stubbornly continued his fierce polemics on the issue of the old and new syllables (he believed that the real Russian language existed in the pre-Petrine era) and who already felt that his opponents, young writers, were becoming more and more dangerous, conceived turn home readings into public ones in order to attract new allies to your side. His active assistant in the implementation of this idea was Derzhavin, who placed a large hall in his house at the disposal of the new society, assumed all the expenses that the society might need, and donated a significant collection of books for its library. Meetings were to take place once a month in the autumn and winter; in addition, it was decided to found a timely publication in which the works of B. members and outsiders would be published. The B. was to consist of 24 full members and employee members. To maintain order in the Readings, it was divided into four categories of 6 members each; the discharges had to be collected one by one. The readings lasted no more than 2 - 2 ½ hours. The charter of B. drawn up by Shishkov on these grounds was through the Minister of Public Education, Count. Razumovsky, was submitted for the highest approval and approved by the sovereign, and it was ordered to declare royal favor to the Society “for this useful intention.” The opening of the book and the first reading took place on March 14, 1811, in an extremely solemn atmosphere: almost all the ministers, members of the State Council, and senators were there in full dress uniform.

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

The idea of ​​publishing her works was connected with the establishment of B. This is the edition of p.z. “Readings in B. by lovers of the Russian word” was published at an indefinite period in books from 5 to 9 sheets; in total, 19 such books were published from 1811 to 1815 (inclusive). Most of the articles and poems that filled the Readings were distinguished by their poverty and colorlessness of content and proved only the mediocrity of the authors and their childish attitude towards science and art; however, along with these children’s exercises of dignitary elders, sometimes wonderful works appeared: for example, in “Readings” a letter from Uvarov to Gnedich about the translation of the Iliad in the size of the original was published; Krylov’s fables were also published here, the reading of which at B.’s meetings always aroused the delight of the public. In general, we can say that if B. had some significance in society, it was only thanks to Krylov and Derzhavin and, partly, to Shishkov. Everything that was fresh and gifted in our literature of that time was kept not only completely aloof from B., but also belonged to a camp directly hostile to her - to the well-known Arzamas circle, in whose meetings they made fun of Beseda in every possible way. Zhukovsky, who was comically delighted with literary nonsense and constantly read the fables of gr. Khvostov, said that B. is an inexhaustible storehouse of exemplary works of this kind, and prophesied the appearance of the “Besediad”. While Derzhavin was alive, B. could still somehow exist; with his death, this stillborn society, no longer needed by anyone, disintegrated by itself. At the same time, the last weak stronghold of the ancient classical legends of the Lomonosov period of our literature collapsed; the new direction that took possession of it and united all the outstanding literary forces under its banner came from Arzamas: the young man Pushkin appeared to replace the old man Derzhavin. "Conversation". served her service to Russian educated society: she personally convinced everyone who cared about the interests of their native literature that on the old, beaten path of Slavic-Russian pseudo-classicism it was no longer possible to expect anything strong and talented, that this path should be abandoned forever and that literature should set yourself completely different tasks. The entire historical significance of B. lovers of the Russian word lies in this negative merit.

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

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

2. Publications of Slavophiles (“Russian conversation”, “Rumor”, “Parus”, “Day”)

Russian conversation- magazine, published in Moscow in 1856-1860, 4 books, from 1859 - 6 books a year. Ed.-ed. - A. I. Koshelev, co-editors - T. I. Filippov (until the beginning of 1857), then - P. I. Bartenev and M. A. Maksimovich. In 1858 (August) - 1859 ed. - I. S. Aksakov. "R. b." - organ of the Slavophiles. The publication was undertaken in partnership. Shareholders A.I. Koshelev, Yu.F. Samarin, A.S. Khomyakov and V.A. Cherkassky constituted the “editorial council” and were the main employees of the magazine.

Departments: Fine Literature, The science, Criticism, Review, Mixture, Biographies. Being essentially the first periodical publication of Slavophiles, “R. b." propagated their ideology. The magazine defended the need to preserve autocracy, convene a deliberative zemstvo council and carry out a number of reforms (freedom of the press, abolition of the death penalty, etc.). On the peasant question “R. b." I wrote a little, since the application “Rural Improvement” was completely devoted to it. The magazine advocated the liberation of peasants with land for ransom and the preservation of the peasant community.

In philosophical questions "R. b." stood on the position of militant priestly idealism. The question of spreading literacy among the people came down to the requirement to strengthen religious education in this way. For "R. b." characterized by the preaching of pan-Slavist ideas. K. S. Aksakov, I. D. Belyaev, N. P. Gilyarov-Platonov, A. F. Gilferding, I. V. Kireevsky actively collaborated in the journal. After the closure of “Moskvityanin” in “R. b." articles by V.N. Leshkov, M.A. Maksimovich, M.P. Pogodin and S.P. Shevyrev, provided with editorial notes, were included.

Scientists and writers from Slavic countries were also invited to participate in the magazine: Grabovsky, Daskalov, Klun, and others. Fiction “R. b." represented by the works of I. S. and K. S. Aksakov, S. T. Aksakov (“Family Chronicle”, 1856, No. 2; “Literary and theatrical memoirs”), V. I. Dahl, I. S. Nikitin, A. K. Tolstoy, F. I. Tyutchev, A. S. Khomyakov and others. On the pages of “R. b." Sometimes works by Marko Vovchok (“Masha”, 1859, No. 3), A. N. Ostrovsky (“Profitable Place”, 1857, No. 1), M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (“Mistress Padeikova”, 1859, No. 4), T. G. Shevchenko (“Evening”, “Dream”, 1859. No. 3). The magazine was not successful.

According to I. Aksakov, the magazine found readers mainly among the clergy, with the youth and democratic intelligentsia completely indifferent to it.

Rural improvement- magazine, supplement to “Russian Conversation”, published in Moscow in 1858 (from March) - 1859 (to April), monthly. 14 issues were published. Ed.-ed. - A.I. Koshelev.

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

In No. 9 of 1858, Cherkassky’s article “Some Features of the Future Rural Administration” was published, in which he proposed leaving the right of corporal punishment of peasants to the landowners. This article caused outrage in the progressive press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The demand for openness, skeptical reviews of some of the government’s actions, as well as sharp criticism from the right of the foreign policy of tsarism (in the article by M.P. Pogodin “The Last Year in Russian History,” No. 2) caused the cessation of the newspaper.

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

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

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

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

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

Shareholder- newspaper, published in Moscow in 1860-1863, weekly. In 1860-1861 it was an addition to the monthly magazine “Bulletin of Industry”. In 1862 she came out independently. In 1863 it was added to the newspaper " Day" Ed. - F.V. Chizhov and I.K. Babst.

The purpose of the newspaper is to protect Russian industry and trade from foreign competition. Departments: Editorial, Trade affairs, Balance and state of State Bank accounts, Bill and money rates, Railway trains, Latest share prices on the St. Petersburg Stock Exchange, ads. After the termination of the Industry Bulletin, two more departments were added: Review of Russian industry And Trade and industrial chronicle. Leading employees signed pseudonyms (Russian merchant, Proezzhiy, etc.).

The section is very easy to use. Just enter the desired word in the field provided, and we will give you a list of its meanings. I would like to note that our site provides data from various sources - encyclopedic, explanatory, word-formation dictionaries. Here you can also see examples of the use of the word you entered.

What does “conversation between lovers of the Russian word” mean?

Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998

literary society in St. Petersburg in 1811-16, headed by G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov. The majority of members (S. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, A. S. Khvostov, D. I. Khvostov, A. A. Shakhovskoy, etc.), from the position of defenders of classicism and the Old Church Slavonic language, opposed new literary trends and the reform of the literary language begun N. M. Karamzin. N. I. Gnedich and I. A. Krylov, who were members of the society, defended the national democratic traditions of Russian literature.

Conversation between Russian word lovers

“Conversation of lovers of the Russian word”, literary society in St. Petersburg (1811–16), headed by G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov. Members of the “Conversation” (S. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, A. S. Khvostov, A. A. Shakhovskaya and others) were epigones of classicism and attacked the literary language reform carried out by supporters of N. M. Karamzin. The Arzamas literary society, which arose in opposition to Beseda, opposed its conservative views.

Lit.: Tynyanov Yu. N., Archaists and innovators, Leningrad, 1929; Lotman Yu. M., The problem of nationality and the development of literature of the pre-Decembrist period, in the collection: On Russian realism of the 19th century. and issues of nationality of literature, M.≈L., 1960.

Wikipedia

Conversation between Russian word lovers

Derzhavin in St. Petersburg At the head of this society were G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov. S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, D.I. Khvostov, A.A. Shakhovskoy, I.S. Zakharov and others also belonged to it. They adhered to conservative views, being epigones of classicism, and opposed the reform of the literary language carried out by supporters of N. M. Karamzin. “Conversation...” reflected those views on the development of the Russian literary language that were held by the “senior archaists.” Thus, the main opponents of "Conversation..." were the "Karamzinists", who later formed the Arzamas society, who ridiculed the activities of "Conversation".

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

The “Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word” disbanded after Derzhavin’s death in 1816.

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

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

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

What needed to be done to make the Russian language on par with the great languages ​​of the world? The language of literature, Karamzin answered, should become a colloquial language, the language of a “good”, i.e., enlightened, educated society. You need to speak as they write, and write as they speak. This is where the French language, with its precise usage and clear syntax, should be taken as a model. The French set another example: “...The French language is all in books (with all the colors and shadows, like in picturesque paintings), and the Russians must still talk about many subjects, as a person with talent will write.”

Karamzin and the Karamzinists believed that it was necessary to bring bookish and colloquial languages ​​closer together in order to erase the difference between bookish and colloquial languages, in order to “destroy the bookish language” and “form” a “middle language” based on the “average” style of the literary language 23 . Reliance on France, which is far ahead of Russia “in civic education,” and the assimilation of European concepts cannot be disastrous for the country. The point is not to make French, German, Dutch or English out of Russians, but so that the Russians can become on par with the most enlightened peoples of Europe. At the same time, one indispensable condition must be met - changes must come naturally, without forceful withdrawal.

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

On all the main points of Karamzin’s articles, Shishkov fiercely polemicizes with him. If Karamzin believes that the assimilation of Western concepts is necessary for Russia, then Shishkov defends domestic culture from foreign influence and states that Russia must preserve itself intact from the ideological and cultural influence of France and the West in general. The task, according to Shishkov, is to protect national values ​​and shrines from the corrupting ideas of Western “foreign insanity.” The nation that unleashed the Jacobin terror, destroyed the monarchy, and rejected religion is a nation of destroyers. There is no positive, creative principle in it. As a result, its philosophy, literature and entire culture have only a negative meaning and are capable of sowing only violence, robbery, and unbelief.

French philosophy is nothing more than “the mad thinking of the Diderots, Janjacs, Voltaires and others who were called philosophers.” It contains as much blindness and delusion as is not contained in “the grossest ignorance.” The newest philosophers teach people those “depraved morals”, “the harmful fruits of which, after much bloodshed, still nest in France.” Therefore, “one must go into reading French books with great caution, so that the purity of one’s morals in this sea filled with danger is not dashed against a stone...”.

French literature is “incomprehensible idle talk”, the French language is “poor, meager”, it contains many words created by the disorderly and bloody revolution - “decades”, “guillotines”. It represents barren soil, unable to give birth to anything great. This foreign culture “breaks in by force” into Russian culture, distorting and destroying the pure and original national foundations.

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

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

In order to turn the movement of Russian culture back, Shishkov turned to the Slavic language of church books, which was no longer spoken in everyday life. He stood up for the book language and protested against its rapprochement with the spoken language and, most importantly, its dissolution into the spoken language. Racine’s language, Shishkov objected to Karamzin, “is not the one that everyone uses, otherwise everyone would be Racine.” However, if it is “not shameful,” as Shishkov wrote, to speak in Lomonosov’s language, then something else is completely clear: neither Racine’s language nor Lomonosov’s language is used in everyday life.

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

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

So, Karamzin and Shishkov came to the same idea about the need for a single literary language and understood its creation as a matter of national and state significance. However, Karamzin insisted on bringing the book language closer to the spoken language, and Shishkov did not even allow such a thought. Karamzin proposed to put the “middle” style as the basis of the literary language, Shishkov - high and vernacular styles. Both writers were confident that literature created on the linguistic principles proposed by each would contribute to the unification of all classes of the people on a common national basis. At the same time, Karamzin and Shishkov opened the way to romanticism (the ideas of nationality and identity, characteristic of Shishkov, were put forward precisely by the romantics), but Karamzin was animated by the idea of ​​a gradual and natural movement forward, and Shishkov thought of movement forward as an artificial and unnatural return back 24.

In order to educate future young writers in the spirit of A.S. Shishkov conceived the idea of ​​creating a literary society in which venerable elders, wise with life and literary experience, would give advice to promising aspiring authors. This is how the “Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word” was born. Its core consisted of G.R. Derzhavin (the solemnity and significance of the meetings was emphasized by the fact that they took place in his house), A.S. Shishkov, M.N. Muravyov, I.A. Krylov, P.I. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov.

The official opening of the “Conversation” took place on February 21, 1811, but the meetings began much earlier. Its full members and employee members were distributed into four “ranks of office,” headed by the chairman (A.S. Shishkov, G.R. Derzhavin, A.S. Khvostov, I.S. Zakharov). In addition to them, N.I. participated in the “Conversation” meetings. Gnedich, P.A. Katenin, A.S. Griboyedov, V.K. Kuchelbecker and other famous writers. “Besedchiki” or “Shishkovists” published their own magazine “Readings in Conversation lovers of the Russian word" (1811–1816).

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

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

The patience of Karamzin’s supporters ran out, and they decided to respond. Karamzin himself did not take part in the controversy.

It would seem that the common concern for the creation of a single national literary language and the common desire for romanticism should have led to the unification of the efforts of all enlightened strata. However, what happened differently - society split and a deep division occurred.

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

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

I love the Fatherland, I know Russian,

But I don’t equate Tredyakovsky with Racine.

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

Insulted by Shakhovskoy, he wrote the comedy “Stolen Fur Coats,” in which he ridiculed the small talent of V.L. Pushkin and his minor contribution to Russian literature. On September 23, 1815, the premiere of Shakhovsky’s comedy “A Lesson for Coquettes, or Lipetsk Waters” took place. The play featured the tearfully sentimental balladeer Fialkin, whose poems parodied Zhukovsky’s ballad “Achilles” (the comedy also contained hints of the ballad “Svetlana”).

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

The content and style of the polemic took shape after D.N. Bludov wrote a satire in prose, “A Vision in Some Fence.” The plot of Bludov's satire was as follows. “The society of friends of literature, forgotten by Fortune” and living in Arzamas far from both capitals (a mocking allusion to the famous writers from “Conversation”, who in fact have all sunk into oblivion, that is, died as writers), meet in a tavern and spend evenings in friendly debate. One day they accidentally observe the revelations of a stranger (by his external features it is easy to recognize A.A. Shakhovsky). Using an ancient style and a form of biblical allegory, the stranger talks about a prophetic vision. He dreamed that a certain old man (A.S. Shishkov could be seen in him) was entrusting him with the mission of writing a libel against rivals who were more talented than the old man. Thus, the elder allegedly restores his lowly fallen reputation, quenches the envy gnawing at him and forgets about his own creative inferiority.

Bludov's satire largely outlined both the genre and the ironic techniques of Arzamas works. She gave birth to a circle (it was decided to revive the former Arzamas 25 as “New Arzamas”), which arose in 1815 and was called the “Arzamas Society of Unknown People” or - briefly - “Arzamas”. It included V.A. Zhukovsky, P.A. Vyazemsky, D.V. Dashkov, A.I. and N.I. Turgenevs, M.F. Orlov, K.N. Batyushkov, A.F. Voeikov, V.L. Pushkin, D.N. Bludov, S.S. Uvarov. A.S. was also listed as a resident of Arzamas. Pushkin, who openly joined the society after graduating from the Lyceum.

“Arzamas” arose as a society focused primarily on polemics with “Beseda” and the Russian Academy. He parodied their organizational forms in his structure. In contrast to the official capital's "Conversation", where large and experienced officials sat, the Arzamas people deliberately emphasized the provincialism of the "society of unknown people." A special decree allowed “to recognize every place as Arzamas” - “a palace, a hut, a chariot, a sled.”

Arzamas parodists wittily played on the well-known tradition of the French Academy, when a newly elected member gave a speech of praise in honor of his deceased predecessor. Those entering Arzamas chose a “living dead person” from the “Conversation”, and a “eulogy” filled with irony was sounded in his honor. The language of Arzamas speeches, replete with literary quotations and reminiscences, was designed for a European-educated interlocutor capable of grasping subtext and feeling irony. It was the language of the initiates.

The Arzamas protocols are dominated by a playful and parody element. Zhukovsky, the permanent secretary of the society, was unanimously recognized as the king of buffoonery. And since, according to him, “it was born from attacks on the Ballads,” the participants were given nicknames taken from Zhukovsky’s ballads. The “balladeer” himself bore the Arzamas name Svetlana, Vyazemsky - Asmodeus, Batyushkov - Achilles (hinting at his frail figure, friends joked: “Oh, heel”), Bludov - Cassandra, Uvarov - Old Woman, Orlov - Rein, Voeikov - Ivikov the Crane, young Pushkin is a Cricket, and his uncle Vasily Lvovich used to be four times – Here, Here I am, Here I am again, Votrushka.

The majestic Arzamas goose was a unique emblem of the society (Arzamas was famous for its huge and tasty geese), and the name goose became an honor for each member. However, contemporaries also had other associations. In the book “Emblems and Symbols”, first published by decree of Peter I in 1705 and reprinted many times, there was an emblem number 86 - “a goose grazing on grass” with the following symbolic interpretation: “I will die, or I will get what I want,” which was in complete harmony with the feelings of the Arzamas residents, who proclaimed “irreconcilable hatred for Conversation."

So, the Arzamas people began to playfully repel the attacks of “Conversation” and themselves excitedly and fearlessly attacked their opponents. The content of the disputes was serious, but the form in which the Arzamas people dressed them was a parody and a game.

For the Arzamas residents, “Conversation” is a society of the past; in addition to Krylov and several other writers, inert elders, led by Grandfather Sedy, i.e. Shishkov, sit there. Almost all of them are untalented, they have no literary talents, and therefore their ambitions are ridiculous and their claims to leadership of literature are groundless. As writers they are dead men. Such are their works, the place of which is in the river of oblivion Lethe, flowing in the underground kingdom of the dead. “Besedchiki” write in a dead language, using words that have long disappeared from everyday use (Arzamas people mocked the expression “semo and ovamo”).

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

The main method of cheerful mockery is “Arzamas nonsense” - an outdated high style that endlessly poeticizes the insane content and linguistic madness of the works of the “talkers”. This is how Shishkov’s views appeared to the people of Arzamas.

The Arzamas people contrasted the ponderous, stately darkness of the writings and speeches of Shishkov’s supporters with the light, graceful and even somewhat dandyish style of Karamzin. “Conversation”, which is leaving the world, is replaced by “New Arzamas”. The people of Arzamas are creating their own cosmic world, creating an unprecedented Arzamas mythology.

The entire history of “Arzamas” falls into two periods – the old and the new. It is not difficult to see here direct analogies with the Old and New Testaments, with the idea of ​​the Orthodox Church. "Old Arzamas" is a "Friendly Literary Society", in which ideas have already arisen, brilliantly developed by the "New Arzamas", to which the grace of the former Arzamas has passed. Indeed, many members of the Friendly Literary Society became members of Arzamas in 1815. Taking up the baton, “New Arzamas” was baptized, that is, it was cleansed of old vices and transformed. “Lipetsk Waters” became Epiphany waters for “New Arzamas” (an allusion to Shakhovsky’s comedy). In these cleansing waters, the remnants of the “dirt” of the “besedchiki” disappeared, and a renewed and beautiful “Arzamas” was born. The adoption of new names is also associated with baptism. From now on, the people of Arzamas acquired a new religion, learned and believed in their unearthly god - the God of Taste.

In full agreement with Karamzin’s ideas, artistic taste is interpreted as a personal ability. It cannot be comprehended by the mind. Taste cannot be taught; it is not acquired through hard work. A person receives the taste as a heavenly gift, as grace descending from heaven and visiting him. Taste is mysteriously connected with goodness and is governed not by knowledge, but by faith. From here it is clear that, creating multi-thought ideas, the Arzamas people combine ecclesiastical and aesthetic ideas. The church idea is transferred to everyday life, and the aesthetic idea is “sacralized” (sanctified by religion, becomes sacred). In other words, the people of Arzamas combine travesty(ironic use of a “high” genre and “high” style to convey obviously “low” content) and burlesque(a deliberately rude and daring stylistically “low” presentation of a “high” topic).

In the gaming cosmic world of the Arzamas people, Taste is a god who denies rules, norms, a god who requires clarity of thought, psychological relevance and precision of words and expressions, their lightness, grace and euphony. The God of Taste acts secretly, settling as a spirit in every Arzamas resident. At the same time, his secret presence takes on flesh - the Arzamas goose. So that the people of Arzamas can escape from the demonic forces of the “talkers,” the god of Taste invites them to taste his flesh. Having tasted the divine flesh, they mysteriously escape the spell of the Conversation and are saved. Goose flesh is delicious and miraculous. It not only protects and protects the Arzamas people from all misfortunes, but also contains a divine creative gift: the works of the Arzamas people turn out to be filled with true taste and act as “god-pleasing,” i.e., approved by the God of Taste. The cult of the god Taste is supported by the church.

“Arzamas” - the center of aesthetic faith - is a temple, a church of the god of Taste, similar to the Orthodox Church - the guardian of religion. Literary Orthodoxy, like any true religion, has an enemy in the form of the literary forces of darkness and evil. They concentrated in the Conversation.

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

In 1816, “Conversation” ceased to exist. "Arzamas" lasted until 1818 and also disappeared from the literary arena. Attempts to revive the “Conversation” made by A.S. Khvostov, as well as attempts to give the Arzamas meetings a serious form, were unsuccessful. However, the Arzamas brotherhood and Arzamas eloquence did not pass without a trace. In a transformed form, they entered literary life and literature.

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

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

In the creation of a single literary language, the main merit, undoubtedly, belongs to Pushkin.

Pushkin the lyceum student professed the ideology of Arzamas. He devoted himself entirely to the literary battle with Beseda destroyers Russian word". From Arzamas he forever inherited the spirit of literary mischief, the element of “light and cheerful”, and a focus on polemics. Pushkin’s mood was reflected in the epigram “The gloomy troika are singers” (1815). However, already in the 1820s. Pushkin is dissatisfied with literary “sectarianism” (Yu.N. Tynyanov), the one-sidedness of both Karamzin and Shishkov. In 1823, he wrote to Vyazemsky: “I would like to leave the Russian language some biblical obscenity. I don’t like to see traces of European affectation and French sophistication in our primitive language. Rudeness and simplicity suited him better. I preach out of inner conviction, but out of habit I write differently” 26. These words mean that the basis of Pushkin’s poetic language is still the “middle” syllable, but the poet is already clearly aware of its limitations. He recognizes the relative correctness of Shishkov (“Shishkov’s claims are in many ways ridiculous; but in many ways he was right”), he wants to “learn” from Katenin, a supporter of the “high” and “colloquial” styles. Works such as Boris Godunov indicate that Pushkin took into account the once warring points of view.

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

Conversation between Russian word lovers

Literary Society in St. Petersburg in 1811-16. Created mainly on the initiative of A. S. Shishkov, the author of “Discourse on the Old and New Syllable,” which became the manifesto of his literary comrades. The meetings were held in the house of G. R. Derzhavin, one of the centers of literary life in St. Petersburg at the beginning of the 19th century. (Fontanka river embankment, 118). Among the members of the society: V.V. Kapnist, A.N. Olenin, Count D.I. Khvostov, Prince A.A. Shakhovskoy, Prince S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov and others. The activities of “Conversations...” aimed the establishment of the genres of classicism in Russian literature, the preservation of the archaic Old Church Slavonic language in it (as opposed to the reform of the “Karamzinists”), was of a conservative nature. At the same time, some members of society (N. I. Gnedich, I. A. Krylov) defended national democratic traditions in the development of the Russian literary language and civic pathos in poetry. The interest of "Conversations..." in the study of ancient Russian monuments, folklore, and the origins of Russian literature was shared by A. S. Griboedov, P. I. Katenin and others. The society published the magazine "Reading in the Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word" (19 books were published) . The activities of “Conversation...” became the subject of caustic parody by the literary circle “Arzamas”.

• - literary society in St. Petersburg in 1811-16...

  St. Petersburg (encyclopedia)

• - founded in 1863 at Moscow University...

  Physical Anthropology. Illustrated explanatory dictionary

• - lingu...

  Universal additional practical explanatory dictionary by I. Mostitsky

• - a type of allergic alveolitis that occurs in persons in contact with birds and is caused by the deposition in the lungs of a precipitate consisting of IgG antibodies and an allergen that has entered the body...

  Large medical dictionary

• - a literary society founded in 1811 according to the ideas of G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov with the goal of developing and maintaining a taste for elegant words through public reading of exemplary works in poetry and prose...
• - an illustrated magazine on photographic technology, published since 1903, ed. P.V. Preobrazhensky...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - containing various works in poetry and prose by some Russian writers - a monthly publication published in St. Petersburg. in 1783-84... at an unspecified time...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - a magazine published in St. Petersburg in 1811-16, 1, 2 and 3 books per year. There were 19 in total...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - a literary society in St. Petersburg, headed by G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - "" - literary society in St. Petersburg in 1811-16, headed by G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov...

  Large encyclopedic dictionary

• - From the poem “If dreams were good, passions would be good...” by the poet, Slavophile publicist Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov. Playfully and ironically: about someone’s verbosity; about words not backed up by deeds...
• - From the poem “If dreams were good, passions would be good...” by the poet, Slavophile publicist Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov. Playfully and ironically about someone's verbosity...

  Dictionary of popular words and expressions

• - Words that came from other languages ​​for various reasons: external and intralingual...

  Terms and concepts of linguistics: Vocabulary. Lexicology. Phraseology. Lexicography

• - Words that came from other languages ​​for various reasons: external and intralingual. 1) External reasons: a) close political, trade, economic, industrial and cultural ties between native language peoples...
• - A sequence of morphemes corresponding to the law of word formation of a particular language...

  Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal

• - See Rus' -...

  IN AND. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

"Conversation of lovers of the Russian word" in books

1. “Arzamas” versus “Conversations of lovers of the Russian word”