Pravaya.ru
But there is also God’s Judgment!
Having entered Freemasonry, Pushkin was forced to sign an oath containing allegiance to this order: “... be afraid to think that this oath is less sacred than those given by you in civil society. You were free when you pronounced it, but you are no longer free to break the oath that binds you.” This precisely predetermined the tragic duel between the poet and Dantes.
On the occasion of the 208th anniversary of the birth of A.S. Pushkin hosted several programs, films, and readings of the poet’s main texts performed by M. Kazakov and S. Shakurov over the course of three days. The Zvezda channel showed a documentary about Pushkin’s foreign ancestors, as well as Leonid Menaker’s film “The Last Road”, released in 1986, starring I. Smoktunovsky, A. Myagkov, A. Kalyagin, A. Filozov, A. Kamenkova, S. Zhigunov, M. Gluzsky. But, unfortunately, N. Bondarchuk’s recent film “Pushkin. The Last Duel”, where in many respects the secret of Pushkin’s life is revealed in the true, imperial key, although there are some errors and inaccuracies (in particular, the name of S.S. Uvarov, who is not related to the world behind the scenes and, moreover, fought with him, is discredited, but only three years before the duel, he quarreled with Pushkin). That's probably all! Neither the first, nor the second, nor the third, nor the fourth channels were honored to remember the great Russian poet, the pride of Russia, except for scanty routine phrases in television news!
I wanted to touch on the analysis of the documentary film “The Prince of Cotillion”, dedicated to Dantes and the circumstances of his duel with Pushkin, a film about Natalia Goncharova and Menaker’s feature film “The Last Road” as examples negative attitude to A.S. Pushkin and Russia. Indeed, in the film “The Last Road”, in fact, the poet himself is almost absent and main character film, and only the coat of the chamber cadet is visible. The epigraph to this article is a poem by M.Yu. Lermontov’s “Death of a Poet”, which seems to accurately show the current situation around the honest and noble name “Pushkin” and the position of TV bosses towards our great poet. 170 years have passed, but nothing has changed, but it has only gotten worse! Moreover, in February of this year, the chain around the poet’s monument was stolen in broad daylight! And no one (including the police) paid attention to this! We need to figure out what is happening to us today.
Before discussing these films, it is necessary to briefly tell the background of the duel between Pushkin and Dantes, to show the international backstage that gathered around the great Russian poet, who took revenge on the great Russian genius for his departure from Freemasonry, as well as his honest and noble service to the throne and Russia.
The television programs and films that have been shown have fully shown that until now numerous Pushkin scholars have not paid their main attention to real reasons the duel and death of the poet, although in the film “The Last Road” they relished the duel itself and the characters in detail. All this greatly impoverishes our impression of A.S. Pushkin as a patriot and great statesman of Russia. Programs dedicated to A.S. Pushkin was not shown the true reason for the duel with Dantes (largely related to Freemasonry), which also impoverishes our understanding of the poet.
And the authors of the documentary film “The Prince of Cotillion” also did not show the history of Pushkin’s spiritual development. However, this topic cannot be ignored. On the contrary, as B. Bashilov, an expert on Freemasonry in the Russian diaspora, rightly believes, the history of Pushkin’s spiritual development raises a very important question for all of us - were there any possibilities for the spiritual recovery of educated Russian society after the Decembrist uprising, or were those who said that Nicholas’s victory were right? I over the Masonic conspirators could no longer change anything in the fate of Russia? Was Russia already by this time so sick spiritually, politically and socially that the question itself was becoming quite banal, and the time of both political and social revolution was only a matter of time?
The answer to the question: was it just a duel or a special action carried out by the Freemasons, coming from higher spheres(in particular from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its minister K.V. Nesselrode), gives the story of the poet’s childhood and youth at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, as well as his acceptance into Freemasonry in Chisinau in 1821 (to which the authors of the two films never addressed their attention). This is especially true for the film “The Prince of Cotillion”. And to answer the question we posed, it is necessary to show the moral baggage that Pushkin had by 1821, the year the poet was accepted into Freemasonry.
Beginning with early years and until the end of his life, Pushkin had a passion for the Voltairean ideas of the Enlightenment. This was greatly facilitated by the environment in which he himself lived. It is known that the poet’s father and uncle were members of Masonic lodges and ardent admirers of Voltairean and Masonic ideas, they had large libraries consisting of precisely this kind of books. In addition, almost all the teachers of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum (it appeared shortly before the War of 1812, in 1811), including the director Malinovsky, were Freemasons.
Thus, Professor Koshansky was a member of the lodge " Chosen Michael", whose circle included both lyceum students and officers with whom Pushkin, A.A. communicated. Delvig, Bestuzhev, Batenkov, Kuchelbecker, Izmailov. At the Lyceum itself, teacher Kunitsyn presented moral philosophy and logic entirely in the spirit of Masonically understood moral philosophy. After this, was it surprising that Pushchin, Kuchelbecker and other students of this educational institution, Pushkin’s classmates, eventually became Freemasons, revolutionaries and Decembrists, enemies of the Russian autocracy? In his denunciation of 1826, “Something about the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum and its spirit,” F.V. Bulgarin points to the Martinists as the source of the pedagogical system that was the basis of the lyceum.
The spirit of the circle of St. Petersburg educated society, among which Pushkin the lyceum student had to be, was no better. In the literary circle "Green Lamp" the young poet meets many Decembrists (since the "Green Lamp" itself was a branch of the secret Masonic revolutionary Decembrist society "Union of Welfare"). Having later joined the Arzamas literary society, Pushkin began by meeting the future Decembrists M. Orlov, N. Turgenev and N. Muravyov. And as a result, no matter what strata of educated society young Pushkin encountered, everywhere he encountered either Masons with a high degree of initiation and Voltaireans, or people brought up under the influence of Masonic ideas. The exception was P.A. Vyazemsky, V.A. Zhukovsky, N.M. Karamzin, I.I. Kozlov, I.A. Krylov and a few others.
Exiled to Bessarabia in 1821, Pushkin found himself in a completely Masonic environment. By order of the authorities, he had to be weaned from political freethinking by none other than... the old Freemason I.I. Inzov, one of the main members of the Chisinau lodge “Ovid”. The Chisinau masons are intensively beginning to educate the young, but then already famous poet. As a result, he manages to recruit him. Many Pushkin scholars and biographers of the poet did not attach due importance to the poet’s involvement in the Ovid Lodge. Meanwhile, this topic deserves our close attention. The filmmakers didn't say a word about this.
In addition, having joined Freemasonry, Pushkin was forced to sign an oath containing loyalty to this order. As a result, this precisely predetermined the further tragic duel of the poet with Dantes. For violating this oath, the following was imposed: “... be afraid to think that this oath is less sacred than those given by you in civil society. You were free when you pronounced it, but you are no longer free to break the oath that binds you.” If a writer who has joined the Masonic lodge “writes in his book thoughts that are absolutely correct, but not suitable for our teaching or too premature, then this author should either be bribed or dishonored.”
But it’s time, Pushkin’s initiation into Freemasonry, however, does not last long. The Masons and Decembrists soon became convinced of the shallowness of Pushkin’s radicalism and atheism, while realizing that he never became their faithful and convinced supporter.
At the same time, Pushkin, despite his youth, realized before the Freemasons and Decembrists that he had and could not have anything in common with these people. It was during this period of time, i.e., shortly after joining the Masonic fraternity, that he, by his own admission, began to study the Bible and the Koran more thoroughly, and in one of his letters he called the reasoning of the English atheist “complete chatter.”
Pushkin was also disappointed in radical political ideas for the social transformation of society. So, having met with one of the most prominent members of the Union of Welfare, the Illuminati, Pestel, about whom all the Decembrists buzzed the poet’s ears as an “outstanding mind,” he saw in him only a cruel “blind fanatic of his extravagant ideas.” And Pushkin himself wrote at this time works that were “unsuitable” and “premature” for the Masonic Order. Apparently, they were still “premature” in the sense that they objectively anticipated and exposed the methods used by the Freemasons and their secret patrons in power. It was impossible to bribe Pushkin: “And my incorruptible voice was the echo of the Russian people.”
In 1824-26. the poet went into exile to his Mikhailovskoye estate, where his “final Russification” took place. In the ancient Pskov region, Alexander Sergeevich supplemented his book knowledge with some observations on folk life, which ultimately led him to deepen his interest in Russian antiquity and traditions. Now Pushkin mainly heard Russian speech and lived among those people who were dressed in Russian, and also sang Russian songs and prayed in the Orthodox way.
In this context, one can recall the apt remarks of V.V. Rozanov that “it was not universities that raised a kind Russian person, but kind, illiterate nannies,” may well be attributed to both Pushkin and Tyutchev. And it was precisely through the wisdom of the illiterate nanny Arina Rodionovna, both in early childhood and in exile in Mikhailovskoye, that a powerful stream of the Russian national worldview burst into his brilliant soul.
There, in Mikhailovsky, he works very fruitfully: his masterpieces such as “Boris Godunov”, “Eugene Onegin”, “Gypsies”, “Count Nulin”, “Imitation of the Koran”, “Bacchanalian Plays” were written here. And as a result, the poet’s conviction emerges that every educated person should think about the social and governmental structure of the society of which he is a member, and at the same time should, to the best of his ability and strength, tirelessly contribute to its improvement.
In 1826, shortly after the coronation of Nicholas I, the poet was recalled from exile. A famous meeting took place between them, where the king freed him from exile and fully supported his endeavors to improve the state structure. Moreover, the emperor himself spoke about this meeting as follows: “Today I spoke with the most educated person in Russia.” And now the tsar himself became Pushkin’s censor. In addition, the new emperor allowed him to familiarize himself with an important document - the archive of Peter the Great. Pushkin himself throws himself into his work, actively studying national history, and also writes works, the historical and political depth of which still shocks the whole world.
All these arguments are completely at odds with the statement of the French researcher invited to the film “The Prisoner of Cotillion,” where he noted that the conspiracy against Pushkin allegedly had a local, local character, and that the tsar himself had a bad attitude towards the great Russian poet. All this is completely at odds with the true facts and reasons for the duel. It was an international conspiracy, or rather a Masonic conspiracy, and, above all, except Pushkin himself, directed against the emperor.
Moreover, the tsar fully appreciated and loved Pushkin, listened carefully to his thoughts, forgave him a lot, in case of lack of money gave him considerable sums, and after Pushkin’s death he paid off all his numerous debts. In the same 1826, on behalf of the emperor, he wrote a note “On Public Education”, where the poet anticipated the remarkable thought of N.V. Gogol about the need to create in our country an instrument for studying Russia in the broadest possible way, creating special departments: from history, economics, philosophy and ending with geography.
Of course, Pushkin knew the many ills of Russia, while criticizing its many sins, no matter who they belonged to (even the House of Romanov). However, he did not tolerate “crazy” and unfair attacks on his Fatherland. Thus, here Pushkin first outlined the theme of Russophobia, which was then so brilliantly developed by Tyutchev. From his point of view, one cannot forgive the “slanderers of Russia,” especially that category of people who, in response to “Russian affection,” are capable of “slandering the Russian character, smearing the sacred traditions of our chronicles, slandering the best fellow citizens and, not being content with their contemporaries, mocking the coffins of forefathers."
It is worth quoting a few words from A.S. Pushkin’s “Slanderers of Russia”, so that if you listen, you will understand how modern they are:
« What are you making a fuss about, folks?
Why are you threatening Russia with anathema?
What angered you? Unrest in Lithuania?
Leave it alone: this is a dispute between the Slavs,
A domestic, old dispute, already weighed by fate,
A question you can't solve».
« …Leave us alone: you didn’t read
These bloody tablets;
You don’t understand, it’s alien to you
This family feud;
The Kremlin and Prague are silent for you;
Senselessly seduces you
Fighting desperate courage -
And you hate us….»
In the poem “Borodin Anniversary” he directly addresses the enemies of Russia with the following lines:
« But you, troublemakers of the chambers,
Easy-tongue twists,
You, the rabble of the disastrous alarm,
Slanderers, enemies of Russia!
What did you take?.. Is Russia still
A sick, relaxed colossus?»
In the polemical objections of P.Ya. Chaadaev, Pushkin convincingly refuted the conclusions of his first philosophical letter about the historical insignificance of Russia, about the “impurity of the source of our Christianity,” borrowed from Byzantium and directed Russian history not along the Western path. This is especially clearly seen from Pushkin’s letter to Chaadaev dated 1836, shortly before the ill-fated duel, where the poet responds to the objections of Chaadaev’s letter, saying that “... for nothing in the world would I want to change my fatherland, or have a history other than the history of our ancestors, the way God gave it to us.”
All this could not satisfy the enemies of Pushkin and the enemies of Russia (including those from the highest spheres, who are Freemasons). And they decided to fulfill the oath that Pushkin signed when he entered the Ovid box. This is confirmed by a note from the Parisian newspaper Temps dated March 5, 1837, written three weeks after Pushkin’s death, written by the Freemasons themselves. It indicated that Pushkin himself was a Freemason in his youth, now he has ideologically moved away from Freemasonry and, moreover, poses a danger to him. It was also mentioned about the cuckold emblem, which was given to Pushkin shortly before the duel. None of this was shown in the film, although the filmmakers traveled to France (including Paris).
To this day, extremely much has been written about the fatal duel of January 27\February 8, 1837 and its background and, as V.V. said. Kozhinov, redundancy of information can often interfere with understanding the essence of the matter, no less than its insufficiency. Kozhinov is trying to reach a true understanding of events.
So, let's take a closer look at the course of events. On the morning of November 4, 1836, Pushkin receives a “diploma” of a cuckold, and, without reading it into account because of the indignation that gripped him, he sends a challenge to Dantes, who has long revolved around his wife, Natalya Nikolaevna, and his wife’s sister, Ekaterina Nikolaevna. The next morning, a frightened Heckern showed up to see him - and the duel was postponed for a day, and after a second visit on November 6 for two weeks. Then Pushkin assures Sollogub that “there will be no duel.”
The poet himself considered Heckern to be involved in the “diploma” precisely because of his closest relationship with the Nesselrode couple. However, the duel, in the end, did not take place, because on November 17, Dantes announced that he was asking for the hand of Natalya Nikolaevna’s sister Ekaterina. Pushkin took this as a complete surrender of Dantes and refused the challenge. But he himself was not going to give up the fight against the one who, in his opinion, fabricated the “diploma” (in Dantes he saw only a puppet). And already on November 23, thanks to A.F. Benkendorf held a meeting between Pushkin and the Tsar, where the Tsar dissuaded the poet from participating in the duel.
Some of the main participants in the conspiracy were Heckern, Dantes, the Nesselrode spouses (his wife was the founder of the literary secular salon in St. Petersburg, where gossip about the poet often spread). In addition, Dantes and Nesselrode were relatives and belonged to virtually the same Masonic lodge. All this allows us to talk about a single, “fraternal”, “international” and “related” nature of the conspiracy against the poet.
In the early 30s of the 19th century, Georges Dantes came to Russia. From the first days of his stay in Russia, he enjoyed great support and patronage from Baron Heckern, the Dutch envoy. With the appearance of the young Frenchman in St. Petersburg, Heckern himself began vigorously to spread rumors that he wanted to adopt Dantes. In secular society this made a corresponding impression. Dantes's career accelerated.
He was the son of a large French owner from Soultz, who owned a castle that formerly belonged to the Templar Order. This castle was shown by the authors of the film “The Prince of Catillon”, but not a word was said about the Freemasonry of the Dantes family. In addition, they showed the grave of Dantes’ children and wife (sister of Pushkin’s wife Ekaterina Goncharova). The family did not get the castle by chance. Dantes's uncle was the commander of the new Templar order. And the Dantes family itself, professing templarism, was in a special position among the “brothers”.
Georges Dantes, born in 1812, was enrolled in 1829 at the military school of Saint-Cyr. After a series of failed political adventures, Dantes rushes to Russia. He does this thanks to the patronage of Crown Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, who is very close to Masonic circles. In a tavern in a border town, he meets with the Dutch envoy Heckern, who is familiar with Dantes’ family, including his father.
P.P. Vyazemsky (son of P.A. Vyazemsky) testified that there was intense enmity between Pushkin and Countess Nesselrode. It should be said that the Nesselrodes were extremely friendly towards Heckern - and for special reasons - towards Dantes. The fact is that the latter was a relative, or more precisely, a relative of Count Nesselrode. Dantes' mother Marie-Anne-Louise (1784-1832) was the daughter of Count Hatzfedt (1752-1816), belonging to the same family as Count Nesselrode. Therefore, it is not surprising that the wife of the Minister of Foreign Affairs became the “planted mother” (“the father” was Heckern) at Dantes’ wedding to Ekaterina Goncharova on January 10, 1837.
P.P. Vyazemsky wrote that Countess Nesselrode was “a powerful representative of that international Areopagus, which had its establishments in the Saint-Germain suburb of Paris, in the salon of Princess Metternich in Vienna and in the salon of Countess Nesselrode in St. Petersburg.” Hence, Pushkin’s “hatred for the representative of the cosmopolitan oligarchic Areopagus is quite understandable. Pushkin never missed an opportunity to brand his arrogant antagonist, who barely knew how to speak Russian, with epigraphic antics and anecdotes.”
The confrontation between Pushkin and the Nesselrodes was by no means “personal” in nature. It was about the deepest confrontation - political, ideological, moral (by the way, after the death of Pushkin, Tyutchev (who wrote in a poem about the death of the poet as a “regicide”) seemed to take over the baton from him in the confrontation with Nesselrode. And in the future, Nesselrode and Dantes will organize a terrible and shameful Crimean War for Russia, they will participate in preparing the premature death of the emperor himself. Pushkin stood first on their path. And nothing was said about this by the authors of this film. Yes, during all these days nothing was said to television viewers.
N.N. Skatov, in one of his articles, wrote about the inevitability of confrontation between Pushkin and the Nesselrode camp: “If we can talk (and all subsequent events have shown this) about the anti-Russian policy of the “Austrian Minister of Russian Foreign Affairs,” then its object, one way or another, sooner or later, but inevitably Pushkin had to become the main support of Russian national life.
According to D.D. For the good, the notorious diploma, which was conceived in the salon of Countess Nesselrode, had the goal of involving Pushkin in “a direct clash with the Tsar, which, given the well-known ardent disposition of the poet, could lead to the most dire consequences for him.” G.I. Chulkov in his book “The Life of Pushkin” notes the following: “In the salon of M.D. Nesselrode... did not allow the thought of the right to an independent political role for the Russian people... they hated Pushkin because they recognized in him a national force that was completely alien to them in spirit...” And in this regard, F.I. was the same enemy for them. Tyutchev.
After the death of the poet, Tyutchev writes the poem “1837” where, concluding the poem, he notes the following: “Russia’s heart will not forget you, like its first love!” Moreover, the direct “perpetrators” of Pushkin’s murder – Heckern and his “adopted son” Dantes – were quite well known to Tyutchev. After all, Heckern, who was expelled from Russia in 1837, five years later managed to become the Dutch ambassador in Vienna and played his role in preparing the disgusting betrayal that Austria committed against its longtime ally Russia during Crimean War. As for Dantes, for his “services” to Napoleon III in organizing the Crimean War he was elevated to the rank of senator of France.
And Tyutchev himself, who never met Pushkin even once, later became a close friend of Pushkin’s friends - V.A. Zhukovsky, P.Ya. Chaadaeva, P.A. Vyazemsky. But it is equally important to know that Pushkin and Tyutchev had common enemies. Cosmopolitan, Masonic and anti-Russian forces could not forgive the great Russian poet for his break with Freemasonry, criticism of the Decembrists and monarchist beliefs. The persecution of the poet, which began then, unfortunately, continues today, by the same anti-Russian forces. This was also shown by the programs shown on the 208th anniversary of the poet’s birth. This persecution, carried out by the Freemasons, grew into a conspiracy against him and against Russia as a whole.
"But there is also God’s judgment for the confidants of debauchery!
There is a terrible judgment: it awaits;
It is not accessible to the ringing of gold,
He knows thoughts and deeds in advance.
Then in vain you will resort to slander:
It won't help you again
And you won't wash away with all your black blood
Poet's righteous blood".
Previous reviews from site visitors:
We should also write about the death of Lermontov
This is what should be in textbooks! Strongly.
Pushkin is far from the best Russian poet. Nobody knows, for example, the brilliant Sergei Bobrov. The cult of Pushkin was created by the intelligentsia. Stalin picked it up according to his own principle “we have no other writers” - hence the very symbolic Pushkin anniversary in 1937. Hence the entire late Soviet cult of Pushkin. He couldn’t write in Russian, hence why he had so many grammatical errors. he was a smart person - yes. hence the Tsar’s reverence for him (“the smartest man in Russia”). This is true. BUT. Talk to any Uncle Vasya for half a kilo - he will say everything that Pushkin said. Our people are generally VERY SMART
Correct article! Of course, Pushkina was hated by the behind-the-scenes, slanderers of Russia, who are still the same now, who organized the revolutions of the 17th and 91st. They hated Pushkin for his love for the Fatherland, which was about to become love for Orthodoxy and repentance for former freethinking. They are the poet's killers! We need to talk about this and teach children! It is also well written about the role of Dantes. These areas of research need to be deepened, because Soviet Pushkinology was not approached directly from a Christian point of view.
It’s just a pity that the style of the article is a little lame.
Dog
Yes! Uncle Sabbaka, your nickname also seems to have a couple of grammatical errors! Putin once said about Berezovsky: “We really need him. He doesn’t let us relax.” So I ask you to write more often, otherwise we will lose the spirit to fight people like you. Don’t get your hopes up, here in Russia your London methods of provocation will not work. Without any “half a kilo” you can be seen as peeling. Can't wait!
Dantes for soap!
Yes, the above material is perhaps really worthy of being published in textbooks. But who writes the same textbooks now? That's right, the same backstage, the brothers there are different. In short, nothing has changed in 200 years.
If you have never encountered extreme cynicism and hypocrisy in your life, then you have never had to deal with the Ukrainian authorities. Especially the one that carried out an armed coup in Ukraine almost a year ago. Everyone who participated in the events of February 21-22 last year in Kyiv understands perfectly well that everyone faces at least long prison sentences. Therefore - “we live alone, go flaw!” - they allow themselves whatever they want.
In particular, the murders of Donetsk residents and the destruction of the capital of Donbass. The blasphemers committed their crimes on Epiphany, one of the greatest Orthodox holidays. On this day in Donetsk they killed several people, wounded a dozen, destroyed children’s and cardiology department city hospital No. 3 (the doctors managed to take the young patients to a shelter), a petrol station of the Parallel network, and damaged one of the Amstor supermarkets. Well, and of course they ended up in several dozen houses.
Donetsk. Orthodox church after the shelling
Children's ward of the hospital after the shelling
The cynicism and hypocrisy of the Ukrainians lies in the fact that they continue to bomb the city at the very time when they are calling on the Russian Federation to put pressure on the DPR militias in order to continue to comply with the Minsk agreements. Moreover, within the boundaries of November 13, 2014. This means that we need to return the ruins of the Donetsk airport to them and leave Peski and Avdeevka. Traitors by nature, the Kyiv rulers also propose to the DPR authorities to deceive their people, to betray the memory of those who died for the liberation of the region from the Nazi invasion.
Ukrainians are trying, according to the behest of their first president, Kravchuk, a participant in the collapse of the USSR and the Ukrainian SSR, to run “between the raindrops.” Towards the EU and the UN they shout “oh, they’re beating us”, towards the OSCE - “you’re looking in the wrong place, close your eyes to our crimes”, to Moscow - “give gas, coal / forget your debts, and then we will supply NATO bases to you at the borders." But most despicably they shout to the Donbass people who are beating them in the tail and in the mane: “nobody shot, it’s you yourself with air conditioning, like in Lugansk...”.
What kind of meanness must one go to in order to shout about compliance with the Minsk agreements, while violating these same agreements by firing today with everything that survived yesterday on the rebellious republics?
To this end, we remind them, who do not believe in any god other than the golden calf, of the verse of the great Russian poet Mikhail Lermontov:
But There is And God's court, confidants debauchery!
There is a terrible judgment: it awaits;
It is not accessible to the ringing of gold,
He knows both thoughts and deeds in advance.
After all, in fact, this sickeningly cloying performance with the “peace march” in Kiev did not deceive anyone: normal sane people (and they are always the majority) understood that Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and Turchynov violated the truth and the memory of the Donbass people who died at Volnovakha. Those who gave the order to unleash terror against the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk Republic, shed crocodile tears over the graves of people killed by their own efforts!
One of the Kiev residents who remained adequate in their perception of what was happening in Ukraine and Donbass made a wonderful entry on his blog about this: “Poroshenko with a piece of paper “I am Volnovakha” is the same as Truman with a piece of paper “I am Hiroshima” . In my opinion, you couldn’t say it more precisely!
Oleg Izmailov
Journalist, historian, Donetsk
One of the most interesting riddles Russian literature: what happened to Lermontov in 1837, why did he change his writing style so dramatically? In short: how did he go from a temperamental graphomaniac to a genius?
My main contender for the role of midwife is Belinsky. Most likely, a very tough conversation took place between them. And the “young genius” (in 1837 the poet was 23 years old) was very well treated with his face on the table.
Here is from the 1841 article “Poems by M. Lermontov”:
“If by the word “inspiration” I mean moral intoxication, as if from taking opium or the effects of wine hops, a frenzy of feelings, a fever of passion, which force an uncalled poet to depict objects in some kind of crazy whirling, to express himself in wild, strained phrases, unnatural turns of speech , to give ordinary words a violent meaning, then how will you make me understand that “inspiration” is a state of spiritual clairvoyance, a meek but deep contemplation of the mystery of life, which, as if with a magic wand, evokes thoughts from a region inaccessible to the senses light images, full of life and deep meaning, and the reality around us, often gloomy and discordant, appears enlightened and harmonious?..”
Doesn't it look like it? “frenzy of feelings”, “fever of passion”, “mad whirling”, “strained phrases”, “unnatural figures of speech” - all characterize the young “other Byron”, and “spiritual clairvoyance”, “meek but deep contemplation of the mystery of life " - this is the same, but after February 37th.
But the trouble is, by 1837 one thing was widely known the only poem Lermontov - "On the Death of a Poet". The trouble is not that it is rather precisely this poem, “sacred” for Lermontov, into which “he put his whole soul,” “all his anger,” and in general, “all of himself,” that the frantic Vissarion smeared across the wall. The trouble is that this latest graphomaniac experience of his has been forced to be memorized in school for almost a century, completely spoiling the children’s taste.
Among the signs of graphomania not mentioned by Belinsky, there is one more: lying. The "poet" lies in his creation, describing something. He writes not as it was, but as it is more beautiful.
Shall we re-read? -
The poet died! - a slave of honor -
Fall...
This is true.
With lead in my chest...
It is not true. Pushkin was wounded in the stomach.
And thirst for revenge
It is not true. Before his death, Pushkin forgave Dantes. He specifically asked Princess E.A. Dolgorukov to go to the Dantes and tell them that he forgives them.
Hanging his proud head!..
The metaphor must be correct in both directions (both so that it is similar and so that the metaphristic meaning does not contradict the direct one), otherwise what arises is what is called the dog effect on poems.ru: a dog can squeal - and this is creepy, you can squeal in an inhuman voice - and this too It’s creepy, but a dog can’t squeal in an inhuman voice - because it’s funny.
And to die, “hanging his head”... Pushkin died in bed - I can’t imagine how one can “hang” while lying down. Is it possible to die without lying down?
And in this phrase there is a contradiction: either die proudly, or hang your head. Or... go out to a duel - proudly, and after the duel - break down and "drop". As far as I understand, there was neither one nor the other, nor the third: Pushkin did not die “proudly”: he asked the Tsar for his family, and there was no self-abasement. The poet simply accepted death.
The poet's soul could not bear it
The shame of petty grievances,
It is not true. The grievances were far from petty.
He rebelled against the opinions of the world
It is not true. His duel was not a challenge to the light.
On the one hand, the tsar was entirely on Pushkin’s side. After the first challenge, he even made him promise that there would be no more duels, and that if something happened, he would contact him. And everyone around Pushkin tried as best they could to keep him from the duel.
On the other hand, the fatal letter to Heckern became... Pushkin succumbed to the provocation, he played by the rules of the world. By the rules, not against them.
One...
It is not true. During the duel, Pushkin had a wife and children. There were friends who were ready to help him, even if it threatened their personal well-being - the same Danzas was tried after a duel for participating in it as a second. And there were love adventures too; Pushkin did not abandon them after his marriage either.
Alone, as before...
This is even more untrue. In my opinion, there are not even motives of loneliness in Pushkin’s lyrics. Like very few of the poets. Faithful friends, cheerful girlfriends, romantic lovers... "the hiss of foamy glasses and blue flames of punch." He didn’t seem to even know what loneliness was.
Killed!.. Why sobs now,
Empty praise unnecessary chorus
And the pathetic babble of excuses?
Fate has reached its conclusion!
Contradiction. Sarcasm about the “babble of justification” is disavowed by the last line - if the verdict of fate has been fulfilled, then there is no one and nothing to justify.
Weren't you the one who persecuted me so viciously at first?
His free, bold gift
Not true. Pushkin is one of the most successful poets in our history. At the age of 17 he was noticed by the old man Derzhavin. At the same time he received his first fee (gold watch) from the future empress. Then the adult teachers recognized their favorite student as the winner, and then he became the first in our history to become a professional. That is, I tried to live literary work, poetry. He didn’t succeed very well, but in his time no one else tried... Fame, recognition, success - it’s all about him.
And they inflated it for fun
A slightly hidden fire?
That's also not true. Neither those who “cryed” nor those who “praised in unison” fanned the almost hidden fire. The intrigues around his family were woven by only a few scoundrels who never admitted it. The rest - the tsar, Zhukovsky, friends, former lovers - tried as best they could to put out this fire. Only Poletika showed up as an open enemy. Even Dantes, even years later, tried to explain himself, tried to justify himself, that he didn’t mean to, that he was aiming at his feet...
Well? have fun... He's tormenting
I couldn't stand the last ones
This is an unnatural turn of phrase.
The ceremonial wreath has faded
I wonder if in Lermontov’s time it sounded the same cliche as it does today? That's exactly what it sounded like. Already.
His killer in cold blood
Hit...
This is not true: Dantes did not aim the blow - he fired offhand:
“Lieutenant Colonel Danzas waved his hat, and Pushkin, quickly approaching the barrier, took aim to be sure to shoot. But Dantes shot earlier, not a step closer to the barrier” (
An empty heart beats evenly,
The pistol did not waver in his hand.
But Pushkin also went out for a duel - not to shoot in the air. He was going to kill. Dantes wanted to shoot into the air, but when he saw Pushkin’s eyes, he shot at the enemy. And with Pushkin himself, the pistol did not flinch. Even mortally wounded, he hit Dantes. What saved him - a button or chain mail - is a different question.
And what a miracle?... from afar,
Like hundreds of fugitives,
To catch happiness and ranks
Thrown to us by the will of fate;
Again the same contradiction: either he himself was dragged to catch the officials, or he was dragged by the will of fate.
Laughing, he boldly despised
The land has a foreign language and customs;
Dantes behaved according to the same rules by which the whole of Europe of that time lived... Re-read "Dangerous Liaisons" by Choderlos de Laclos, and then again the story of this damned duel... Dantes lived by the rules by which it was fun in his youth Cricket himself also spent his time. Yes, this whole story: Pushkin - his wife - Dantes, looks like a distorting mirror, like a karmic reflection of another “romantic” story: Pushkin - Vorontsova - her husband. An old husband, a beautiful wife, and who knows what winds, a young, devilishly charming rogue thrown to them.
He could not spare our glory;
I couldn’t understand at this bloody moment,
What did he raise his hand to!..
We know more than Lermontov... And it didn’t help him... Martynov was Russian.
And he is killed...
This is true
And taken by the grave,
What this expression should it mean? What - buried?
Like that singer...
We don’t know how Lensky was buried; it’s not described.
Unknown but sweet
The prey of deaf jealousy,
It is not true. “Silent” jealousy is jealousy towards a woman for whom you have no right to express jealousy, it’s old jealousy... What about Lensky?
"...The poet is waiting for the end of the mazurka
And he calls her to the cotillion.
But she can't. It is forbidden? But what?
Yes, Olga already gave her word
Onegin. Oh my God, my God!
What does he hear? She could...
Is it possible? Just out of diapers,
Coquette, flighty child!
She knows the trick,
I've learned to change!
Lenskaya is unable to bear the blow;
Cursing women's pranks,
Comes out and demands a horse
And he jumps. A couple of pistols
Two bullets - nothing more -
Suddenly his fate will be resolved"
Pay attention to the line “Women’s pranks curse” - what’s so “deaf” about that?
Sung by him with such wonderful power,
This is true.
Struck down, like him, by a merciless hand.
It is not true. He could have reread Eugene Onegin.
Enemies! How long have we been apart?
Has their bloodlust gone?
How long have they been leisure hours,
Meal, thoughts and deeds
Did you share together? Now it's evil
Like hereditary enemies,
Like in a terrible, incomprehensible dream,
They are in silence to each other
They are preparing death in cold blood...
Shouldn't they laugh while
Their hand is not stained,
Shouldn't we part ways amicably?..
But wildly secular enmity
Afraid of false shame
...
In the anguish of heart remorse,
Hand clutching the pistol,
Evgeniy looks at Lensky.
“Well, what? Killed,” the neighbor decided.
Killed!.. With this terrible exclamation
Smitten, Onegin with a shudder
He leaves and calls people.
And where is the “ruthless hand” here?
Why from peaceful bliss and simple-minded friendship
He entered this envious and stuffy world
This is also not about Pushkin. Or is “peaceful bliss” a euphemism for Alexander Sergeevich’s two Don Juan lists? What about “simple-minded friendship”? Does the visit of the brilliant future Foreign Minister Gorchakov to the disgraced supervised poet fit this definition? Or the poet’s answer to the Tsar to the question: “Pushkin, would you take part in December 14th if you were in St. Petersburg?” - “Certainly, sir, all my friends were in the conspiracy, and I could not help but participate in it.”
Why did he give his hand to insignificant slanderers,
Why did he believe false words and caresses,
He, who has comprehended people from a young age?..
And having taken off the former crown, they are a crown of thorns,
Entwined with laurels, they put on him:
But the secret needles are harsh
They wounded the glorious brow;
I keep wondering what the tsar found so “inadmissible” in the poem “The Poet Died...”? (I’m talking about the case “On the inappropriate poems written by the cornet of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment Lermontov and on the dissemination of them by the provincial secretary Raevsky”). Was it only the last 16 lines that outraged Nikolai? Or they finally explained to His Majesty that a crown entwined with laurels - a crown, to put it simply - can only be granted to a crown bearer...
His last moments were poisoned
The insidious whisper of mocking ignoramuses
How these lines should have been perceived by those who spent his time with Pushkin last moments, whose whisper he could hear - Dal, Zhukovsky, Pletnev?
I will not rewrite the final sixteen lines of the poem. Confidants of debauchery, executioners of Freedom, greedy crowd, black blood, slave heel... - cliches, cliches, cliches
(Yes, and there is a lie. “You are hiding under the canopy of the law...” - The law did not hide them under its “canopy”: Dantes was tried and exiled, it was impossible to judge Heckern - they were simply exiled, scandalously, without a farewell audience. The rest of the culprits of the duel and are now unknown).
I will repeat Belinsky:
“If by the word “inspiration” I mean moral intoxication, as if from taking opium or the effects of wine hops, a frenzy of feelings, a fever of passion, which force an uncalled poet to depict objects in some kind of crazy whirling, to express himself in wild, strained phrases, unnatural turns of speech , to give ordinary words a violent meaning, then how will you reason with me..."
And now I will quote the well-known lines of the memoirist:
“Stolypin convinced him that it was impossible to judge the foreigner Dantes according to Russian laws; he was a representative of the diplomatic corps.
Lermontov became increasingly incensed and finally shouted: “If there is no earthly judgment over him, then there is God’s judgment!” These words became the leitmotif of the final 16 lines of the poem “The Death of a Poet.” Calling Stolypin an enemy of Pushkin, Lermontov grabbed a sheet of paper and, breaking pencils one after another, began to write. Fifteen minutes later the famous lines were ready: “And you, arrogant descendants...”
In conclusion, I will remind you of 2 editions of one poem - an early one and an alteration, an edit made AFTER February 1837:
1.
I do not love you; passions
And the old dream passed away in agony;
But your image is in my soul
Still alive, although he is powerless;
Indulging others in their dreams,
I still couldn’t forget him;
1831
2.
We parted, but your portrait
I keep on my chest:
Like a pale ghost best years,
He brings joy to my soul.
And, devoted to new passions,
I couldn't stop loving him:
So an abandoned temple is still a temple,
A defeated idol is still God!
1837
*
**
***
P.S.
During the discussion of the article, two specific arguments against it were put forward:
1. Lermontov could not know what, thanks to almost two centuries of Pushkin studies, is known to us;
2. This poem... "The Death of a Poet" is not about Pushkin. This poem is about a certain generalized poet - about a symbol.
I will answer.
1. Yes, Lermontov might not have known in detail about Pushkin’s conversation with Nicholas I (or he might have known: he was friends with Natalie’s brother, Ivan Goncharov, who knew for certain about the audience at the Anichkov Palace in November 1836), could not have known about the “excuses “I didn’t live to see Dantes, but I could know everything else for sure.
Pushkin said to himself: “I - public figure". Today similar term means - to live under the eternal surveillance of paparazzi and television cameras, then it meant - eternal gossip and rumors. High society is a very narrow circle. Everyone knew about everyone, they knew everything. And Lermontov, moreover, served in the Life Guards, and some of his colleagues were part of Pushkin’s circle.
Just one example. They blamed me for the fact that Lermontov might not have known about the nature of Pushkin’s injury. So here it is:
"ARENDT Nikolai Fedorovich (1785-1859), surgeon, life physician of Nicholas I. He treated Lermontov in 1832, when a horse hit him in the arena of the Junker School in his right leg, breaking it to the bone, and he lay in the infirmary, and then in "The house of E. A. Arsenyeva. In 1837 he supervised the treatment of the wounded A. S. Pushkin and was an intermediary between him and Nicholas I. At the end of January, he visited the sick Lermontov, told him the details of the duel and Pushkin's death."
Fundamental Digital library"RUSSIAN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE"
Lermontov knew that Pushkin was wounded in the stomach. But “with lead in the chest” is more beautiful.
2. In my opinion, I have proven that in the poem “The Poet Died” the poet is not Pushkin. Who? Symbol? Symbol of what? Symbol of which poet? Let's re-read Lensky:
"...What does the coming day have in store for me?
My gaze catches him in vain,
He lurks in the deep darkness.
No need; rights of fate law.
Will I fall? pierced by an arrow,
Or she will fly by,
All good: vigil and sleep
The certain hour comes
Blessed is the day of worries,
Blessed is the coming of darkness!
XXII.
"Tomorrow the ray of the morning star will shine
And the bright day will begin to shine;
And I - perhaps I am a tomb
I'll go down into the mysterious canopy,
And memory young poet
Slow Lethe will be consumed..."
Will I fall, pierced by an arrow, / hanging my proud head...
...And I - perhaps I am the tomb / I will descend into the mysterious canopy,
...Well, have fun, he couldn’t bear the last torments...
Everything is the same - both vocabulary and phrase construction. But Pushkin himself concluded this “elegy” with a caustic quatrain:
So he wrote darkly and languidly
(What we call romanticism,
Although there is not a little romanticism here
I don't see; what's in it for us?)
No, Lermontov did not write about the death of Pushkin as he did about the death of Lensky. He, according to the habit of all “romantics,” put an invented himself in the place of a living hero. And there are no generalizations, there are no symbols - there is a “Muscovite in Harold’s cloak...” who has “a complete vocabulary of fashionable words.”
The wondrous genius has faded away like a torch,
The ceremonial wreath has faded
These two metaphors do not develop each other and are not related to each other, they are just two fashionable phrases, standing nearby.
And about the last 16 lines.
"You, standing in a greedy crowd at the throne,
There is a trial before you and the truth - keep quiet!..”
Just think about what Russian court could you say that about? A greedy crowd standing at the throne?
Under Ivan III - no. They were building a power, raising a cowardly tsar-father to break with the Horde with the whole “society”.
Under Grozny? Perhaps his early youth, and then - that’s why he’s Terrible.
In times of troubles? So then there was no throne.
During the quietest times? I don’t know...Russia was then being restored, piece by piece, by the “greedy crowd”; there wasn’t much to grab at that time.
Under Peter? Well, there was no need to surround yourself with upstarts. But they not only made fortunes for themselves, they also went to the forefront of the attacks on Narva, and raised regiments to attack the Swedes.
Under Elizabeth-Catherine? Remember Famusov’s famous monologue: “that’s why we are all proud” and the memory of “fathers”? Who Great Russia did he defeat the Turks and Fredericks? This is how these “nobles in the event” obtained the title of the Serene Highness - together with Königsberg, together with Crimea.
Under Alexander? Under Nicholas himself? Not really...
Only a short period of interregnum comes to mind - various German Anna Ioannovnas...
And the Executioners of Glory at the throne crowded only in Soviet times, when the distance from the marshal to execution was only one sentence, when Mandelstam died at the camp fire, Tsvetaeva hanged herself out of despair, Mayakovsky shot himself, Yesenin wrote in blood on the wall...
But Lermontov really could not have known about them. In general, these lines are about nothing. Compare them at least with Pushkin’s “My Genealogy”:
My grandfather did not sell pancakes,
I didn’t wax the king’s boots,
I didn’t sing with the court sextons,
I didn’t jump into princes from crests,
And he was not a runaway soldier
Austrian powder squads;
So should I be an aristocrat?
I, thank God, am a tradesman.
No abstract “vicars of debauchery”, no “slavish heels trampling the wreckage” - specific references to specific names.
My grandfather, when the rebellion arose
In the middle of the Peterhof courtyard,
Like Minich, he remained faithful
The Fall of the Third Peter.
The Orlovs were honored then,
And my grandfather is in the fortress, in quarantine.
And our harsh family was pacified,
And I was born a tradesman.
No wonder, learn the last confused sixteen lines famous poem- this is the torment of death for students. What is it for me in my time, what is it for my son now.
I repeat once again: there are no symbols here, there are boyish ideas about the “persecuted poet” copied from the Byrons. And there is a poem written in the “romantic” style ridiculed by Pushkin.
The reality was far from romantic:
- these are debts of 120,000 rubles (including - and almost half! - card debts) with Pushkin’s annual income of 40,000;
- this is a beautiful wife who needs to be beautifully dressed and shoes;
- these are children who need to be fed now and settled in life later;
- this is that he outgrew his readers, who still expected from him “romance” in the style of “ Bakhchisarai fountain", and he wrote "Count Nulin";
- this is the royal “attention” to Natalie, which the entire “society” considered natural and not subject to discussion, which a few years later will be easily accepted by Lansky, but Pushkin is a free Pushkin, and not a disciplined retired officer.
And all this is not a childish “shame of petty grievances,” but very adult problems. It is not without reason that there is a hypothesis that this duel was a deliberate, legalized suicide for Pushkin.
No wonder there is a hypothesis that the notorious “Patent for the title of cuckold” was written by Pushkin himself so that the duel would take place! So that Nicholas I would be forced to send the poet into exile! To get away from St. Petersburg, from balls, from tsars - “to the village, to the wilderness, to Saratov.” That is, to Mikhailovskoye.
But 120,000 debts is not poetic! And Lermontov, instead of a real drama, wrote... wrote an operetta: “his killer struck in cold blood, there is no salvation.” Well, not an operetta - an opera. Also a popular genre.
And the grateful public distributed his creation in “tens of thousands of scrolls.”
I’ll answer right away: yes, Lermontov could not have known that Pushkin had exactly 120 thousand debts, but he could not help but know that the poet was in debt, as in silks... as in his Natalie’s silks.
2009
*
**
***
This poem should not be learned by heart at school, but studied in the first year of literature departments on how not to write poetry. With a competition to see who can find the most mistakes in it.
I. And as an introduction, invite gentlemen students to present the following picture: in 1930, the day after the death of Vladimir Mayakovsky, poems by an unknown poet are distributed throughout Moscow:
Don't tell me: "he died" - he lives,
Even though the altar is broken, the fire still burns.
Even if the rose is plucked, it still blooms,
The path of the harp is broken - the chord is still crying!..
(Nadson "On the Death of a Poet")
The poems are scattered in thousands of lists, the poems are talked about everywhere, and there are rumors that even the Kremlin has paid attention to the young poet.
And having decorated the picture with all these colors, ask the question: what would Vladim Vladimych’s friends say to this poet if they met him?
“Well, maybe they wouldn’t have punched him in the face...” the future writer would begin to answer, knowing at least a little about the loud-mouthed leader and his futurist friends.
"Why so harsh?"
“Because such verses would turn over his grave!”
And it is true. Because "... the revolution threw the clumsy talk of millions onto the streets, the jargon of the outskirts poured through the central avenues; relaxed intellectual paganism with its emasculated words: “ideal”, “principles of justice”, “divine principle”, “transcendental face of Christ and Antichrist” - all these speeches, whispered in restaurants, are crushed. This is the new element of language. How to make it poetic? The old rules with “dreams, roses” and Alexandrian verse are not suitable. How to introduce spoken language into poetry and how to derive poetry from these conversations?..." (Mayakovsky "How to make poetry")
And make a name for yourself at Mayakovsky precisely with Alexandrian verse and precisely with “rose-harps”!... For this, really, you could get a punch in the face...
What does Pushkin and Lermontov’s “Death of a Poet” have to do with it? Yes, ask any graduate preparing for the Unified State Exam, what is literary path Pushkin, and the boy, without hesitation, will report: from romanticism to realism.
Pushkin gave up his life to write “simply, briefly and clearly.” His first poems were sharply divided into those with which he indulged his fellow peers - frivolities written in simple words, and those with which he would like to become famous, that is, those put up for sale - any semblance of “Ode to Liberty”. I will give an excerpt from it, because although we also learned this Pushkin ode, it is also impossible to remember it:
"Alas! wherever I look -
Scourges everywhere, glands everywhere,
Laws are a disastrous shame,
Captivity weak tears;
Unrighteous Power is everywhere
In the thick darkness of prejudice
Vossela - Slavery formidable Genius
And Glory's fatal passion"
And How? does it remind you of anything? This is very different from:
You, standing in a greedy crowd at the throne,
Executioners of Freedom, Genius and Glory!
You are hiding under the shadow of the law,
Judgment and truth are before you - keep quiet!..
Only, Pushkin was 18 years old at the time...
And at the age of 23, at the age of Lermontov, 37, among Pushkin’s “serious” poems one can already find the following:
F a u s t
What's white there? speak.
M e f i s t o f e l
Spanish three-masted ship,
Ready to land in Holland:
There are bastards on it hundred three,
Two monkeys, barrels of gold,
Yes, a rich load of chocolate,
Yes, a fashionable disease: she
Recently given to you.
F a u s t
Drown everything.
M e f i s t o f e l
Now.
(Disappears.)
That is, “simple, short and clear.” And not romantic.
And among the last poems, poems last year- famous
"From Pindemonti":
I don't complain that the gods refused
My sweet fate is to challenge taxes
Or prevent kings from fighting each other;
I need a different, better freedom:
Depend on the king, depend on the people -
Do we care? God be with them. No one
Don’t give a report, only to yourself
To serve and please, for power, for livery
Don’t bend your conscience, your thoughts, your neck...
Find here at least one exclamatory glance, at least one shabby metaphor like a “faded wreath,” at least one pitiful cry: “there is no salvation!”
But millions of children remember Pushkin every year with the “shame of petty grievances”... Poor Alexander Sergeevich....
In general, you cannot approach the futurist Mayakovsky with poems of the sublime romantic style, because it was precisely this style that he struggled with all his life. Poems to Anna Akhmatova should not be written as a ladder, because after the creator of the ladder “purged Akhmatova from poetry for three years,” it was not published for almost twenty years. And it was not worth writing “sadly romantic” lines about Pushkin, because it looks... if not mockery, then revenge.
Here is Lermontov:
The wondrous genius has faded away like a torch,
The ceremonial wreath has faded.
And here is Pushkin:
And his song was clear,
Like the thoughts of a simple-minded maiden,
Like a baby's dream, like the moon...
That in Lermontov the light is in no way connected with the wreath, that in Pushkin it is impossible to fit the blonde’s thoughts, the baby’s sleep and the moon into one frame. And this is how Bakhtin commented on this passage (Bakhtin M. From the history of the novel word):
“In the above four lines, the song of Lensky himself sounds, his voice, his poetic style, but they are permeated here with the parodic and ironic accents of the author; therefore, they are not isolated from the author’s speech, either compositionally or grammatically. What we really have before us is the image of Lensky’s song, but not poetic in the narrow sense, but a typically novel image: it is an image of a foreign language, in in this case an image of someone else's poetic style (sentimental-romantic). The poetic metaphors of these lines (“like a baby’s dream, like the moon,” etc.) are not at all the primary means of depiction here (as they would be in Lensky’s own direct, serious song); they themselves become the subject of an image here, namely a parody-stylizing image. This novel image of someone else's style (with direct metaphors included in it) in the system of direct author's speech (which we postulate) is taken in intonational quotation marks, namely parodic-ironic... The author himself is almost completely outside Lensky's language (only his parodic-ironic accents penetrate this "foreign language")."
And in the same language - in a language foreign to Pushkin, almost a parody of Pushkin - this entire memorial poem was written.
II. If you are going to write about a person, then you should know at least a little about him. At least a little... Otherwise (see the first part of the article) of the entire poem, the only one true fact fits into two words: “The poet died...”. The rest is that Pushkin is not Pushkin, and Lensky is not Lensky, and Eugene is not Onegin.
III. And you certainly shouldn’t attribute your boyish feelings to an adult genius.
IV. And we need to work on the poem. That is, having written sixteen lines in fifteen minutes (and in two or three hours - the previous fifty-six), then - with a cooled mind! - you need to re-read everything. And first - place commas, then - correct spelling mistakes, then stylistic, then the rest - general literary. However, the sequence can be any.
Let's read it again:
Fall...
Great start. Beautiful sound design and...
"slave of honor" is hidden quote from Pushkin's poem " Prisoner of the Caucasus":
But the Russian matured indifferently
These bloody games.
He used to love the games of fame
And he burned with a thirst for death.
Slave of merciless honor,
He saw his end close,
In fights, hard, cold,
Meeting fatal lead.
As you can see, here is a link to another duel described by Pushkin. In which, by the way, Pushkin gave his standard of behavior in a duel: not to moan: “There is no salvation!”, not to rouse: “Will I fall pierced by an arrow?”, but to be “firm, cold.” In a duel with Dantes, our great poet that's how it was.
That is, at the beginning of the poem, Lermontov laid out an extremely accurate image.
But.
The system of images of the work must also be consistent. And if the image of “slave” at the beginning of the poem carries a reflection high essence, then he must remain this way until the end, otherwise a comic effect arises.
(As in the joke:
- What an oak you are, Vasily Ivanovich!
- Yes, Petka, I am mighty.)
And now we will bring the 1st line closer to the 59th:
The poet is dead! -- slave of honor --
... Trampled the wreckage with the heel of a slave...
So what kind of heel does the slave have? Not slave?
The metaphors in this poem are simply a disaster.
Metaphor, most often, adds multimedia to the text: it adds visual to the sound range. Every time the word “how” is heard, the reader is invited “in the eyes of his soul” to see the image that stands behind this word.
For example:
"Love, hope, quiet glory
Deception did not last long for us,
The youthful fun has disappeared
Like a dream, like morning fog..."
Pushkin
Here the semantic series is complemented by a visual series: the young man wakes up and the morning fog around him dissipates. And remember how the poem ends?
"Russia will wake up from its sleep!"
The metaphorical series is one. We have a romantic but harmonious work.
And now Lermontov:
And they inflated it for fun
A little hidden fire...
The wondrous genius has faded away like a torch,
Now you can guess: does a bad fire that flared up have anything to do with a good light that is going out?
And at the same time, tell your fortune: is it really bad to fan a fire if:
This light is envious and stuffy
For a free heart and fiery passions?
Or is fire bad and flame good? A fiery passion for someone else's wife - for Vorontsova - is good, but a fire of jealousy for one's own - for Natalie - is bad?
The ceremonial wreath has faded...
Presented the poet as a faded ceremonial wreath? Now read on:
And having taken off the former crown, they are a crown of thorns,
Entwined with laurels, they put it on...
Well, what can you imagine here... How to remove another from one wreath and put on a third? And what did Lermontov represent at the same time? Most likely nothing. He just happily inserted another fashionable phrase into the poem - from the same " full vocabulary", obligatory for the "Muscovite in Harold's cloak."
More:
The singer's shelter is gloomy and cramped,
Did you imagine a gloomy, cramped coffin? And the lying Pushkin, nickels in front of his eyes? Now read on:
And his seal is on his lips.
This is called the reification of metaphor: the “print” loses all its metaphorical nature, it becomes as material as nickels. But nickels, due to their ordinariness, are not funny.
But these are not all the requirements for metaphors... The visual sequence must somehow correlate with the semantic sequence. Like the one quoted above from Pushkin: captivity is sleep, fog, freedom is dawn.
Or like Mayakovsky - his famous metaphor:
your body
I will cherish and love,
like a soldier
cut off by war,
unnecessary,
nobody's
takes care of his only leg.
Why disabled? Because the poet is also crippled by love.
Why is Lermontov Pushkin a beacon? Because it's a fashionable word. The word everyone uses is stamp. Let's prove that - stamp:
Not at all genius poet Kuchelbecker:
What melancholy and torment I felt,
What grief is there in this blessed hour?
Did you remember the separation from someone dear,
Whose light of life has gone out for the time being?
And here is not a poet at all, but simply a society lady Daria Fedorovna Fikelmon (from the diaries):
"1837. January 29. Today Russia has lost its dear, beloved poet Pushkin, this wonderful talent, full of creative spirit and strength! And what a sad and painful catastrophe caused this beautiful, shining light to fade away, which seemed destined to grow stronger and stronger illuminate everything that surrounded him, and which seemed to have more long years!"
A stamp is a stamp. "In the morning in the newspaper - in the evening in the verse."
Let's go to the line:
But there is also God’s judgment, the confidants of depravity!
This line kills the poem.
Firstly, because Pushkin was not a model of Puritan virtue. There are about forty names in Pushkin’s handwritten Don Juan list. At one time, the still young poet received a complaint to the police from the owner of a fashionable St. Petersburg brothel, as “an immoral man who corrupts her sheep.”). I repeat: it was not the head teacher of some boarding school who complained noble maidens, and the owner of a brothel. Of course, Lermontov hardly knew about this denunciation, but, for example, about Pushkin’s novel - after his marriage! - with Countess Dolly Fikelmon, gossip circulated widely.
Secondly, and most importantly: the expression “God’s judgment”...
In the 19th century they knew about this term. Not to mention other things, the novel “Ivanhoe” by Walter Scott was published in 1819 and by 1937 had long reached Russia (“In the fall of 1963, the collection of Pushkin’s autographs, stored in the Pushkin House, was replenished with several unknown autographs of the poet. These are notes and drawings on book: Ivangoe, or Return from crusades. Essay by Walter Scott. Part two. St. Petersburg (PD, N 1733 "Year of publication of the book (1826)...". http://feb-web.ru/feb/pushkin/serial/v66/v66-0052.htm).
The key scene in the novel is the judicial duel, "God's judgment." Duel. They challenged him to a duel not to avenge an insult, but so that God would decide which of the two was right.
The result of this duel is known: Dantes shot offhand and mortally wounded Pushkin, Pushkin took careful aim, did not even miss... and Dantes remained unharmed... In whose favor “God’s judgment” turned out to be - the conclusion is obvious.
So, Lermontov shouts loudly about a cold-blooded killer, and then immediately refutes himself, hinting that God’s judgment has taken place. According to the poem, “the verdict of fate has been fulfilled,” and Dantes was simply an instrument of fate: “thrown to us by the will of fate.”
That is, this is where Lermontov’s metaphors turned out to be consistent.
And that's all about metaphors.
From Gorky’s article “On Beginning Writers”:
"Indicating to one writer, the author great novel, at how two words, carelessly placed next to each other, form an unnecessary and, often, funny third, I reminded him of the saying: “The guts tell a fig for the guts.” He published a conversation with me and repeated the proverb in this form: “Guts seem like figs to guts,” not noticing that of the two last words The proverb is formed for the third time by “kishka-zhe” - a play on language that makes the proverb interesting in addition to its imagery. Such deafness is quite common among young writers."
And now I will quote the second line of the poem:
With lead in my chest and a thirst for revenge...
I already wrote about the thirst for revenge, which did not exist at the time of death, but here pay attention to the first half of this line.
The aspiring poet Lermontov (at that time he was unknown as a poet) also did not hear: “With wine in his chest...”
Stylistic errors.
“The bloody one couldn’t understand at that moment, / To what? He raised his hand! / And he was killed...” - so who was killed?
“...arrogant descendants / Known for the meanness of illustrious fathers” - descendants of fathers? These are children, or what? They don’t write “he walked with his feet,” because how could it be otherwise? They write simply: he was walking. And they write - descendants of people, and not descendants of fathers, grandfathers or great-grandmothers, because if a great-grandmother is mentioned, then only one of her descendants is meant - her beloved great-granddaughter. Although I’m wrong: a great-grandson may be unloved. And not alone...
So...
Why was this poem "circulated in tens of thousands of scrolls"? (Let me remind you for comparison that the circulation of the first edition of “Ruslan and Lyudmila”, according to researchers, is no more than one thousand copies. (See NIK. SMIRNOV-SOKOLSKY “Stories about Pushkin’s lifetime editions” http://feb-web.ru/feb/pushkin /biblio/smi/smi-001-.htm) Because instead of a lump of life - dirty and rough, she was offered a sweet legend - about a suffering poet persecuted by the oligarchs of that time.
Why don't I want children to learn this fairy tale? Because it was put together too hastily and ineptly.
How did Pushkin work on poetry? Find any page of his drafts on the Internet and see for yourself
First published (under the title “On the Death of Pushkin”) in 1858 in “Polar Star for 1856” (book 2, pp. 33 - 35); in Russia: without 16 final verses - in 1858 in “Bibliographical Notes” (vol. I, no. 2, stb. 635 - 636); in full - in 1860 in the collected works edited by Dudyshkin (vol. I, pp. 61 - 63).
The poem was written on the death of Pushkin (Pushkin died on January 29, 1837). Autograph full text the poem has not survived. There are also its first parts up to the words “And you, arrogant descendants.” The second part of the poem was preserved in copies, including the copy attached to the investigative file “On inappropriate poems written by the cornet of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment Lermantov, and on their distribution by the provincial secretary Raevsky.” Only in copies there is an epigraph to the poem, taken from the tragedy of the French writer Rotru “Wenceslaus” in the adaptation of A. A. Gendre. The poem began to be published with an epigraph in 1887, when investigative materials on the case “On Impermissible Poems...” were published, and among them a copy of the poem. By its nature, the epigraph does not contradict the 16 final lines. Appealing to the tsar with a demand to severely punish the murderer was an unheard-of audacity: according to A.H. Benckendorff, “the introduction (epigraph - ed.) to this work is impudent, and the end is shameless freethinking, more than criminal.” There is no reason to believe, therefore, that the epigraph was added in order to soften the severity of the final part of the poem. In this edition, the epigraph is introduced into the text.
The poem had a wide public response. The duel and death of Pushkin, slander and intrigue against the poet in the circles of the court aristocracy caused deep indignation among the leading part of Russian society. expressed these sentiments in courageous poems full of poetic power, which were distributed in many lists among his contemporaries.
The name of Lermontov, as a worthy heir to Pushkin, received nationwide recognition. At the same time, the political urgency of the poem caused alarm in government circles.
According to contemporaries, one of the lists with the inscription “Appeal to the Revolution” was delivered to Nicholas I. Lermontov and his friend S. A. Raevsky, who participated in the distribution of poems, were arrested and brought to justice. On February 25, 1837, by order of the highest order, a sentence was passed: “Long Guards Hussar Regiment Cornet Lermantov... be transferred with the same rank to the Nizhny Novgorod Dragoon Regiment; and the provincial secretary Raevsky... be kept under arrest for one month, and then sent to Olonets province for use in the service, at the discretion of the local civil governor.” In March, Lermontov left St. Petersburg, heading to the active army in the Caucasus, where the Nizhny Novgorod Dragoon Regiment was located at that time.
In the verses “His murderer in cold blood” and the following ones we are talking about Dantes, the murderer of Pushkin. Georges Charles Dantes (1812 - 1895) - a French monarchist who fled to Russia in 1833 after the Vendee revolt, was the adopted son of the Dutch envoy in St. Petersburg, Baron Heeckeren. Having access to the salons of the Russian court aristocracy, he took part in the persecution of the poet, which ended in a fatal duel on January 27, 1837. After Pushkin’s death, he was exiled to France.
In verse “Like that singer, unknown but sweet” and the following Lermontov remembers Vladimir Lensky from Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin" .
“And you, arrogant descendants” and the next 15 verses, according to S. A. Raevsky, were written later than the previous text. This is Lermontov’s response to the attempt of government circles and cosmopolitan-minded nobility to denigrate the memory of Pushkin and justify Dantes. The immediate reason for the creation of the last 16 poems, according to Raevsky, was a quarrel between Lermontov and a relative, a chamber cadet, who, having visited the sick poet, began to express to him the “unfavorable” opinion of courtiers about Pushkin and tried to defend Dantes.
A similar story is contained in a letter from A. M. Merinsky to P. A. Efremov, the publisher of Lermontov’s works. There is a list of the poem, where an unknown contemporary of Lermontov named a number of surnames, allowing you to imagine who we're talking about in lines “And you, arrogant descendants of famous fathers known for their meanness”. These are the counts Orlovs, Bobrinskys, Vorontsovs, Zavadovskys, princes Baryatinsky and Vasilchikov, barons Engelhardt and Fredericks, whose fathers and grandfathers achieved positions at court only through search, intrigue, and love affairs.
“There is a terrible judgment: it awaits”- this verse in the edition of Lermontov’s works edited by Efremov (1873) was first published with different interpretations: “There is a formidable judge: he is waiting.” Changing the original reading of this verse not motivated. The silent mention of the autograph, which supposedly formed the basis of the full text of the poem in this edition, is due to the fact that Efremov made a number of amendments to the text according to a letter from A. M. Merinsky, who kept a list of the poem that he made from the autograph in 1837, immediately after Lermontov wrote it. Merinsky’s letter to Efremov has been preserved, but there is no amendment to the verse “There is a terrible judgment.” Obviously, Efremov corrected it arbitrarily.
In some editions of Lermontov's works (edited by Boldakov in 1891, in several Soviet editions since 1924) Efremov's reading was repeated - “judge” instead of “court”. Meanwhile, in all copies of the poem that have reached us and in the first publications of the text, “court” is read, not “judge”. A poem by the poet P. Gvozdev, who studied with Lermontov in cadet school. Gvozdev wrote on February 22, 1837, containing lines confirming the correctness of the original reading of the controversial verse:
Wasn’t it you who said: “There is a terrible judgment!”
And this judgment is the judgment of posterity...
| Vengeance, sir, vengeance! I will fall at your feet: Be fair and punish the murderer, So that his execution in later centuries will announce Your just judgment to posterity, So that the villains will see it as an example. The poet is dead! - a slave of honor, - Fell, slandered by rumor, With lead in his chest and a thirst for revenge, Hanging his proud head!.. The poet's soul could not bear the shame of petty insults, He rebelled against the opinions of the world Alone, as before... and was killed! Killed!.. Why now the sobs, the unnecessary chorus of empty praises and the pathetic babble of justification? Fate has reached its conclusion! Wasn’t it you who at first so viciously persecuted His free, bold gift And for fun fanned the Slightly hidden fire? Well? Have fun... he couldn’t bear the last torment: The wondrous genius faded away like a torch, The solemn wreath faded. His killer struck in cold blood... there is no salvation: The empty heart beats evenly, The pistol does not waver in his hand. And what a miracle?.. From afar, Like hundreds of fugitives, To catch happiness and ranks Thrown to us by the will of fate. Laughing, he boldly despised the Earth's alien language and customs; He could not spare our glory, He could not understand at this bloody moment, What he was raising his hand to!.. And he was killed - and taken by the grave, Like that singer, unknown, but dear, Prey of deaf jealousy, Sung by him with such wonderful power , Slain, like him, by a merciless hand. Why, from peaceful bliss and simple-minded friendship, did he enter this envious and stuffy world for a free heart and fiery passions? Why did he give his hand to insignificant slanderers, Why did he believe false words and caresses, He, who from a young age comprehended people?.. And, having previously taken off the wreath, they put a crown of thorns, Entwined with laurels, on him, But the secret needles severely wounded the glorious brow . His last moments were poisoned by the insidious whispers of mocking ignoramuses, And he died - with a vain thirst for vengeance, With the annoyance of the secret of deceived hopes. The sounds of wonderful songs have fallen silent, They will not be heard again: The singer’s shelter is gloomy and cramped, And there is a seal on his lips. And you, arrogant descendants of the famous meanness of the illustrious fathers, trampled down the wreckage with the heel of a slave in the game of happiness of the offended clans! You, standing in a greedy crowd at the throne, executioners of Freedom, Genius and Glory! You are hiding under the canopy of the law, Judgment and truth are before you - keep quiet!.. But there is also God’s court, confidants of depravity! There is a terrible judgment: it awaits; He is inaccessible to the ringing of gold, And he knows thoughts and deeds in advance. Then in vain you will resort to slander - It will not help you again, And you will not wash away the righteous blood of the Poet with all your black blood! |
The epigraph to “The Death of a Poet” is taken from the tragedy of the French playwright J. Rotrou “Wenceslaus” (1648) in the unpublished Russian translation by A. A. Gendre (1789-1873).
The main part of "The Death of a Poet" (vv. 1-56) was probably written on January 28. 1837 (date in the case “On inappropriate verses...”). Pushkin died on January 29, but rumors about his death were spreading in St. Petersburg the day before. On Sunday, February 7, after a visit to Lermontov by his cousin, chamber cadet, official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs N.A. Stolypin, the final lines were written, starting with the words “And you, arrogant descendants...”. Evidence from contemporaries has been preserved that these lines are Lermontov’s response to a dispute with Stolypin, who shared the position of high society circles, who, justifying the behavior of Dantes and Heckern, argued that they “are not subject to either the laws or the Russian court” (Memoirs. P. 390 ). In his “explanation” at the trial, S. A. Raevsky sought to reduce the meaning of the final lines to a dispute with Stolypin about Dantes and divert attention from their political content: the highest court circles, “standing in a greedy crowd at the throne,” are responsible for the death of Pushkin. In the nine days separating the first 56 lines from the final part, many events happened, and Lermontov was able to more fully appreciate political meaning and the scale of the national tragedy. Now he's with with good reason could call the highest nobility “confidants of debauchery.” Lermontov learned about the cowardly position of the government, which ordered the secret burial of Pushkin and forbade mention of his death in the press. According to the testimony of P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, Lermontov visited Pushkin’s coffin in the poet’s house on the Moika embankment (this could only have been on January 29). Even the closest friends of the deceased until February 10-11. did not know about the most important episodes of his family drama: protecting the reputation of Natalya Nikolaevna, Pushkin hid many facts. This is clarified from the letters of P. A. Vyazemsky and other materials (see: Abramovich S. A. Letters of P. A. Vyazemsky about the death of the poet. LG. 1987, January 28). The author of “The Death of a Poet” was apparently initiated into the events preceding the duel by people from Pushkin’s circle (possibly V.F. Odoevsky, A.I. Turgenev), colleagues in the Life Guards Hussar Regiment, among whom were many of Pushkin’s acquaintances , as well as Dr. N.F. Arendt, who visited Lermontov, who was ill at that time. Special mention should be made of Lieutenant Ivan Nikolaevich Goncharov (Natalya Nikolaevna’s brother). His recently published letter to his brother (“Lit. Russia.” 1986, November 21) and Lermontov’s portrait sketches of Goncharov from 1836-1837. (established by A.N. Markov in 1986), testify to the friendly relations between them. Goncharov participated in an attempt to prevent a duel, and was aware of the audience at the Anichkov Palace on November 23. 1836
According to the stories of contemporaries, one of the copies of the poem with the inscription “Appeal to the Revolution” was delivered to the tsar (Memoirs. pp. 186-187). Nicholas I, in a rage, “ordered the senior physician guards corps visit this gentleman and make sure he is not crazy” (Memoirs, p. 393). 25 Feb In 1837, the highest order followed for Lermontov’s exile to the Caucasus in the Nizhny Novgorod Dragoon Regiment and for a month’s arrest followed by S. A. Raevsky’s exile to the Olonets province. The poem “The Death of a Poet” was distributed throughout Russia in many copies and created for its author a reputation as a brave freethinker and a worthy successor to Pushkin. In terms of the power of accusatory pathos, it far surpassed the poems of other poets about this tragedy (see: A. V. Fedorov, “The Death of a Poet,” among other responses to the death of Pushkin, “Russian Literature.” 1964, No. 3, pp. 32-45). The character of Lermontov's poem is unusual: a combination of elegiac and oratorical principles. Echoes of Pushkin's themes and images give particular credibility to Lermontov's position as the heir to Pushkin's muse. Art. 2. “slave of honor” - a quote from Pushkin’s poem “Prisoner of the Caucasus”; Art. 4. “Holding my proud head” - a reminiscence of the poem “Poet”; in Art. 35 “Like that unknown but sweet singer” and further Lermontov recalls Vladimir Lensky (from “Eugene Onegin”); Art. 39 “Why from peaceful bliss and simple-minded friendship” and so on. are close to Pushkin’s elegy “Andrei Chenier” (“Why from this life, lazy and simple, I rushed to where the fatal horror ...”). The ending of the poem echoes Pushkin’s “My Genealogy” (characteristics of the new nobility).