Images of new people in the novel, what to do. Images of “new people” in the novel by N.G.

Famous Russian writer and teacher E.A. Engelhardt (Georg Reinhold von Engelhardt) was born on August 12, 1775 in Riga into a Protestant family. He came from the Livland branch of the famous Engelhardt family.

In 1780, according to the custom of that time, a five-year-old boy entered the service as a sergeant of the Life Guards Regiment of the Preobrazhensky Regiment. He received his education in St. Petersburg, at the famous boarding school for girls Bardevik; among his teachers were future academicians A.K. Storch and Kraft. At the age of 16, Engelhardt entered active service with the same rank of sergeant, but preferred civilian positions. He successfully became an official in the office of Prince Zubov, and since 1796 he has served in the College of Foreign Affairs, in the office of Vice-Chancellor Prince Kurakin, everywhere attracting attention with his conscientiousness, diligence and abilities. The young man supplemented his education with independent work: he spoke fluently and wrote in six languages.

An important point in Engelhardt's career was his appointment as secretary of the Order of Malta. A conscientious young man zealously devotes himself to studying the details of his rituals and history, which allows him to maintain good relations with the emperor. Later, he receives the high and responsible post of Assistant Secretary of State of the State Council. And in 1811, due to the fact that he was interested not only in the administrative, but also in the pedagogical field, Engelhardt was appointed director of the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute, where he worked for almost five years.

E.A. Engelhardt enjoyed a reputation as a man diverse interests. He was a writer and teacher, had great knowledge of geography and ethnography. Together with his former teacher at the boarding school by academician A.K. With Storch, he undertook the publication of a magazine about Russia in German, “Russland” (1803-1809), in which he gave reviews of the most significant events of modern Russian life. Engelhardt remained on the editorial staff until the end of the magazine's existence. Many articles were written by him, but were usually published without a signature. During the same period, Engelhardt was also engaged in literary activity. In 1811, he took part in the publication in St. Petersburg of two small books under common name"Bagatelles. Promenades d"un desoeuvre dans la ville de S.-Petersbourg" (Idle things. Leisure walks along the streets of St. Petersburg). These books were a great success: in 1812 they were republished in Paris, and then appeared in translation into German and Dutch.

In March 1816, the main event in Engelhardt’s life took place - he was appointed director of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, replacing V.F., who died in 1814, in this post. Malinovsky. For many students of the Lyceum, 1816 became " happy year", as Pushkin said. After a period of interregnum at the Lyceum, associated with a certain decline in teaching, Engelhardt restores its level, makes efforts to ensure that young men who live - in accordance with the strictures of the charter - in a certain isolation from society, nevertheless do not lose skills of secular treatment. To this end, he introduces the lyceum students to his family and allows them a vacation within Tsarskoe Selo, where the doors of many aristocratic houses open before them. For the same purpose, in 1821, Engelhardt conceived the idea of ​​founding the “Society of Lyceum Friends of the Useful” at the Lyceum.

Engelhardt supported the basic traditions of lyceum education, laid down by the first director of the lyceum, Malinovsky. Following Malinovsky, he sought to establish and improve the life of the Lyceum and create family comfort. Malinovsky’s highly humane, highly moral motto - “common benefit”, which formed the basis of training at the Lyceum, carried the concept of the purpose of a person, whose goal in life should be the main desire - to bring benefit, serving the “common good”, that is, the people, the Fatherland. This was also the motto of Engelhardt, who said: “until a person dies, he must constantly have in mind the great goal: to promote the common good.”

The relationship between Engelhardt and Pushkin became difficult from the very first days. Engelhardt considered Pushkin a “rake”; he was worried about the young man’s seeming frivolity and superficiality. Pushkin, in turn, was repulsed by “a certain vain desire for effect” from the enlightened director; he was irritated by the sometimes petty guardianship. Different in character, temperament and attitude, the young poet and the experienced mentor could not get closer. Engelhardt moved towards rapprochement, it seemed possible to him, but suddenly he accidentally saw a caricature drawn of him by Pushkin, this story completely alienated them.

However, it is Engelhardt who, through his intercession, later saves the poet from exile. When Alexander I began to threaten Pushkin with exile to Siberia in a conversation with Engelhardt, then former mentor stood up for him, saying that Pushkin is “a beauty modern literature“that his extraordinary talent requires mercy, and “exile can have a detrimental effect on the ardent disposition of a young man.” Later, Engelhardt once again fully proved his nobility by corresponding with the exiles Pushchin and Kuchelbecker, without fear of incurring the Highest wrath.

Under Engelhardt there were only three graduations (1817, 1820, 1823), but he forever retained almost family relations with many of his students. An intelligent, touchingly caring and devoted friend, who under no circumstances betrays either his affections or his rules and beliefs, E.A. Engelhardt remained in the grateful hearts of many students as a moral example of a teacher and person.

At the Pushkin graduation ceremony in 1817, E.A. Engelhardt spoke with confidence about the graduates: “They can be useful! They will be useful!..” A list of graduates was read out with “an indication of the advantages with which each of them, according to their success and dignity,” is assigned to the service, medals, certificates of commendation and evidence. Finally, Engelhardt addressed the students with parting words: “Go, friends, to your new field!.. Keep the truth, sacrifice everything for it; it is not death that is terrible, but dishonor; it is not wealth, not ranks, not ribbons that honor a person, but good name, keep it, keep a clear conscience, that’s your honor. Go, friends, remember us..."

Many students of the Lyceum left their memories of E.A. Engelhardt, filled with sincere gratitude to their mentor. Former lyceum students who lived outside St. Petersburg, coming to the capital, certainly visited the orphanage of their childhood - Tsarskoe Selo - and their old director.

In October 1823, Engelhardt was forced to resign as head of the Lyceum, since he entered the military department, under the command of Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich and Count Konovnitsyn. The spirit of military discipline was abhorrent to the teacher, and he did not want to personally introduce the corresponding changes in the educational institution under his jurisdiction. Engelhardt did not return to the teaching field: in 1834 he became the director of the editorial office of the Agricultural Newspaper, and since 1852 - a corresponding member of the Academic Committee of the Ministry of State Property. E.A. During his life, Engelhardt was also a member of the following societies: Encouragement of Forestry, Free Economic, Russian Geographical, Imperial Philanthropic, the establishment of schools for mutual education, as well as the Courland Literature and Arts. For some time he was an elder of the Reformed Church of St. Petersburg.

Yegor Antonovich Engelhardt died three months after the 50th anniversary of the Lyceum, in 1862. He was buried at the Smolensk Lutheran Cemetery, not far from the entrance. Tombstone E.A. Engelhardt suffered the same fate as many other monuments in this cemetery. The stone from his grave was stolen and only recently, using private savings, a new one was installed.

Engelhardt's name, made famous by his students, deserves special attention. Possessing a rare ability to deal with young people, he managed to forever win their love, respect and maintain lifelong connections with many of his former students, despite the differences in their characters and destinies. In 1877 A.M. Gorchakov immortalized the memory of E.A. Engelhardt, donating sixteen thousand rubles for the establishment of a scholarship at the Lyceum “In grateful memory of E.A. Engelhardt.”

The basis of all education should be love. We must love the children we want to raise, love them heartily: without this it is impossible to acquire from them voluntary obedience, cordiality and trust, on which all reasonable education is based.

E.A. Engelhardt

B.S. MAILAH

CHARACTERISTICS OF LYCEUM STUDENTS
IN THE NOTES OF E. A. ENGELGARDT

In the old, pre-October literary criticism, so many books, articles, and publications were devoted to the history of the Pushkin Lyceum that this topic itself seemed to be exhausted. However, a revision of the problem in the light of new methodological tasks put forward by Soviet literary criticism made it possible not only to establish the falsity of the initial positions of a number of previous works on the Pushkin Lyceum, but also to discover a significant amount of the most important unpublished materials: these include lecture notes discovered in the archive of A. M. Gorchakov Lyceum teachers and many other documents in various funds government agencies and individuals. But even among those materials that were known to pre-revolutionary researchers, there was much that was valuable and yet unused. The prevailing desire in old works to characterize the Pushkin Lyceum as an educational institution blessed with the favor of the monarch gave rise to a kind of aberration; Because of this aberration, some documents were published (and often tendentiously interpreted), while others were not noticed or were deliberately suppressed. This feature is also characteristic of N. A. Gastfreund’s famous three-volume work “Pushkin’s Comrades in the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum” (1912-1913), which contains many materials published for the first time. The reactionary tendentiousness of the author (for whom the Decembrist uprising is a “comedy”, a “buffoon uprising”), his vulgar criterion for assessing lyceum students by the degree of advancement up the career ladder and the number of orders - all this served as a kind of sieve through which no materials characterizing the tense the ideological atmosphere of the Pushkin Lyceum, nor the facts indicating the difference of interests and sympathies, the struggle within this educational institution. The significance of the topic “Pushkin Lyceum” (associated with a more general and broader problem about the origins of the great poet’s worldview, his upbringing and education, the formation of his worldview in his youth) led to the need for a frontal revision of it and a revision of all documentary material.

Of undeniable interest in this regard is the study of each of the lyceum students from Pushkin’s graduating class, the environment in which the poet was for six years and where he met true friends and like-minded people (like Ivan Pushchin, Delvig, Kuchelbecker, etc.), and people alien

and even those who are clearly hostile to him in their aspirations. True story The lyceum refutes the myth of the “single lyceum family” and recreates the picture of ideological and political stratification among lyceum students. Some dedicated their lives to serving the high ideals of freedom, homeland, and humanism; others subordinated everything solely to the goals of personal advancement through loyal service to the feudal-serf regime. Some were inspired by the thirst for achievement, the love of art, and the breadth of interests characteristic of the entire advanced generation of the era. Others turned out to be colorless, somehow dragging their feet at the lyceum in order to, upon graduating, join the ranks of departmental officials.

However, the characteristics of the Pushkin lyceum students, repeatedly compiled by teachers and preserved in the lyceum archives, are of little use for research. All these characteristics are colorless and monochromatic. They speak mainly about the success and diligence of their pupils in almost the same terms. Even in those cases when the shortcomings and vices of this or that lyceum student were pointed out, in conclusion there were saving clauses that such and such, “however,” shows “hopes for correction” and is not so bad: after all, the reference was intended for a superior superiors, for whom it was necessary to create a picture of general well-being.

Against the background of these characteristics, the largely subtle and frank notes about the students, which were compiled personally for himself and not for “official use” by the second director of the lyceum, Yegor Antonovich Engelhardt, stand out sharply. These characteristics, written in German and entitled “Something about the students of the senior department of the lyceum,” are dated March 22, 1816. These recordings were the property of Engelhardt's archive for decades. In 1863, three characteristics (out of 29), and even then partially and inaccurately, were quoted by V. P. Gaevsky in the article “Pushkin at the Lyceum and his Lyceum poems.” Subsequently, this material fell out of the field of view of Pushkinists. In 1949, in the article “Lyceum Anniversaries”, and then in the book “Pushkin and His Epoch” (1958), we used a number of characteristics when covering the issue of Pushkin’s Lyceum environment. Engelhardt’s notes have not yet been published in full, and there is no information anywhere about the content of a number of characteristics he made (Korf, Broglio, Grevenitsa, Martynov, Malinovsky, Esakov, Korsakov, Kornilov, etc.). Therefore, we publish the entire text translated from the manuscript stored in the Manuscript Department of the Institute of Russian Literature ( Pushkin House) Academy of Sciences of the USSR.

Coverage of Engelhardt’s personality and his activities at the Lyceum is given in our book mentioned above, and we will therefore limit ourselves here to only brief information necessary to clarify the records published below.

In the light of the materials that have come down to us, Engelhardt appears before us as an extraordinary and progressive teacher who, to the best of his ability, sought to preserve the best traditions Lyceum, founded by its first director V.F. Malinovsky. Engelhardt became director of the Lyceum at the very beginning of 1816. Although he did not stand at the political level that was represented at the Lyceum by the most advanced teachers (and above all A.P. Kunitsyn), and can be characterized as a fellow traveler of people

this circle, as a limited person and was only to one degree or another under their influence, but this was enough for him to soon fall out of favor with his superiors. His attempts to defend the independence of the lyceum from the bureaucratic tutelage of the Ministry of Public Education, and then the Administration military educational institutions ultimately led to the fact that in 1822 the lyceum was subjected to Arakcheev’s defeat, and in 1823 Engelhardt was removed. Arakcheev's protege, Major General Goltgoer, was appointed in his place. For the tsarist government, Engelhardt’s name became one of the names of people who supported “liberal orders” at the Lyceum. In 1829, in a letter to Grand Duke Constantine, Nicholas I admired Holtgoer’s “excellent supervision” of the Lyceum and expressed confidence that “students like those produced in Engelhardt’s style will no longer leave the Lyceum.” The appearance of Engelhardt, a man of completely moderate views and in no way touched by any revolutionary trends, is characterized by deep sympathy for those students of the lyceum who, after the Decembrist uprising, found themselves in hard labor and in exile. For many years, Engelhardt was in correspondence with the Decembrist I. I. Pushchin. In a number of surviving letters to his former students, he clearly expressed deep antipathy towards the entire atmosphere of Nicholas's reign. Pushchin, in his famous memoirs, speaks very warmly of Engelhardt as a teacher and person.

Engelhardt's notes below were made by him two months after assuming the post of director. Their goal is to form an idea about the students based on first personal impressions. Among them there are also erroneous and one-sided reviews, some reflecting opinions that were established before him, but there are also accurate, correct, even almost artistic in their brightness, revelations of the psychological appearance of some lyceum students. The value of these records (in contrast to the monotonous official characteristics that teachers gave to pupils) also lies in the attempt to find out the individual identity and inclinations of each pupil. Finally, these records also contain new data about the outlook and interests of Pushkin’s comrades at the Lyceum.

Engelhardt's reviews, written, as indicated above, in German, are located in the manuscript at approximately alphabetical order. We will not respect this order of entries since it has no intrinsic meaning.

Let's start with an entry dedicated to Baron M.A. Korf, later chamberlain and senator, one of the ardent adherents of the Nicholas regime, who wrote the vile book “The Accession to the Throne of Emperor Nicholas I” with a sharp condemnation of the Decembrists. Korf is also the author of slanderous memoirs about Pushkin. At the Lyceum, Korf was surrounded by the hostility of the advanced group of students and received the nickname “deacon”

Mordan" (for his passion for reading church books). About Korf, Engelhardt wrote: “He has an outstanding talent and great sensitivity to the formal side of the sciences to the extent that it is equipped with external sensual charms. He strives for this in his manner of presentation, but this desire often turns into pomposity in his works. He is vain, like a girl, which is very surprising in a boy. He reveals this vanity even in the position of his body, which he flaunts in various poses. I cannot help but fear that he indulges in secret vices, in which he also involves others, of course, out of pure coquetry, for some time ago he was caught in the arms of Delvig. However, his cunning and caution have so far made it impossible to catch him in this vice, if it really is inherent in him. In relation to his superiors, he often displays some obstinacy and, moreover, mostly out of infringed vanity, which, wherever possible, appears even in relation to his parents. Otherwise, nothing low is ever found in him and he performs his duties in the classroom with great diligence. His notebooks are always in the greatest order, he writes beautifully and draws well.”

Below we give a record about Prince A. M. Gorchakov, who made after leaving the Lyceum brilliant career, which subsequently culminated in the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs and the elevation to the highest rank in Russia - State Chancellor.

“Woven from fine spiritual matter, he easily learned a lot and feels like a master where many still struggle to aspire. His impatience to show the teacher that he has already understood everything is so great that he never waits for the end of the explanation. If he shows himself to be a genius in grasping ideas, then in all his more mechanical pursuits the greatest order and grace reign. Since from childhood he was subject to all sorts of external and internal emotions, this ardor undermined his body, especially his lungs, which was most facilitated by one extremely destructive vice, to which he, unfortunately, was already subject to early years. Now his health appears to have been completely restored, although his expansiveness has not diminished in the least. Since even now, however, ardor is his element, it seems that it has destroyed all the calmer and kinder properties of his soul and during his acute feeling of his own dignity, he displays considerable selfishness, often in a form that is repulsive and offensive to his comrades. Most often he entered into an argument with Kuchelbecker. He gets rid of some teachers with quite polite bows, while with others he tries to get closer, since from them he finds or hopes to find support for his vanity. For a long time, he certainly wanted to leave the lyceum, because he thought that he could no longer move forward in knowledge, and hoped to shine with his uncle.”

Here the features of Gorchakov’s spiritual appearance, his brilliant abilities (which then manifested themselves in diplomatic activities) and those character traits that predicted an arrogant, vain careerist (both of which were then noticed in Pushkin’s letters to him) are subtly noted.

The type of person with different moral inclinations and life goals emerges in Engelhardt’s note about V.D. Volkhovsky, after the release

from the lyceum who joined the liberation movement as a member of the Welfare Union. Not knowing about the political sentiments of the young Volkhovsky, Engelhardt nevertheless caught noble traits in his character:

“Of all the students, this one needs to be protected the least, since before his soul stands a beautiful ideal (though still only in unclear outlines), towards the achievement of which he strives firmly and persistently. He is as gentle as he is kind, and willingly accepts any advice that can be useful to him regarding knowledge or morals. A firm decision - to seriously prepare for the serious affairs of life - sometimes takes him in a somewhat strange direction, and here education must do the best possible. In relation to his superiors he shows the most zealous obedience and the most sincere affection. In his relationships with his comrades, he is very compliant and straightforward, for which his teachers also value him very much.”

The above characteristics are striking in their accuracy; but Engelhardt was seriously mistaken in his view of S.D. Komovsky, a cunning and cunning man, a hypocrite, who also earned his comrades the nicknames “little foxes,” “resins,” and “fiscals.” The importunity and teachings with which the well-behaved Komovsky addressed everyone infuriated even his closest friend Korf. Engelhardt, who did not notice his unsightly appearance behind the appearance of the diligent student, wrote about him:

“His abilities are not as great as his persistent diligence and the purity of his character. Not a single student develops all his mental and physical properties so harmoniously, and not a single one devotes himself so completely and without any distraction to what he is currently doing. He dances and fences with exactly the same zeal and concentration as he attends the most abstract lesson. He excels in all subjects and is at an equal level in all of them. What distinguishes him from all his fellow practitioners is his unique grace.

“In his tenderness for his parents, he is completely like Esakov. On leaving the class, he often loudly repeats the last thing the teacher said, and when the dance lesson ends, he usually performs a few more pirouettes in his own way.”

And yet, although Komovsky is assessed positively here, this pupil appears as completely colorless.

The opening characterization of Engelhardt’s manuscript by A.P. Bakunin, a student of average abilities, not remarkable in any way, reads as follows:

“Having no great talents, he made significant progress in many subjects, with the exception of the German language, since, given his impatient character, any significant difficulty frightens him; usually quite arrogant, which was especially evident in the early years, but if he can be convinced of his mistakes, he is ready to repent and, as far as he can, be good again. He differs from many in his almost German frankness and sincerity and would rather commit another frivolous act than ask for leniency. He gets close to his bosses willingly.”

A witty review of K. D. Kostensky, the impersonal, is murdered young man, whom the lyceum students nicknamed “the old man”:

“The old myth, which makes Prometheus water the clay with tears, turning it into people, is embodied in it most materially; heavy

and raw clay and nothing more, and he does not have to scold Prometheus for theft, since for him Prometheus did not steal the slightest spark of heavenly fire. He displays a lot of vanity in his appearance, rarely appearing other than with his hands on his hips. Since he is naturally gifted very poorly, his diligence leads to almost nothing. His great good nature and agreeableness deserve praise.”

A peculiar figure at the Lyceum was Count S. F. Broglio, the son of an Italian who came from an impoverished Sardinian patrician family. After graduating from the Lyceum, Broglio went to Piedmont and participated in a revolutionary conspiracy. But within the walls of the lyceum he was considered a lazy, phlegmatic and incapable student (reviews from teachers note his “weak memory”, “limited talent”). In Engelhardt's notes we read about him:

“Nature has poorly endowed him with abilities; in particular, he lacks two essential traits for learning: intelligence and memory. However, in this respect at least, he does not overestimate himself at all and, when, despite all his efforts, he cannot learn something, he jokes quite good-naturedly about his inability. Phlegm, which forms the basis of his character, softens his outbursts, which are sometimes very violent and noisy; when it comes to fist fights, he most often shows himself to be very stubborn with subsequent comments and reprimands. To his ancient origin he attaches very little importance and wears his Maltese cross reluctantly, although some importance is quite clearly visible in his address.”

The review of Baron P. F. Grevenitsa is indifferent, although positive:

“With very good behavior and great diligence, he also has sufficient talents. In his small activities, such as his love of butterflies, he shows a great love of order. Because of his appearance, quite a lot of irritability has appeared in his character, which sometimes turns into some stubbornness and even sometimes manifests itself in his relationship with his mother.”

Engelhardt's entry about Delvig should not surprise the reader with a disparaging review of his literary studies at the Lyceum. Among the teachers, the idea of ​​Delvig, who was distinguished at the lyceum not only by laziness, but, oddly enough, even by his low sensitivity to science (“mediocre abilities,” “inattention and lazy,” “answers questions without thinking and without any connection,” - wrote about him), was very unprofitable. His literary talent developed later. But what is valuable for us in Engelhardt’s review is the indication of Delvig’s patriotic pride in Russian literature, which, as we learn, even had a militant character. So, here is a review about Delvig:

“When Prometheus breathed his soul into the clay from which he made him, the heavenly spark was already somewhat cooled, since it only flares up in Delvig from time to time with a pitiful poetic flame. Everything is now directed only towards this imaginary poetic talent and some kind of militant defense of the beauties of Russian literature, and I probably owe only to Zhukovsky that for some time now he has been making a certain effort to study the German language. His games and jokes reveal a certain ironic wit, which, after several satirical poems, made him a favorite of his comrades. His morality is apparently undermined by secret vices, which probably include the greed with which he, without choice, swallows books that

gets it in all sorts of ways and mostly reads secretly in class. He is perhaps the most educated in Russian literature.”

From the review of K.K. Danzas we learn for the first time about his penchant for art. Otherwise, he apparently did not impress Engelhardt in any way:

“So inactive and incapable before and after eating that you have to think he was created only for food. His inelegant appearance gives rise to teasing, to which he usually responds with an angry scream and fist violence. It is impossible to convince him that he is ever wrong. Usually in similar cases he claims that everyone is unfair to him, gets more and more excited with every word and allows himself, during such fits, which quickly turn into rage, to be very rude towards even the guards. Oddly enough, he has quite a penchant for art.”

A laconic review of F. F. Matyushkin accurately defines the main goal of his life, although it narrows the spiritual image of the future brave navigator:

"Quiet, kind soul, which does exactly what it should, gives exactly what it has, appears exactly what it is, and remains exactly what it was. His comrades call him Dutch because of his phlegm: he has a penchant for naval service.”

The entry about A.I. Martynov is nothing more than the first impressions and observations of the teacher:

“Very quiet and calm, at times, however, somewhat stubborn, draws and fences better than anyone. He loves order and makes significant progress in some sciences. If I’m not mistaken, he is the youngest after Rzhevsky, and he would have achieved more if he had been brought up with boys of his own age, with whom he could keep up.”

A review of S. S. Esakov, one of the best students of the course, later a guards officer, reads:

“Talent, diligence and meekness paint him very favorably; You can’t call him a genius, but he has an exceptional soul, receptive to everything good and beautiful. He also has great affection for everyone about whom he knows that they will willingly do something for his intellectual and moral development. In relation to his relatives and parents (these latter are of rather mediocre origin) he shows the greatest tenderness and the most childish affection; from this side, he, like Komovsky, is the most worthy of love; his comrades respect him very much, he is most often the judge in their disputes and takes it very seriously when someone does not fulfill his duty or behaves badly towards his superiors. In such cases, he guides the guilty person to the right path, just as he openly defends someone whose action is too harshly condemned or, in his opinion, is viewed from the wrong point of view. In the early years, he was characterized by a strong fear of natural phenomena, lightning and fire, as well as, indeed, all sorts of superstitions and prejudices instilled by his previous upbringing.”

An interesting characteristic is given by A.D. Illichevsky, a lyceum poet, who in the first years of the lyceum was considered a rival of Pushkin in poetry, but in fact wrote very mediocre poetry:

“There was such a sweet period in Germany when many young people, thanks to Gesner’s idylls, as well as Werther, Jorick, sentimental travel etc., became so hypersensitive that their pale red hearts completely melted for any reason or without reason.

Unfortunately, Illichevsky, if not entirely, then in many ways resembles such powerless and dry young men. A few improvised rhymes and excessive and careless praises, which were paid to his immature muse, did their job too conscientiously. Fantasy has now given form an advantage over all his other intellectual powers, so much so that, with all his talents, he stands in all serious sciences, with a few exceptions, at almost the same level as when he entered. Still, one must take into account, without a doubt, what is in his poetic baggage, and therefore I think that in Russian literature he is, if not the first, then very close to the first. In relation to his comrades, he shows himself to be a great egoist, although for some time now this seems to be weakening. He shows great affection for his previous connections in the St. Petersburg gymnasium, which, however, does not come from the very pure source, because secret vices mean a lot.”

One-sided, but containing character traits of N. A. Korsakov, who was one of the most gifted lyceum students, unknown in the literature, is Engelhardt’s review of him:

“He has excellent abilities and a rare memory and very sharp judgment. At the same time, he has the dangerous gift of adapting to every opinion and every personality, and he knows how to seem better to everyone than he could appreciate. He sometimes relies too much on his memory and at times neglects the preparation of lessons, his essays and other school assignments are usually in disarray. In the sciences he is superficial, not from lack of talent, but simply from frivolity; in dealing with his comrades, he is quick-tempered and harsh, and then resorts to lies and to his unique manner of distortion, and he knows how to very cleverly draw into the game the vanity of the one who is the judge. For some time now, however, he seems to have gotten better. In the early years, for example, he found pleasure in eating unnoticed in class, hunger playing a lesser role here than the tendency to do something unauthorized and the itch to deceive the teacher; Moreover, he secretly stole bread from the table, despite the prohibition and punishment.”

For some reason the outstanding ones are not noted here musical abilities Korsakov, which made him a favorite of his comrades, his lively character and sociability. But it is remarkable for its fidelity and expressiveness psychological picture V. K. Kuchelbecker:

“I read every book in the world about every thing in the world; has a lot of talent, a lot of diligence, a lot good will, a lot of heart and a lot of feeling, but, unfortunately, in all this there is not enough taste, tact, grace, measure and clear purpose. He, however, is a faithful, innocent soul, and the stubbornness that sometimes manifests itself in him is only quixoticism of honor and virtue with a significant admixture of vanity. At the same time, in most cases, he sees everything in a black light, is furious with himself, is completely immersed in melancholy, remorse and suspicion, and then does not find consolation in anything, except in some gigantic project. As a child he suffered from St.'s dance. Witta. His father died of consumption, which threatens him too.”

Engelhardt's review of A. A. Kornilov is generally favorable, but paints him as a young man, unremarkable in any way. Kornilov “found a way, just like Rzhevsky, to remain a completely innocent child. He cannot tear himself away from the fun for a single moment. In his appearance he

very careless, and in behavior awkwardly ill-mannered. He's not smart, but he has good memory and is making quite significant progress in the formal sciences. His character is open and extremely good-natured.”

Quite differently, with obvious interest, the characterization of S. G. Lomonosov, an extraordinary personality, was written. While still at the Lyceum, Lomonosov met Karamzin and visited him together with Pushkin, and was in correspondence with V.L. Pushkin and P.A. Vyazemsky. Engelhardt’s review speaks approvingly of Lomonosov’s passion for history and politics (Lyceum history professor I.K. Kaidanov also pointed this out):

“A very interesting young man, not exactly a genius, but still an outstanding talent. In terms of history, he does excellently. He is very interested in politics. He is very talkative and usually knows how to direct the conversation to the highest interests of humanity, then freely jumps from subject to subject, touching mainly the surface, partly from youthful frivolity, and perhaps also because he was previously brought up by the French. His being is inspired by a wonderful religious feeling, which sometimes manifests itself very touchingly. He loves people, undoubtedly more than anyone else (so far, at least), and often thinks about how he can be most useful to them. Because of this, it is always full of projects and proposals, usually aimed at transforming armies, new orders in the ministry, different financial management, etc.”

Lomonosov's outstanding abilities were reflected in his further biography: he served as secretary of the Russian embassy in America, then in France, and was ambassador to Brazil, Portugal, and the Netherlands. There is no reason to think that at the Lyceum Lomonosov belonged according to his own political views to the most advanced group of lyceum students: his career, surviving letters say that he did not want to swim “against the tide.” But still, Lomonosov stood out clearly for the breadth of his interests, education, and intelligence among many of his peers - typical offspring of the noble bureaucracy.

After the characterization of Lomonosov, the review about P. N. Myasoedov, a student who, for his stupidity and mental squalor, was the subject of constant ridicule among the lyceum students, seems especially caustic. Here is what Engelhardt wrote about Myasoedov:

“No one dresses so well and elegantly, no one smooths his bangs so gracefully. No one knows how to use his lorgnette so gracefully, no one would like to become a hussar as much as he does, but no one is less suitable and has no desire for serious studies. Since he still has an exceptionally high opinion of himself and his knowledge, when reprimanding him, wherever he dares, he is rude, and the tutor and instructor sometimes have scenes with him.”

Engelhardt’s insight as a teacher, who so quickly discerned the appearance of “Myasozhorov” (Myasoedov’s lyceum nickname), is evidenced by a simple comparison of this review with a number of official lyceum characteristics, where we read: “Very proud, hot, affectionate, rude, mocking; however, he is grateful, helpful, diligent” or: “not too happy with his abilities, but his diligence replaces a lot.”

We learn about D.N. Maslov from Engelhardt’s review that he “has great abilities in literature and mathematical sciences and has made significant progress in mathematics. He is modest and closer to manhood than anyone else. He speaks little and poorly and willingly retires. When he considers himself offended, he hides his displeasure. I think he has quite a lot of pride and ego. His behavior was always extremely careful and completely impeccable.”

The Lyceum song said about Maslov:

Maslov shines with enlightenment,
Maslov is aiming for the title.

And indeed, upon graduation, Maslov received the rank of titular councilor. At the lyceum, he joined the group of advanced lyceum students, but behaved very carefully and cautiously in all conflicts (in particular, during the famous clash with inspector M. S. Piletsky). After graduating from the Lyceum, he participated in the “Journal Society” of N. I. Turgenev, a society created for the publication political magazine, and read an article about statistics at one of the meetings. But Maslov’s “liberal spirit” quickly evaporated, and he succeeded in his service, gradually being decorated with orders and reaching the rank of Privy Councilor.

Among the reviews where insight failed Engelhardt is a review about I.V. Malinovsky, the son of the first director of the Lyceum V.F. Malinovsky:

“With a very kind heart and fairly good abilities, he shows great negligence in everything, behaves badly towards his comrades, superiors, and even showed this towards his father. He absolutely cannot bring himself to restrain himself, and he can be brought to his senses with exceptional difficulty, then he sincere repentance admits his guilt, but, unfortunately, his greatest frivolity immediately crowds out his best intentions. As far as I know, he made no significant progress in any subject.”

Here attention is drawn mainly to Malinovsky’s mischievous, ardent disposition. True, Pushkin also speaks about this in “The Feasting Students”:

And you, the rake of the rake,
Born of pranks,
Daring grip, thug,
A sincere friend ...

For his temper and uncontrollability, the lyceum students nicknamed Malinovsky “Cossack.”

It would seem that Engelhardt should have paid more attention to those qualities of Malinovsky, which he briefly summarized with the words about his “very kind heart” and which were subsequently expressed in the warm attitude of the “Cossack” towards the convicted Decembrists, in friendship with I. I. Pushchin, in constant clashes with inveterate feudal landowners in Ukraine. But in the first months of Engelhardt’s directorship at the Lyceum, his rapprochement with the son of the late director, in all likelihood, was hampered by the son’s jealousy of his father’s successor.

Engelhardt’s review of I. I. Pushchin, with whom, as we mentioned above, he was subsequently associated, is striking in its one-sidedness

mutual long-term friendship(it continued and even strengthened after Pushchin was convicted of participation in the Decembrist uprising). In his characterization of Pushchin, Engelhardt pays attention only to love interests this lyceum student and acts here as a “guardian of morality.”

"Unhappy family circumstances“made a grave impression on him,” Engelhardt says about Pushchino. - For some time, he began to make extremely great efforts to interest persons of the other sex in himself, wrote exclusively pitiful letters and tried to portray himself as a real tragic figure thanks to his misfortune, which, however, he did not clearly outline. One such letter fell into my hands and my duty forced me to talk seriously and impressively with this essentially good young man about his mistake and tell him about the incorrectness of his point of view. The friendly advice apparently produced the desired impression, but soon a repeated incident of this kind showed exactly the opposite. As a student he is thoughtful, capable, attentive and diligent, but yet he does not seem to show any particular inclination towards any kind of science.

Later, having gotten to know Pushchin better, Engelhardt developed his opinion about the noble traits of his nature, about his high moral character. This is exactly how Pushchin appears in Engelhardt’s extensive correspondence between the 20s and 50s with former lyceum students.

In the above review of Kornilov, Engelhardt compares this lyceum student with another, N. G. Rzhevsky. And in fact, like Kornilov, Rzhevsky was nothing remarkable. This is “a good-hearted child, but, unfortunately, a child, and he will always remain one in relation to the sciences, at least in comparison with many of his fellow students. He is in no way deficient in talent, and if he were in junior class instead of the eldest, he might have become a very good pupil. In dealing with his comrades he is very peaceful, obedient towards his superiors, polite and very trusting; a class full of Rzhevskys would not be bad for us, but he has a pretty hard time in this class.”

A humorous acrostic epitaph, composed at the Lyceum and specifically referring to Rzhevsky, can serve as a kind of poetic commentary on this review:

Born like any other person,
He gave his life to idleness, he feared labor as an evil,
He ate from morning until night, and went to bed in the evening;
Getting up, he ate and drank again, and spent the whole century like that.
Lucky! He did not bring any malice upon himself;
Who, however, was completely without vice?
And he wrote poetry, unfortunately, to no avail.

Completely colorless, unremarkable figures included three students, further characterized by Engelhardt - Steven,

Savrasov, Tyrkov. And here his negative attitude towards those young men who (even if they are successful in science) are not inspired by any goal and are deprived of initiative and broad interests is manifested. This is the future Vyborg governor F. X. Steven:

“A very good-natured and, at the same time, active student. Having no outstanding abilities, he, thanks to his diligence, belongs to the best students. Cautious and modest in behavior, he is rarely punished. However, there is something helpless and ponderous in his physical appearance, which, apparently, interferes with his every spiritual impulse.”

This is essentially the same as P. F. Savrasov, who was remembered by his comrades only for his bright red hair and long nose:

“A completely pure and unspoiled boy, who from the moment of his admission showed himself to be so modest, good-natured and peaceful that he conquered both teachers and students. During all this time he was never punished, and I think that he was unlikely to receive a reprimand from anyone. He loves cleanliness and order. He doesn’t excel in science, but he’s still a very good student.”

But if Savrasov did not stand out at all, then A.D. Tyrkov (lyceum nickname “brick beam”) caused direct resistance with his vulgarity. Engelhardt also speaks about this:

“His previous upbringing must have been greatly neglected, since he bears the stamp of vulgarity. Great is his helplessness, great is his ignorance of everything. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with him, and I think he would willingly do something if his wretchedly gifted nature had not constantly prevented him from doing so.”

After graduating from the lyceum, Tyrkov served for some time in the horse-jaeger army regiment, but already in 1822 he retired and whiled away his time by breeding chickens, geese and ducks. The end of Tyrkov's life was also marked, for all its tragedy, by stupidity that reached the point of comedy. Tyrkov suffered from a mental illness, but even this illness was in the form of some stupid routine: locked in a room, he methodically cut out pieces of paper and flung them to the wind.

Valuable information is contained in Engelhardt’s entry dedicated to M. L. Yakovlev, a young man with many-sided talents, a favorite of the lyceum students, who later became the “lyceum headman” (he was a zealous organizer of lyceum anniversaries, keeper of the archives of the Pushkin edition of the lyceum). Engelhardt wrote about him:

“Talented in everything, especially in rhetoric, facial expressions and music. He really likes to imitate others both in appearance and in scientific pursuits. Here he goes so far that he cannot hide his desire to imitate even from those whom he imitates or imitates. Now his behavior is generally good, before it was not impeccable; his heart is responsive. Since he pays a lot of attention to people, one must assume that he will not adapt to the light very well. He has a penchant for satire, but incomparably less than Pushkin. In the sciences he indulged in a kind of literary patriotism. This protest against someone else's easily takes on the meaning of something important. He is not interested in philology in general in the way that would be expected given his rhetorical aspirations.”

Of particular interest is Engelhardt's remark about Yakovlev's “literary patriotism” and his ability for satire. As for the remark about Yakovlev’s passion for “imitation” and his talent

in “facial expressions,” this refers to the exceptional gift of imitation, his ability, which delighted his contemporaries, to reproduce not only manners, gait, but even the voices and intonations of a wide variety of people.

Refers to P. M. Yudin last record Engelhardt:

“He was, especially at the beginning, so gentle and so sensitive that rarely a day passed without him shedding tears in class, either because of a trifling reprimand, or because he was not called, or because of some for some even less valid reason. Teachers greatly appreciate his desire to learn and his meekness. He has, although slowly, made very noticeable progress, his persistence is tireless, and his behavior is constantly completely impeccable. A beautiful idyllic world blooms in his soul, a phenomenon that is essentially not uncommon among young people of his age, especially in the class in which he is located. This world of innocence is expressed quite sweetly in his little writings. He distances himself from his fellow students and, out of timidity, does not easily enter into a long conversation with anyone. This tendency towards distance and solitude could easily turn into melancholy in him in the presence of unfriendly external relationships. He loves his parents with the greatest tenderness.”

The characteristic of Yudin’s “sensitivity”, immersed in the “idyllic world”, is essential for understanding Pushkin’s “Message to Yudin” (1815): Pushkin, applying to the addressee, praised in this poem the idyllic world of rural solitude, where one can

Far away from capitals, worries and thunder
Take refuge in a peaceful corner ...

Engelhardt’s words about Yudin’s “small works” give grounds to classify this lyceum student among the circle of students involved in literary creativity.

And finally, Engelhardt’s review, dedicated to Pushkin and located in the manuscript between reviews of Pushchin and Rzhevsky, deserves detailed consideration. This entry, as mentioned above, was published (albeit incompletely) by V. P. Gaevsky. It indicates that the emergence of mutual hostility that developed between Pushkin and Engelhardt, which amazed and upset their close friend, the Decembrist Pushchin, dates back to the very beginning of Engelhardt’s directorship. Here full text Engelhardt's notes:

“His highest and final goal is to shine and precisely through poetry. He reduces everything to this and lovingly deals with everything that is directly connected with it. Nevertheless, he will never be able to give a solid foundation even to his poems, since he is afraid of any serious studies and his very poetic spirit is not heartfelt, soulful, but a completely superficial, French spirit. And yet this is the best that can be said about him, if it can be considered good. His heart is cold and empty, alien to love and any religious feeling and does not feel any need for it; perhaps as empty as a youth’s heart has never been. All the most tender and youthful feelings in his fantasy are desecrated, as they are tainted by all the vices French literature, which

he knew partially, or even completely, by heart upon entering the Lyceum as a worthy addition to his previous education.”

It is necessary, first of all, to emphasize the function of this characteristic, as well as all other characteristics of the published manuscript: it was written by Engelhardt personally for himself and remained the property of his archive, being, as it were, an entry in the teacher’s diary. Engelhardt not only did not make his openly critical comments on official reviews, but, moreover, he often protested against attempts to denigrate Pushkin. Thus, according to Pushchin, Engelhardt rejected the conference decision taken back in 1814 (before his directorship) that Pushkin’s inclusion in the “black book” for pranks should be taken into account upon graduation. According to Pushchin’s memoirs, Engelhardt “was horrified and began to prove to his fellow members that it was wise to allow that an old prank, for which he was punished at the same time, could still have an impact on the future after graduation. Everyone immediately agreed with his opinion, and the case was archived.” Engelhardt defended Pushkin even after his exile to the south in an official note to the Minister of Public Education. But the fact remains: Engelhardt’s characterization of Pushkin’s personality in the above entry is deeply incorrect and unfair. For the strict director, with his religious and moral moralizing, the multifaceted, rich spiritual world of the brilliant young poet remained closed, which he was never able to see behind the lyceum report cards and behind the expansive antics that earned Pushkin the reputation of “frivolous” among the lyceum teachers. "rakes". Engelhardt became especially confident in this opinion after several incidents that happened to Pushkin before his eyes: after the sensational story with the Empress's maid of honor, Princess Volkonskaya, whom Pushkin mistook in the dark passages of the palace for the maid Natasha and rushed to kiss; after Pushkin’s caricature of him became known to Engelhardt; after the story of Pushkin’s frankly erotic message “To the Young Widow,” which was addressed to the pretty Frenchwoman Maria Smith (she was in love affair with Engelhardt himself and showed him this message). Engelhardt, who took the position of guardian of morality at the Lyceum and, moreover, was offended by Pushkin’s intolerance and disdain for him, tendentiously summarized all this in his characterization. On the other hand, Engelhardt's teachings were perceived by Pushkin as the nagging of a pedant.

I. I. Pushchin wrote in his memoirs: “ ... For me, it remained an unsolved mystery why all the attentions of the director and his wife were rejected by Pushkin: he did not want to see him in the real world, avoiding any rapprochement with him. This injustice of Pushkin towards Engelhardt, whom I loved with my soul, worried me greatly. There was something here,

what he didn’t want to tell me; Finally, I stopped insisting.” Although much remains unclear in the relationship between Pushkin and Engelhardt, some reasons for the hostility are now emerging.

These are the characteristics of the students of the first graduating class of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum in Engelhardt’s notes. Most of the characteristics, as we have seen, are of undoubted value for the researcher due to their accuracy and many new information. One can only regret that Engelhardt’s keen powers of observation betrayed him when he wrote down his impressions of the one who immortalized Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, - about the great Pushkin.

Malinovsky’s highly humane, highly moral motto - “common benefit”, which formed the basis of training at the Lyceum, carried the concept of the purpose of a person, whose goal in life should be the main desire - to bring benefit, serving the “common good”, that is, the people, the Fatherland. This was also the motto of Engelhardt, who said:
“...until a person dies, he must constantly have in mind the great goal: to promote the common good.”

Parting words from E.A. Engelhardt to the students graduating from Pushkin:
“Go, friends, to your new field!.. Keep the truth, sacrifice everything for it; It is not death that is terrible, but dishonor; It is not wealth, not ranks, not ribbons that honor a person, but a good name, keep it, keep a clear conscience, that is your honor. Go, friends, remember us...”

Considering Engelhardt's notes on education, Lyceum historian D.F. Kobeko noted that “with their enlightenment they stand out sharply against the gloomy general background of that time, when behind sentimentality, behind the tendency to shed a tear on any sensitive occasion, a fair amount of cruelty was hidden; corporal punishment, despite the lofty words, remained the basis of all practical education, and the influence on the exalted aspects of the pupils preached the best minds era, was still far from being a common reception.”

Engelhardt reminded that “one must remember the inscription on the Lyceum medal” “For the Common Good” and serve while one has the strength - “to stand for the truth, to protect the poor,” and this is a sacred duty, and this is not about a brilliant, prominent place ”, but about something where you can directly help people.

Engelhardt attached particular importance to the development of goodwill, warmth towards each other, all those feelings that come not from a cold mind, but from the heart; he called these qualities “feelings of the heart.” In November 1839, Engelhardt wrote to M.D. Delarue that the greatest thing one can wish for the “lyceum students” is to preserve the “sense of the Heart”, because
“...in the Heart lies all the dignity of Man: it is the sanctuary, the keeper of all our virtues, which the cold, calculating head knows only by name and theory.”